Information and Communication - Ong

This reading by Ong started by stating that communication and information are two different things. I agreed, I've never known them to be related except that you share information when you communicate. However, when I read through this, Ong had a way of making the two definitions sort of mold together into one. Funny how he did that. He starts by saying information is a message, and communication is an exchange of meanings. he then say information does not of itself involve meaning. I guess this makes sense too, since all information needs to be interpreted before it can have meaning. I also like how he said that all definitions can call for further interpretation, since I've had several classes in which my professors have said that definitions are subjective and are never exactly set in stone.

He also introduced the idea that information is older than communication. When I first read this, I disagreed, because I live in the age of information, everything is much more available and well known than in the past, but humans have been communicating since they were first created with Adam and Eve. As he further explained himself though, I found myself understanding more. He goes to say that information can be considered as genetic codes, which have always existed, but humans didn't always know about it. He states, "Once the human mind could encompass this information, the information could enter the realm of communication in human consciousness." I found it really interesting that things you didn't know existed still existed. I've always known that, but I've never taken the time to think about it until this reading.

Ong also states that communication is sometimes perceived as "simply the movement of an item from one point to another", such as information. I must admit, this was my definition of communication; the sharing of some sort of information through some medium for some purpose. He goes on to say that there is no way for me to put a thought into someone else's brain. This made me think of the movie Inception, where their whole goal is to put a thought in someone else's brain without them knowing. Ong explains that no matter how much information I throw at someone or how much I share my thoughts, they still need to "react to form a concept". Just because I say "that pen is ugly" doesn't mean you will think it is too, you need to think for yourself and crate your own thoughts. Ong does admit to being able to influence people's thoughts though, which I think is where the notion of transferring my thoughts to you as your thoughts may have originated from in the first place.

I've taken a linguistics class, and the Speech and Power section reminded me of what I had learned in that class. A new idea to me was the word "infancy". I never knew "infans" means non-speaker, but that makes sense as to why infants are called what they are. I did remember the statement that communication and speech are empowerment. We watched a movie about a girl who had grown up abused by her father; he wouldn't let her speak. She never heard, spoke, or learned the language. When she was discovered and speech therapists tried to work with her, it was very difficult for her to learn, and she was learning at such a pace where they didn't think she'd ever be fluent in any language. This made me think of digital literacy. For those people that are not born in the era of technology and don't use it on a daily basis, technology and the digital world can be very overwhelming, hard, and confusing. It made me think that maybe digital rhetoric is a concept that needs to be learned slowly, step by step until you have it mastered.

I found Ong's idea of "I" and "you " very interesting as well. Of course "I" am not "you", but to you I am "you", and you are "I". It sounds confusing, but it makes sense. I've never considered "I" and "you" to be so important before, but as Ong says, your name is external, "I" is internal. No matter what your name is, you still have the same meaning of "I". That's really interesting to me. I also found it interesting that Ong said the "ultimate in assertion of power [is] naming oneself". I, being I, immediately thought of Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. Then I wondered if a name can really have that much power? If you use a different name in the digital sphere, do you hold more or less power than if you used your real name? I think that's something to think about.