The Written Word vs The Spoken Word.

[JBKlyde]

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??

[DanaC]

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?

[henry quirk]

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'.

[JBKlyde]

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?

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..

[JBKlyde]

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

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

[henry quirk]

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

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

*shrug*

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[henry quirk]

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'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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...

[henry quirk]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[henry quirk]

HA!

Yeah, I'm gettin' there myself.

[monster]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

fucking near deaf

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

[jimhelm]

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.

[henry quirk]

"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).