Passage: First page of John Grisham’s 'The Broker':
In the waning hours of a presidency that was destined to arouse less interest from historians than any since perhaps that of William Henry Harrison (thirty-one days from inauguration to death), Arthur Morgan huddled in the Oval Office with his last remaining friend and pondered his final decisions. At the moment he felt as though he’d botched every decision in the previous four years, and he was not overtly confident that he could, somehow, so late in the game, get things right. His friend wasn’t so sure either, though, as always, he said little and whatever he did say was what the President wanted to hear.
They were about pardons—desperate pleas from thieves and embezzlers and liars, some still in jail and some who’d never served time but who nonetheless wanted their good names cleared and their beloved rights restored. All claimed to be friends, or friends of friends, or die-hard supporters, though only a few had ever gotten the chance to proclaim their support before that eleventh hour. How sad that after four tumultuous years of leading the free world it would all fizzle into one miserable pile of requests from a bunch of crooks. Which thieves should be allowed to steal again? That was the momentous question facing the President as the hours crept by.
Imitation:
In the taming days of a legacy that was bound to influence more attention from rhetoricians than any since perhaps that of previous blog posts (thirty days from then to now), chapter ten’s assignments requested muddled in the heuristic blog with the last remaining demands and wandered within its final precisions. At the atonement it appeared as though the blog had blotched every incision in the previous three months, and these attempts were not covertly evident in applicability, in any way, as fate in the blame, enlist apprehensions validly. Attempts to use words without surety of the meaning made this attempt even less productive, yet, in a sense, it left more and whatever meant to be said was what the blog meant to display.
This was about jargons—disposed flees from favorites and rationalities and knowhow, many still in pale and some which’d ever sever place yet what moreso dejected that bad numbers clouded or these hated wrongs scrambled. No warranted from cause enemies, and friends from enemies, and living-soft rejecters, while moreover a lot hadn’t overwhelmed the clarify from concurring their rejection after this eighteenth blog. How glad that before four irritating months of preceding the enslaved demands it could not drizzle onto no happy style from conquests to a few from hooks. Where lines would be compelled to sink again? This is the insomnious lesson turning away from the blog as the other assignments neglect my.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Chapter 10: pp. 364 #3
This question requests that I “revise a passage I have written in the plain style so that it is appropriate for a more formal rhetorical situation.” So, in attempts to do this, I will use the paragraph I wrote in the last tropes example I provided, allegory, as an extension of it, and poorly placed disposition here within. Allegory is, to my understanding, a way of using metaphors from a previous statement of persuasion within a secondary statement of persuasion in order to influence ones outlook on things stated previously as one reads on into other areas of discussion. This question requests that I use “complex sentence constructions, longer words, and lots of figures and tropes.” To the first part of this requests, the complex sentence constructions, I am not going to spend any time to attempt to reach any further for what appears to be a request to turn this writing into statements that hold more complex sentence structures than the previous writing provided. I assume this attempt at answering question #3 will either be suggestive of good disposition, or poor representation. Just as the allegory previously attempted appears to self in poor quality, so does this one. Therefore, hopes that something of relevance here within is hope to have at least some quality of what requested of me, requested from me. Yet even at the greatest attempts, where accuracy is not an issue, some refrain from caring about the validity of their attempts. But the continuing efforts to accomplish this—knowing full well I have another imitation exercise to complete ahead of me—are forcing me to consider less as I move on. Hyperbaton, appositio, apostrophe, asyndeton, and polysyndeton—five figures discussed in chapter ten—are skipped over within this example of metabasis; as are figures of repetition, thought and tropes, lest already present in some way, sort or form.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Chapter 10: pp. 364 #2
Figurative Language (2)
Figures that interrupt normal word order:
either/or statements: If reading this sentence is difficult to read, either for its lack in quality or the lack in skills to read, the attempts will determine its ease.
just-as/so statements:But if having both difficulty reading and it was poorly written, just as in the former sentence the attempts would determine ease, so in this case it would be without ease.
