Snapshot - Alexandra Brown

During my reading for my presentation, I came across a passage which talked about how sound has no equivalent of a snapshot, and the absence of sound doesn't equate to the absence of any other sense. Ong mentions that vision favors the absence of motion, for that allows you to examine objects more closely. For sound, in the absence of noise, there is nothing to examine. It is very rare that there is no noise, and in the rare case that there is no noise, the only things to examine are thoughts on the other senses (i.e. something you see, smell, taste, or feel). Ong makes it seem like this ONLY happens with sound, but I think it can also happen with smell, taste, and touch. There are rare occasions that this might happen, but I can only imagine that in the absence of those senses, there isn't much to ponder. In my opinion, the only sense that can be effective when there is an absence of it is sight. In the absence of motion, there are still things to observe. But when there is no odor, then there is nothing. And when there is no taste, then there is again nothing. And no touch, is just nothingness. I think that Ong is wrong, and that the absence of sound isn't quite so unique.

Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy. Padstow, Cornwall: T.J. Press Ltd., 1982. Print.