Memory Techniques

[Fluffy]

I am starting this topic because of my interest in Biblical Studies and at the moment that involves the tradition of passing on scripture through oral as opposed to written tradition. However, I am not so much concerned about the religious impact of this, hence why this is in general debates, but more the exact feats of memory that would be involved in such a process and whether these would be possible.

For my Latin GCSE, we had to memorise roughly 250 lines of English translation of Latin text (The Aeneid). This took us all many months of continuous repetition of the lines until we could finally do it without reference to the text. Throughout the whole of this time, we had access to the written English translation.

Now in a society without a written system, or at least one that was not well known enough by the majority of people, information would have to be passed down orally. Given that it appears to be impossible to do this 100% accurately without constant referral to a written copy, how much corruption do you think happens in the histories and laws that were passed down orally? If after a few generations, it is likely for an account to be corrupted beyond recognition, is there any worth in oral tradition compared with written tradition especially in today's society.

Do you think that eidetic memory is real or a myth? If it is real, do you think it occurs regularly enough to suggest that information can be passed through generations accurately with word of mouth alone?

Why do you think memory systems (eg the Mnemonic room system) work given that they appear to increase the amount of information the brain has to store?

 

[bigvindaloo]

I am starting this topic because of my interest in Biblical Studies and at the moment that involves the tradition of passing on scripture through oral as opposed to written tradition. However, I am not so much concerned about the religious impact of this, hence why this is in general debates, but more the exact feats of memory that would be involved in such a process and whether these would be possible.

For my Latin GCSE, we had to memorise roughly 250 lines of English translation of Latin text (The Aeneid). This took us all many months of continuous repetition of the lines until we could finally do it without reference to the text. Throughout the whole of this time, we had access to the written English translation.

Now in a society without a written system, or at least one that was not well known enough by the majority of people, information would have to be passed down orally. Given that it appears to be impossible to do this 100% accurately without constant referral to a written copy, how much corruption do you think happens in the histories and laws that were passed down orally? If after a few generations, it is likely for an account to be corrupted beyond recognition, is there any worth in oral tradition compared with written tradition especially in today's society.

Do you think that eidetic memory is real or a myth? If it is real, do you think it occurs regularly enough to suggest that information can be passed through generations accurately with word of mouth alone?

Why do you think memory systems (eg the Mnemonic room system) work given that they appear to increase the amount of information the brain has to store?

Memory is encoded in a spatial/emotional syntax in long term memory. Mneumonic systems work because they convert verbal information into this syntax. I would doubt that a purely oral tradition could rely on faithful translation to a third person, let alone between generations. Writing it down preserves a copy. Yet someone reading it will interpret it in their own terms and thereby embellish it when communicating it orally to others. Written forms are therefore a sort of time capsule for information which is inevitably altered when verbally expressed.

 

[Druidus]

The ancient Druids would not allow ANYTHING important to be written down. They trained their memories extensively, over their 19-20 years of training, until they could easily commit almost anything into memory. This was Bardic training, and it was necessary to be a Druid (Bards also did some Druidic and Ovate training).

They memorized stories that were incredibly long. No person alive today could possibly repeat their feats of memory, because we rely far too much on external memory aids, like paper and pencils. When you grow up using such things only rarely and for such things as accounting, eidetic memory becomes a larger part of your life. When you train to become a Druid, it becomes an even larger part of your life. When you train to be a Bard, it becomes your life.

 

[bigvindaloo]

The ancient Druids would not allow ANYTHING important to be written down. They trained their memories extensively, over their 19-20 years of training, until they could easily commit almost anything into memory. This was Bardic training, and it was necessary to be a Druid (Bards also did some Druidic and Ovate training).

They memorized stories that were incredibly long. No person alive today could possibly repeat their feats of memory, because we rely far too much on external memory aids, like paper and pencils. When you grow up using such things only rarely and for such things as accounting, eidetic memory becomes a larger part of your life. When you train to become a Druid, it becomes an even larger part of your life. When you train to be a Bard, it becomes your life.

I rate Druidic memory techniques as highly inefficient based on this.