antithesis:[The above two sentences together make up an antithesis]
parallel commas: Watching the weather channel, the local forecast, commercials prolonged access to today's temperature, today's precipitation, today's traffic conditions, of which were needed in order to prevent showing up late.
periodic sentences: Yet even at the greatest of schools, where money is not an issue, some continue to question the validity of their superiority.
inserting a word or phrase inside a colon or period (interpositio or "parenthesis"): But the continuing necessity of resources available to universities—negatively correlated with the communities SES—is drawing up some interesting variances in productive potential skills obtained.
hyperbaton (a sudden turn): Coffee, though having more caffeine, is about just as stimulating as carbonated soda.
appositio: I am, though under consideration for graduating with honors, f***ed.
apostrophe: I am, mind help me, thoughtless.
metabasis: Cognition, Perception, Neurologic, Linguistic, and Motivation—five of my favorite Psychological fields—appear to motivate and drive me more than any other option.
a pair of figures having to do with the use of connecting words between colons:
asyndeton: I was overwhelmed with tasks, to file my tax return, read, write, pay bills, eat regularly, manage finances, keep a date book, look into graduate schools, take the GRE, obtain letters of recommendation, send off transcripts, work on alternate paths to that of school: entering post-graduation living.
polysyndeton: To decide is deciphering, throwing, and/or externalizing output to a question, to its variables, to its outcomes, to its limitations, to its indeterminate characteristics, and its output is to think and/or to comply, to put together and/or to adapt, to stumble upon and/or to have provided, to be continued in revision, discussion, inconsideration, but most likely passed over for more precise displays of similar attempts to rationalize in such a way, rather than delve any deeper into the ignorance of one’s own attempts to figure out without resources, yet perhaps attempting such first could prevent those resources bias influence on such attempts, perhaps even taking place numerous time prior to comparing one’s own attempts to each other, to those considered scholarly, and to those coming from new generations, locations, and permissions.
Figures of Repetition
1. Demosthenes example: The least important part of rhetoric: Withhold, Withhold, Withhold.
2. Stein repetition example: On making fun of poetic metaphors: A road is a road is a road.
synomyny: Call it credit, benefit, reward, or recognition—it might be one.
puns: He watched the time, and the time watched him. If again you don’t first; succeed, succeed try. You don’t try if first; again, again, succeed.
exploit accidental resemblance: Obtaining cents for scents and synsacrum is a cinch since one’s sense sent is related to ones sales, their presence, rather than their sense of smell.
antanaclasis: Pass me the back stage pass to get behind the stage!
homoioteleuton: I cannot think, while stuck in this sink; it’s hard to find words that work, perhaps it’d help if I had a drink.
zeugma and its relatives: Based on Cicero, as quoted by Quintilian: Schools contain people, zoos animals, aquariums mammals.
anaphora or epanaphora: Based on ad Herennium IV xiii 19: From this may come the blame for you. From this will blame ensue. From this no answer thwarts assembly.
epiphora: From the depths of the dilemma that this example requested was this written, by the lack of a better term to be found was this written, from the little time provided was this written.
symploke: Over which the two will provide, over which the few will provide, over which the strength will provide, the sense of this sentence relied.
anadisplosis: You think this statement brings about any more concern than previous connectivity, figure of rhetor? Figure, I say, to the rhetoric, you think this brings concern?
climax: What comes from the completion of this assignment, if I follow the proper figures, if I answer the question thoroughly, if I get the assignment done, and if it is held to be seen with adequate efforts?
isocolon or parallelism: This assignment is taking longer lengths than what expected; this attentiveness is having shorter times in what inspected.
antithesis:
chiasmus: Support is healthy if the mind can laugh, but the mind’s laughing isn’t always healthy support.
antimetabole: A side ought to take the blind into perspective; a perspective ought not blindside to take.
Figures of thought (4)
Figures that enhance ethos:
use questions to draw attention to important points: You, of position to do so, consider me in leadership recognition and want me to be involved?
Ask question difficult or impossible to reply: What just happened?
Ask question to belittle or besmirch: What the f*** were you thinking?
Ask question to excite pity: What are you saying, you want me to what?
Ask question to embarrass: Are you responsible for this obscene scene?
