The Written Word vs The Spoken Word.
 

Is there a difference, if so, what is it?? I think when you write it gets a little more engraved into your mind thus the calculation of the subconscious of your brain is a little more dramatic. For instance when you write the words RocKStars Live Forever and understand that there is a little rock star in all of us the level of personal security rises, and your dreams will be a little more satisfying. Yea it's a worldly perspective but the way I'm using it to illustrate the freedom from the second death is spiritual. The spoken word on the other hand is different because it is usually used directly to communicate with another human being and this direct effect not only effects you, it effects the person your communicating with. So if we are going to have any sort of higher state of consciousness we need to get rid of this hell breath mentality and start some real conversation.

qcc??

I was sort of on board, until the 'hell breath mentality' bit...does that mean you think we should be less verbal in our communications, and stick to the written word?

The prime difference: writing tends to eliminate ambiguity as well as preserve the codification of thoughts across time and circumstance while speech is often muddled, meandering, and utterly dependent on the flawed memory of the listener once the speaker is done.

Any psychological impact either route has (on writer/reader; speaker/listener) extends out from this difference.

That is: one is far less likely to 'interpret' the content of writing (if done right, the meaning of the writer is plain and can be revisited indefinitely) than the content of speech (there's a lot of truth to the notion of 'only hearing what you wanna hear').

Liberal interpretations usually lead to mistakes while more narrow interpretations, of course, reduce the chance of error (in responding to the writing).

Another way to look at it: speech tends toward 'noise' and writing tends toward 'signal'.

I just think we need to be a little more "wholesome" with what we talk and write about. I don't like being considered a 'troll', and apparently that's where the 'hell breath' stems from..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification

how 'I' used the words
 

Ambiguity: "Uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language (specifically, in speech)."

Codification: "Arranging/arranged in a systematic order (specifically, in writing)."

*shrug*

So everything that's been written is universally understood, and never hashed and rehashed for meaning? :rolleyes:

'nuff said
 

The prime difference: writing TENDS to eliminate ambiguity as well as preserve the codification of thoughts across time and circumstance while speech is OFTEN muddled, meandering, and utterly dependent on the flawed memory of the listener once the speaker is done.

Any psychological impact either route has (on writer/reader; speaker/listener) extends out from this difference.

That is: one is FAR LESS LIKELY to 'interpret' the content of writing (IF DONE RIGHT, the meaning of the writer is plain and can be revisited indefinitely) than the content of speech (there's a lot of truth to the notion of 'only hearing what you wanna hear').

Liberal interpretations USUALLY lead to mistakes while more narrow interpretations, of course, REDUCE the chance of error (in responding to the writing).

Another way to look at it: speech TENDS toward 'noise' and writing TENDS toward 'signal'.

I follow you... written leaves a record, verbal leaves an interpreted impression.
But as we've seen on the net, written does not have the gestures, tone, and other clues in verbal, that can carry as much meaning as the words.

When she writes me a note I smile, but when she whispers the same words in my ear... :blush:

"When she writes me a note I smile, but when she whispers the same words in my ear...
 

Sometimes 'interpretation' is a good thing... ;)

#

"...written does not have the gestures, tone, and other clues in verbal, that can carry as much meaning as the words"

Verbal cues are often unintended (and often misinterpreted).

But -- as you illustrate above -- sometimes it's okay to interpret.

Being fucking near deaf, I'll choose the written if it's important.;)

"Being fucking near deaf"
 

HA!

Yeah, I'm gettin' there myself.

it's ok, they can't hear you.....

When you speak, youre able to modify your path based on the perceived reaction if your audience.

When you write, its more of a hope that youre interpreted accurately.

"When you write, its more of a hope that youre interpreted accurately."

Only if you're lousy at it (writing).

A lousy writer surely invites (mis)interpretation.

The work of a careful writer is much harder to (misinterpret), so much so I'd say the interpreter is just being willful (he or she knows what the writer means and intends, but he or she -- for the sake of jackassery -- chooses to misinterpret anyway).

Alternatively, there may be cultural differences leading to slightly different associations around some of the words, phrases or concepts.

I remember one discussion around 'smacking' children, which highlighted some distinct differences in attitude between British and American posters, as well as some distinct meanings to words. So, Americans were talking about 'spanking' a kid being ok as a responsible parent, and us Brits were a little shocked by that. Because the word means different things on each side of the pond. What you call spanking, we call smacking. To us, spanking suggests very heavy handed discipline. Old fashioned, humiliating and frankly not done these days.

The difference in meaning didn't come through clearly in the posts at first, so things got a little heated at one point (as these things often do). It took a little while to become apparent we were coming at things from very different places.

That's just one example that springs tomind. Butthere have been a few. We speak the same language, but not entirely.

The schism and the 'heatedness', I'll wager, were the direct result of a lack of care in writing by some, many, or all, of those involved.

Again: 'A *lousy writer surely invites (mis)interpretation.'









*by way of laziness, or stupidity.

.. or lack of education.
Different words also have different connotations, sometimes negative, which may or may not be known to the writer. And let us not forget social, regional and language differences between the writer and the reader.

Oh hell, lets also toss intention and perception in as well, while we are at it.

or maybe you don't pick up the sarcasm, or a reference to something else...

the point was that when you're interacting, you're able to alter your course, choose to rephrase, etc on the fly. whereas with writing, it's purely one way, and left to the interpretation of the reader. No matter how clear you THINK you're being, you can not be sure the reader is smelling what you think you're cooking.

There have been many very important speeches delivered to listeners which have inspired not only the listeners, but for generations since. The most startling one that comes to mind is 'I Have A Dream'. The message there was clear and concise. It doesn't seem to have ever been muddled to me, and it wasn't when it was first delivered. Yes it caused controversy because some people didn't like the idea of 'coloured folks' having dreams of better lives, but they still got the message.

In fairness though, the speech was captured on film, allowing it to be revisited many times.

Yeah, but it was still the spoken word.

If you want to go your route one could argue that the speech is now available in all sorts of books which have preserved it and its meaning, due to the inspirational quality of the words and the profound effect those words, when delivered, had on a nation if not in fact the whole world.

A speech delivered to a crowd is more akin to the written word, imo.

In what way?

In that a speech is composed prior to delivery, and the speaker seldom receives pertinent feedback like facial expression and body language that tells him how it's going over. One way communication.

I guess you could argue that rousing speeches do receive pertinent feedback when there's cheering and yelling.

I get what you're saying though. I just don't think that it's a black and white example maybe.

I'm pickin up what you're puttin' down there.

Diggin' it, jim. Written word is better for one-way exchange of information - journals, studies, articles, speeches, novels; spoken word is better for dynamic conversation with two-way immediacy and feedback.

Just to step back to the culturally distinct understandings of English for a moment:

I've just read an interesting wiki page discussing the differences between British and American English. It's really quite fascinating.

A couple of bits struck me in particular as being relevant to this discussion:

Now then, however careful I might be in my written communications I would not have known that ending a sentence with 'as well' would be considered formal in American English. To me it is not remotely formal. So, if I end a sentence with 'as well', whereas a Brit reading that would consider it just as informal as the rest of my post, an American reading it would think I was being quite formal. That could totally change the tone of my post, imbueing it with an unintended degree of formality (pomposity even?).

Classic example of the same words having entirely different meanings.

Use of qualifiers can trip us up at times.

Not odd, so much as rude.

There is potential for even careful wording to give the wrong message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ritish_English