Some Eastern sage said that writing impairs the memory, and that the memory, if not regularly exercised, impairs knowledge. This was said in order to justify knowledge transmitted orally and only mentally recorded. There may well be a great deal of truth in this. However, there are caveats to be made. Firstly, orality presupposes a speaker and a listener; more often than not, a master and a disciple. The master does himself good by teaching, that is, he exercises his memory in the act of teaching. The disciple, on the other hand, listens to him, and does so only with a view to becoming a master in the future. It is also assumed that the master has had a master. And from this we see that such a statement, although it may be true, presupposes a tradition, an environment, in other words, non-existent for most mortals. Supposing there is no disciple, what would the master do to exercise memory? It is not certain that giving speeches to the walls is the best option.