Rhetorical question (hypophora): Who, in their right mind, would mind the right?
Rhetorical question (rasoning by question and answer): I am without compromise. Why? Nothing to compromise was set on the table. Why? No table was present to set things on.
Anticipation: Some may think never knowing what you are going to get is something of little value. Life can be like a box of chocolates, where you never know what you are going to get. But some people don’t like most of the various things that come inside the chocolate, and find this statement depressing.
Paralepsis: I will not pretend to know this pretending ethos enhancing figure: with its being misleading, its deceitfulness, its deceptiveness.
Hesitation or indecision: To have is to hold, but I am not sure that having is present when unsure what holding.
Correction: After the redundancy of the situation had surfaced—or rather resurfaced, the temperature dropped two degrees lower than the temperature it was prior to being introduced (still eight degrees above suitable living conditions).
Figures of thought that involve audience:
Concession: Yeah, I know that that assignment is being turned in late. But, the efforts to complete it were well intended to meet the needs of its request.
Suspension: You think so? Perhaps you want me to blow the situation out of proportion? I don’t even see any rational proportions present to blow! Is it not worse to concede I hold opposition to something while only suggesting this position may exist if such be the wise?
contrary opinion: There are none more contrary than those that agree.
Oxymoron: The honest uncertainty left this figure’s example with a lacking of clarity.
Parrhesia: You should speak up on the matter at hand, because those you are speaking to have no matter to handle and would like you to join them.
litotes: We did not know about the validity.
Figures of thought that arouse emotion:
Personification: Thinking to oneself, “how does this thing work,” passed the time.
Enargeia: Typing the fingers on the square keys of the keyboard that was on the desk in front of and below the screen, a pause for a second thought brought about this phrase coming after the comma.
Irony: Could this assignment have taken any longer?
Ethopoeia: The baggy eyes, slouched posture, greasy hair, and 5AM shadow (12 hours past 5-o-clock shadow) represented what could stand for the display of this student attempting to complete an assignment.
Figures of thought borrowed from invention and arrangement:
reason of contraries: No reason for the something cannot be reason for the other (without lacking reason also).
Repeat on the sentence level the parts of arrangement suggested for whole discourses: If sick of the ways, then change is requested; if tired of the ways, then a lack of change is suggested.
Distribution: The teachers role is to teach; the students is to learn from the teachers; the faculties to choose the teachers and support the students adequate learning.
Accumulation: This exercise here is an accumulation of composition and ornament styles listed in chapter ten of this book.
Tropes (10)
Onomatopoeia: Figope: a figure and tropes used in the same sentence (i.e., as an onomatopoeia used in irony: could this figope be any lamer?).
Antonomasia: The King of Pop: Michael Jackson; the fathers of American psychology: Wundt and James
Metonymy: Illinois is considered the Land of Lincoln
Periphrasis: Morning has arrived, when the first class of the day begins, sitting in front of the computers.
Hyperbation: See example in "Figures" above
Hyperbole: After running to get the automobile, working for a night as a valet parker, my legs felt like jel-lo.
Synecdoche: “The crowd’s going wild.”—used by radio announcers of sporting events to indicate that those present at the event (the crowd) are cheering and clapping loudly (going wild) due to a good play that has occurred.
Catachresis: Softly spoken.
Metaphor: This room is a pig sty (a mess). Put a cork in it (be quiet).
Simile: These lectures can sometimes be like nitrazepam.
Allegory: Comparing pp. 364 #2 allegory example to pp. 364 #3, both being my poor excuse for an allegory example requested of #2 and a poor excuse for my attempt at #3:
Excuses ferment from one area to another, as in the procrastination on one assignment as one drowns oneself in another. For example, when one considers one assignment as their primary area of focus, spending all of their time attempting to perfect it, while at the same time neglecting to put any efforts into any other assignment until this one is complete. However, first, one must have an adequate understanding of what this one assignment request to come anywhere close to providing a good quality representation of such. Then into ones being overwhelmed by the fact that the previous example involving the use of metaphor and simile, which were in their own so difficult to represent, now enter stages of larger projections within their own, leaving one overwhelmed with frustration in not being capable of finding anything close to portraying anything close to what is requested here. So, I must give up on this allegory, because the “have to” paper, writing for the west, writing for the web, and data analysis are being also neglected, just as is rhetoric, in my procrastination of lacking clarity. This clarity lack leading to cognitive frustrations of self-involvement in ways that produces little to no productive resolution. So, on to the next question involving revision of something written, I will make it this statement, onto a poor portrayal of what it also requests, as I have run out of time.
