At a minimum, the object for which the written sign-the word,
sentence, or text-stands is the sign of speech. But writing came
a relatively long way before reaching this condition. In
prelinguistic forms, graphic representation had its object in
reality-the re-presentation of the absent. What is present need
not be represented. The direction impressed on visual
representation is from past to present. What must be retained is
the originating tendency of distancing in respect to the present
and the direct, what I called the alienation of immediacy.
Initial representations, part of a rather primitive repertory,
have only an expressive function. They retain information about
the absent that is not seen (or heard, felt, smelled) for future
relationships between human beings and their environment. The
image belongs to nature. That which is communicated is the way
of seeing or perceiving it, not what is actually seen. The
execution of the written sign is not its realization as
information, as is the case with pictographic representations,
some leading to the making of things (tools, artifacts). What
matters is not how something is written, but what it means. A
relatively small number of signs-the alphabet, punctuation and
diacritical marks-participate in the infinite competence of
writing.
No matter how we conceive of human thought, its stabilization
comes about with that of writing. The present captured in
writing loses its impact of immediate action. No written word
has ever reached the surface without being uttered and heard,
that is, without being sensed. The possibility of meaning
(intended, assigned) stems from the establishment of language
within human praxis. It is not accidental (cf. Leroi-Gourhan)
that spatial establishment (in village-type settlements) and the
establishment of language in writing (also spatial in nature)
are synchronous. But here a third component, the language of
drawings, no matter how primitive, helping in the making of
things related to shelter and to work, needs to be acknowledged,
too.
This is the broader context leading to the great moment of Greek
philosophy in the temporal context of alphabetization, and the
cultural context of all kinds of forms of craftsmanship,
architecture probably in the lead. Socrates, as the philosopher
of thinking and discovering truth through dialogue, defended
oral culture. Or at least that is what Plato wanted us to
believe when he mentioned Socrates' opposition to writing. The
great artisans of Socrates' time shared this attitude. For
building temples, conceiving tools, creating all kinds of useful
objects, writing is not a prerequisite. Heuristics and
maieutics, as methods of questioning human choices, those of
craftsmen included, and generating new options, are essentially
oral. They presuppose the philosopher's, or the architect's,
physical presence. Not too much has changed since, if we
consider how the disciplines of design and engineering are taught
and exercised. But a lot is changing, as design and engineering
practical activities rely more and more on digital processing.
Computational practical experiences, as well as genetic
engineering or memetics, are no longer in continuation of those
founded on literacy.