Synestethic Strife Or Why I Hear You But I'm Not Quite Listening

As a visual artist, and a newcomer to Sound studies, I am having a bit more difficulty than I expected to. Perhaps, as Adriana Cavarero suggested, it is the sudden transition from a videocentric philosophy to one more cognisant of Voice that requires more adjustment on my part. However, the more I inspect Cavarero's understanding of the difference between sight and hearing, the less convinced I am that such difference positions sound as more significant than vision, at least when it comes to the establishing an individual's humanity. I will attempt to make sense of this as best as I can here.

Sound, Logos, & Dasein
Before I can get into my argument, allow me to lay down the foundation of my perspective. From what I understood, Caverero spoke of "Logos" as the joining together of words in a such a way that it conveys a thought; however, more significant to the argument is that in discourse, logos is given to us in tandem with voice. Cavarero supports the Aristotelian approach to logos, phone semantike; the signifying voice. The act of speaking is a use of one's voice to "signify", rather than merely to "sign". As Dasein is a being towards death, human is the signifying animal; this is what separates us from other animals (and generally places us higher than they are (that and thumbs)).
Animals are beings:We are beings towards death::Animals sign::We signify

Adriana Cavarero goes on to explain that, because of our signifying nature, Voice and subsequently sound are "characterized not by being, but by becoming". She supports this with the example of the sound of barking. When we hear barking, we signify dog; we do not hear dog. Cavarero went on to say that contrariwise, vision percieves the object, and from there inferences are made. That sound utilizes the dynamic, while vision relies on the permanent. From this, I understand the importance of studying sound.
But consider the following (and perhaps you will understand my struggle):
If I were to draw on a frog on a chalkboard, and ask you what you see, it would be natural to claim to see a frog, though in actuality you see chalk on a board, and inferred frog. I find it hard to let abandon that understanding of the visual. Is this not essence? Is this not becoming, rather than being? Or am I mistaken?

Or, how about this example to relate to the idea of sound as dynamic, as a sequence opposed to the visual as permanent: In the photography world, opening the shutter of the camera for an extended period during a photo allows one to catch trails of light. Manipulation of this long-term exposure is what allows things like light graffiti. However, as I have come to understand it, the individual photo is a manifestation of a sequence of light.

Perhaps I am one of the Metaphysicians Cavarero is referring to, and I am open to outside perspectives on the matter, but I have not yet been convinced that the visual is as permanent, or inescapably object oriented as it's made out to be.