Figures that interrupt normal word order:
either/or statements: If reading this sentence is difficult to read, either for its lack in quality or the lack in skills to read, the attempts will determine its ease.
just-as/so statements:But if having both difficulty reading and it was poorly written, just as in the former sentence the attempts would determine ease, so in this case it would be without ease.
antithesis:[The above two sentences together make up an antithesis]
parallel commas: Watching the weather channel, the local forecast, commercials prolonged access to today's temperature, today's precipitation, today's traffic conditions, of which were needed in order to prevent showing up late.
periodic sentences: Yet even at the greatest of schools, where money is not an issue, some continue to question the validity of their superiority.
inserting a word or phrase inside a colon or period (interpositio or "parenthesis"): But the continuing necessity of resources available to universities—negatively correlated with the communities SES—is drawing up some interesting variances in productive potential skills obtained.
hyperbaton (a sudden turn): Coffee, though having more caffeine, is about just as stimulating as carbonated soda.
appositio: I am, though under consideration for graduating with honors, f***ed.
apostrophe: I am, mind help me, thoughtless.
metabasis: Cognition, Perception, Neurologic, Linguistic, and Motivation—five of my favorite Psychological fields—appear to motivate and drive me more than any other option.
a pair of figures having to do with the use of connecting words between colons:
asyndeton: I was overwhelmed with tasks, to file my tax return, read, write, pay bills, eat regularly, manage finances, keep a date book, look into graduate schools, take the GRE, obtain letters of recommendation, send off transcripts, work on alternate paths to that of school: entering post-graduation living.
polysyndeton: To decide is deciphering, throwing, and/or externalizing output to a question, to its variables, to its outcomes, to its limitations, to its indeterminate characteristics, and its output is to think and/or to comply, to put together and/or to adapt, to stumble upon and/or to have provided, to be continued in revision, discussion, inconsideration, but most likely passed over for more precise displays of similar attempts to rationalize in such a way, rather than delve any deeper into the ignorance of one’s own attempts to figure out without resources, yet perhaps attempting such first could prevent those resources bias influence on such attempts, perhaps even taking place numerous time prior to comparing one’s own attempts to each other, to those considered scholarly, and to those coming from new generations, locations, and permissions.
Figures of Repetition
1. Demosthenes example: The least important part of rhetoric: Withhold, Withhold, Withhold.
2. Stein repetition example: On making fun of poetic metaphors: A road is a road is a road.
synomyny: Call it credit, benefit, reward, or recognition—it might be one.
puns: He watched the time, and the time watched him. If again you don’t first; succeed, succeed try. You don’t try if first; again, again, succeed.
exploit accidental resemblance: Obtaining cents for scents and synsacrum is a cinch since one’s sense sent is related to ones sales, their presence, rather than their sense of smell.
antanaclasis: Pass me the back stage pass to get behind the stage!
homoioteleuton: I cannot think, while stuck in this sink; it’s hard to find words that work, perhaps it’d help if I had a drink.
zeugma and its relatives: Based on Cicero, as quoted by Quintilian: Schools contain people, zoos animals, aquariums mammals.
anaphora or epanaphora: Based on ad Herennium IV xiii 19: From this may come the blame for you. From this will blame ensue. From this no answer thwarts assembly.
epiphora: From the depths of the dilemma that this example requested was this written, by the lack of a better term to be found was this written, from the little time provided was this written.
symploke: Over which the two will provide, over which the few will provide, over which the strength will provide, the sense of this sentence relied.
anadisplosis: You think this statement brings about any more concern than previous connectivity, figure of rhetor? Figure, I say, to the rhetoric, you think this brings concern?
climax: What comes from the completion of this assignment, if I follow the proper figures, if I answer the question thoroughly, if I get the assignment done, and if it is held to be seen with adequate efforts?
isocolon or parallelism: This assignment is taking longer lengths than what expected; this attentiveness is having shorter times in what inspected.
antithesis:
chiasmus: Support is healthy if the mind can laugh, but the mind’s laughing isn’t always healthy support.
antimetabole: A side ought to take the blind into perspective; a perspective ought not blindside to take.