 

[Djamila]

It's much easier when you're dealing with this at the level of an entire society. It's almost impossible that all people who remember accurately will die at once. There will always be an "original", and then there will always be "their disciple", and with this constant interaction happening at a societal level, I assume things could be handed down very accurately.

 

[bigvindaloo]

It's much easier when you're dealing with this at the level of an entire society. It's almost impossible that all people who remember accurately will die at once. There will always be an "original", and then there will always be "their disciple", and with this constant interaction happening at a societal level, I assume things could be handed down very accurately.

At a societal level, one version of events dominates if accepted as doctrine. It is a different and important question whether to accept this version as one's own or to question where this version comes from and realise that one version of truth is completely subjective after all.

 

[Druidus]

I rate Druidic memory techniques as highly inefficient based on this.

Care to explain why, so that I might either form an accurate rebuttle or cede my point?

 

[bigvindaloo]

Care to explain why, so that I might either form an accurate rebuttle or cede my point?

Writing it down would perform the same function. 19 - 20 years taught learning memorisation strategies seems excessive. Otherwise, information in the head of an expert is redundant unless expressed and acted upon thereby inevitably altered.

 

[Druidus]

Oh, lol, no, 19-20 years is not spent solely on memory techniques. Memory training was but a small portion of the rigorous training a pre-Druid had to go through.

And written documents can be altered, forged, or destroyed. Back then, it had to be written by hand, meaning you didn't make millions of copies, as we do today. Unless you could pay a lot of people to write it out for you, and even then there would be a plethora of mistakes.

When a Druid recited something, you could definately count on it being the original thing he had memorized.

Nowadays, it IS more efficient to write things down. But at the time, it was the best way to conduct their culture; orally, not written. They had a writing system, but even then it was simply better for them to use oral tradition.

 

[bigvindaloo]

Oh, lol, no, 19-20 years is not spent solely on memory techniques. Memory training was but a small portion of the rigorous training a pre-Druid had to go through.

And written documents can be altered, forged, or destroyed. Back then, it had to be written by hand, meaning you didn't make millions of copies, as we do today. Unless you could pay a lot of people to write it out for you, and even then there would be a plethora of mistakes.

When a Druid recited something, you could definately count on it being the original thing he had memorized.

Nowadays, it IS more efficient to write things down. But at the time, it was the best way to conduct their culture; orally, not written. They had a writing system, but even then it was simply better for them to use oral tradition.

Is it the basis of authority in Druidic doctrine that they did not, or chose not to write it down? Correct me if I am wrong. Druids relied on geograhic isolation to maintain their power. When "memory" of their traditions encountered other belief, authority was lost. Memory and authority are linked don't you think?

 

[Druidus]

Is it the basis of authority in Druidic doctrine that they did not, or chose not to write it down? Correct me if I am wrong. Druids relied on geograhic isolation to maintain their power.

Can't agree. What do you mean by geographical isolation? Or power? Are you referring to Druids as leaders? That's not what they are/were. The chiefs were the leaders.

And Druids spanned all of Europe, some of Asia, and parts of North Africa. They reached as far east as India. There is much evidence of Hindu contact in Druidry. How can you be geographically isolated if you cover a whole continent as well as parts of two others?

That's not to say they all believed the same things, but their beliefs were similar enough to be the same, for all intensive purposes. Names and minor details may change, but nothing significant.

When "memory" of their traditions encountered other belief, authority was lost.

Can you describe what you mean by this? The Celts met with many peoples, and they never lost their beliefs until the Romans. Indeed, all Druidic peoples lost their beliefs through conquest, not mere exposure to other cultures.

Memory and authority are linked don't you think?

If I knew, exactly, what you meant, I could answer. But I don't, right now. Maybe it's just that I'm tired; it's late at night.

 

[Comet]

They memorized stories that were incredibly long. No person alive today could possibly repeat their feats of memory, because we rely far too much on external memory aids, like paper and pencils.

Do not underestimate people so much... they can surprise you. Look into some of the Native American tribal elders who do not use pens and pencils. Some that hold to the ancient ways can repeat such feats of memory. The mind is an amazing thing....

 

[Druidus]

Firrinn.

I should have included that; yes, some people can. But no one who uses memory aids like paper, computers, or other such things can.