Figures of thought (4)
Figures that enhance ethos:
use questions to draw attention to important points: You, of position to do so, consider me in leadership recognition and want me to be involved?
Ask question difficult or impossible to reply: What just happened?
Ask question to belittle or besmirch: What the f*** were you thinking?
Ask question to excite pity: What are you saying, you want me to what?
Ask question to embarrass: Are you responsible for this obscene scene?
Rhetorical question (hypophora): Who, in their right mind, would mind the right?
Rhetorical question (rasoning by question and answer): I am without compromise. Why? Nothing to compromise was set on the table. Why? No table was present to set things on.
Anticipation: Some may think never knowing what you are going to get is something of little value. Life can be like a box of chocolates, where you never know what you are going to get. But some people don’t like most of the various things that come inside the chocolate, and find this statement depressing.
Paralepsis: I will not pretend to know this pretending ethos enhancing figure: with its being misleading, its deceitfulness, its deceptiveness.
Hesitation or indecision: To have is to hold, but I am not sure that having is present when unsure what holding.
Correction: After the redundancy of the situation had surfaced—or rather resurfaced, the temperature dropped two degrees lower than the temperature it was prior to being introduced (still eight degrees above suitable living conditions).
Figures of thought that involve audience:
Concession: Yeah, I know that that assignment is being turned in late. But, the efforts to complete it were well intended to meet the needs of its request.
Suspension: You think so? Perhaps you want me to blow the situation out of proportion? I don’t even see any rational proportions present to blow! Is it not worse to concede I hold opposition to something while only suggesting this position may exist if such be the wise?
contrary opinion: There are none more contrary than those that agree.
Oxymoron: The honest uncertainty left this figure’s example with a lacking of clarity.
Parrhesia: You should speak up on the matter at hand, because those you are speaking to have no matter to handle and would like you to join them.
litotes: We did not know about the validity.
Figures of thought that arouse emotion:
Personification: Thinking to oneself, “how does this thing work,” passed the time.
Enargeia: Typing the fingers on the square keys of the keyboard that was on the desk in front of and below the screen, a pause for a second thought brought about this phrase coming after the comma.
Irony: Could this assignment have taken any longer?
Ethopoeia: The baggy eyes, slouched posture, greasy hair, and 5AM shadow (12 hours past 5-o-clock shadow) represented what could stand for the display of this student attempting to complete an assignment.
Figures of thought borrowed from invention and arrangement:
reason of contraries: No reason for the something cannot be reason for the other (without lacking reason also).
Repeat on the sentence level the parts of arrangement suggested for whole discourses: If sick of the ways, then change is requested; if tired of the ways, then a lack of change is suggested.
Distribution: The teachers role is to teach; the students is to learn from the teachers; the faculties to choose the teachers and support the students adequate learning.
Accumulation: This exercise here is an accumulation of composition and ornament styles listed in chapter ten of this book.
Tropes (10)
Onomatopoeia: Figope: a figure and tropes used in the same sentence (i.e., as an onomatopoeia used in irony: could this figope be any lamer?).
Antonomasia: The King of Pop: Michael Jackson; the fathers of American psychology: Wundt and James
Metonymy: Illinois is considered the Land of Lincoln
Periphrasis: Morning has arrived, when the first class of the day begins, sitting in front of the computers.
Hyperbation: See example in "Figures" above
Hyperbole: After running to get the automobile, working for a night as a valet parker, my legs felt like jel-lo.
Synecdoche: “The crowd’s going wild.”—used by radio announcers of sporting events to indicate that those present at the event (the crowd) are cheering and clapping loudly (going wild) due to a good play that has occurred.
Catachresis: Softly spoken.
Metaphor: This room is a pig sty (a mess). Put a cork in it (be quiet).
Simile: These lectures can sometimes be like nitrazepam.
Allegory: Comparing pp. 364 #2 allegory example to pp. 364 #3, both being my poor excuse for an allegory example requested of #2 and a poor excuse for my attempt at #3:
Excuses ferment from one area to another, as in the procrastination on one assignment as one drowns oneself in another. For example, when one considers one assignment as their primary area of focus, spending all of their time attempting to perfect it, while at the same time neglecting to put any efforts into any other assignment until this one is complete. However, first, one must have an adequate understanding of what this one assignment request to come anywhere close to providing a good quality representation of such. Then into ones being overwhelmed by the fact that the previous example involving the use of metaphor and simile, which were in their own so difficult to represent, now enter stages of larger projections within their own, leaving one overwhelmed with frustration in not being capable of finding anything close to portraying anything close to what is requested here. So, I must give up on this allegory, because the “have to” paper, writing for the west, writing for the web, and data analysis are being also neglected, just as is rhetoric, in my procrastination of lacking clarity. This clarity lack leading to cognitive frustrations of self-involvement in ways that produces little to no productive resolution. So, on to the next question involving revision of something written, I will make it this statement, onto a poor portrayal of what it also requests, as I have run out of time.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Chapter 8 Progymnasmata: Introduction of Law, #1-3, pg. 290
1. (INTRODUCTION): The Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
(CONSTITUTIONALITY AND CONSISTENCY): This prevents one from having to pay more to be let out of jail than the charges against them hold to, pay more reimbursement for a crime than necessary, and not receiving inhumane or uncommon treatment for the crimes charged against them.
(JUSTICE): It is just to consider the charges fairly when suspecting another of committing a crime.
(EXPEDIENCY): It is appropriate to consider the crime when assigning how much bail, how much of a fine, and what type of punishment a suspect receives.
(PRACTICABILITY): This amendment prevents those who charge someone with a crime from taking advantage of them in ways that are too harsh, too costly, and too extensive.
(CONCLUSION): If someone is suspected of committing a crime, and they are put in jail for it, then they should have the capability of getting out of jail at costs that are not in excess to that of which the crimes was committed. If finding someone guilty of committing a crime, then the fine should not exceed the costs of the charges. In addition, punishments for crimes should not be inhumane, or unusual.
2. Amendment 20 was approved on November 7, 2000. It amends the state’s constitution so it recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Taking effect on 6/1/01, those having certain medical conditions, and hold documentation stating that they might benefit from marijuana, are free from certain charges being placed on them at the state-level. Several studies have found that medical marijuana has beneficial characteristics, and 54% of those voting in Colorado agreed with this amendment in 2000: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=medical.
3. Denying available treatments to those in need is of worse conditions than that of failing to provide them. Negative views on marijuana have existed for years. However, a growing number of studies have found marijuana to hold benefits for many who are suffering: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376.
(CONSTITUTIONALITY AND CONSISTENCY): This prevents one from having to pay more to be let out of jail than the charges against them hold to, pay more reimbursement for a crime than necessary, and not receiving inhumane or uncommon treatment for the crimes charged against them.
(JUSTICE): It is just to consider the charges fairly when suspecting another of committing a crime.
(EXPEDIENCY): It is appropriate to consider the crime when assigning how much bail, how much of a fine, and what type of punishment a suspect receives.
(PRACTICABILITY): This amendment prevents those who charge someone with a crime from taking advantage of them in ways that are too harsh, too costly, and too extensive.
(CONCLUSION): If someone is suspected of committing a crime, and they are put in jail for it, then they should have the capability of getting out of jail at costs that are not in excess to that of which the crimes was committed. If finding someone guilty of committing a crime, then the fine should not exceed the costs of the charges. In addition, punishments for crimes should not be inhumane, or unusual.
2. Amendment 20 was approved on November 7, 2000. It amends the state’s constitution so it recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Taking effect on 6/1/01, those having certain medical conditions, and hold documentation stating that they might benefit from marijuana, are free from certain charges being placed on them at the state-level. Several studies have found that medical marijuana has beneficial characteristics, and 54% of those voting in Colorado agreed with this amendment in 2000: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=medical.
3. Denying available treatments to those in need is of worse conditions than that of failing to provide them. Negative views on marijuana have existed for years. However, a growing number of studies have found marijuana to hold benefits for many who are suffering: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376.
Chapter 8 rhetorical activity #2, page 283
1. Senses can be unreliable when they occur separately, rather than together (for example, someone could hear the voice of someone but not see them, and this could be a recording of their voice). Sight can be unreliable when one is unfamiliar with how a person looks, and they may need more time with that person to determine proper recognition of someone. Identical twins may leave on seeing one person rather than another. Ones hearing could be damaged from a loud noise, and therefore what not heard afterward may be subject to question. Discussion with others of an event could lead one to assumptions that their definitions of certain senses are less reliable than those of the majority. The amount of time that has passed may prevent one from proper recall of a situation (or may allow time to obtain proper recall), perhaps depending on the sense, the commonality of experience, attentiveness at the time, etc. Empirical evidence can be reliable when such evidences exist in conditions where other factors relate to holding the same validity present within such conditions, and other evidences are present suggesting no other factors are present to render these possibilities potentially implausible.
Testing the reliability of arguments:
Data should be provided with sources, method, and date. Testimony should meet the following 4 criteria:
1. A person must be in a position to observe the events in question.
2. conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event
3. the witness’s state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observations and reporting. If this is not the case, her testimony must be modified accordingly.
4. in keeping with modern faith in empirical evidence, testimony offered by a proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present. If the proximate witness gave testimony to someone else, tests one through three must be applied to any testimony offered by the second person, as well.
note: I think this part of the question is asking to look over at least two arguments to test their reliability.
For my first argument reliability test, I will use pp. 276, Senator Obama’s 2002 explanation of his reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. Obama relies solely on data for his argument since the conditions of the war were outside of any one person’s observation. Of the data needed, sources (others statements or positions on things, etc.), and date (“Iraq poses no imminent and direct threat”) are present. I cannot determine if methods are represented in adequate ways. Obama was running for President, and the evidences of why Iraq isn’t current in threat to America was not provided…perhaps for good reasons (security of the US). Obama’s statements appear to meet the criteria of testimony condition 4.
For my second argument reliability test, I will discuss the argument of this question. It says that data must have sources, method and date present to be considered reliable. However, if these evidences can be questioned for their own validity, then they should not be considered (perhaps the method measured something else, not present in the current conditions; the source has a bias in his judgment of the way things are; and/or they are out of date to the current conditions). Other criteria also needs taken into consideration from testimony; including potential factors that could end up misleading groups of people (for example, the line of questioning used, the collaboration of those testifying prior to the incident being questioned, and/or other factors that may leave testimony with less value). Perhaps the honest interpretation of the events would lead to conditions that do not support what those present would like to continue to have present, rather than not. In sum, this part of the exercise baffles me and leaves me without any ability to answer it in ways more fitting to its request (whether it be too vague, asking more than I can offer, etc.).
Testing the reliability of arguments:
Data should be provided with sources, method, and date. Testimony should meet the following 4 criteria:
1. A person must be in a position to observe the events in question.
2. conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event
3. the witness’s state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observations and reporting. If this is not the case, her testimony must be modified accordingly.
4. in keeping with modern faith in empirical evidence, testimony offered by a proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present. If the proximate witness gave testimony to someone else, tests one through three must be applied to any testimony offered by the second person, as well.
note: I think this part of the question is asking to look over at least two arguments to test their reliability.
For my first argument reliability test, I will use pp. 276, Senator Obama’s 2002 explanation of his reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. Obama relies solely on data for his argument since the conditions of the war were outside of any one person’s observation. Of the data needed, sources (others statements or positions on things, etc.), and date (“Iraq poses no imminent and direct threat”) are present. I cannot determine if methods are represented in adequate ways. Obama was running for President, and the evidences of why Iraq isn’t current in threat to America was not provided…perhaps for good reasons (security of the US). Obama’s statements appear to meet the criteria of testimony condition 4.
For my second argument reliability test, I will discuss the argument of this question. It says that data must have sources, method and date present to be considered reliable. However, if these evidences can be questioned for their own validity, then they should not be considered (perhaps the method measured something else, not present in the current conditions; the source has a bias in his judgment of the way things are; and/or they are out of date to the current conditions). Other criteria also needs taken into consideration from testimony; including potential factors that could end up misleading groups of people (for example, the line of questioning used, the collaboration of those testifying prior to the incident being questioned, and/or other factors that may leave testimony with less value). Perhaps the honest interpretation of the events would lead to conditions that do not support what those present would like to continue to have present, rather than not. In sum, this part of the exercise baffles me and leaves me without any ability to answer it in ways more fitting to its request (whether it be too vague, asking more than I can offer, etc.).
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Chapter 7 Rhetorical Activity # 3
Exordium: It isn’t right for companies to constantly suggests benefits, and/or satisfactory conditions (rather than continuing within unsatisfactory conditions) to come to employees over and over, without adequately following through with their promises.
Narratio: Holding meetings every so often to let employees know that the conditions of their work environment will be improving need to be improved. Inappropriate pay, a lack of benefit, conditions of a job that are too demanding, and other problems arising from work environments lead to poorer performance of employees via fatigue, injury, etc.
Partitio: Anger is appropriate when companies treat their employees this way.
Confirmatio: When employers constantly make, and break, promises of better work-related conditions to their employees, these employees have every right to be angry.
Refutatio: Statistics may suggests that when employees think that their working for a company is soon to bring them better conditions than the ones they are currently in, that they will work harder and be more satisfied with their work. Therefore, if employers lead their employees to believe that these conditions are coming, then the workload of their employees will be greater.
Peroratio: This may work for a short period or even a long one if the people are convincing enough. But after a while, statistics may suggests that these effects will end up leaving employees in conditions of worry and stress over losing their jobs for reasons relevant to their constantly being left in states of degradation due to these numerous promises being broken. Perhaps it’s better that the employers keep their mouths shut, promising nothing, rather than constantly belittling the people who are there to make them money. Employees should have rights to protect them from companies being allowed to do this. If the employers are experiencing the same sort of betrayed promises coming to them from those external to these current employee-employer conditions, then they should just keep their mouths shut until something does happen. Other statistics on various other ways of influencing effective workers may just as likely exist. If their goal is to hire people under alternate conditions than the ones that they think are present, then they should not be misled.
Appeals of other emotions discussed:
Shame: The above conditions leave way for employees to rightfully lose respect for their employer. They are taking advantage of a situation, and doing so in obvious ways.
Compassion: Compassion for the employee should be given. Especially when the air does not allow one to hold a voice to speak up on the matter, nor does it allow one to leave the situation.
Hopelessness: Hopelessness is present in the employees due to the reasons listed in compassion, as well as those present in their work efforts potentially being influenced into states of degradation. Not only are they hopeless in the situation and in not being able to leave the situation, but they are also hopelessly left in conditions potentially promoting states of fatigue and depression.
Narratio: Holding meetings every so often to let employees know that the conditions of their work environment will be improving need to be improved. Inappropriate pay, a lack of benefit, conditions of a job that are too demanding, and other problems arising from work environments lead to poorer performance of employees via fatigue, injury, etc.
Partitio: Anger is appropriate when companies treat their employees this way.
Confirmatio: When employers constantly make, and break, promises of better work-related conditions to their employees, these employees have every right to be angry.
Refutatio: Statistics may suggests that when employees think that their working for a company is soon to bring them better conditions than the ones they are currently in, that they will work harder and be more satisfied with their work. Therefore, if employers lead their employees to believe that these conditions are coming, then the workload of their employees will be greater.
Peroratio: This may work for a short period or even a long one if the people are convincing enough. But after a while, statistics may suggests that these effects will end up leaving employees in conditions of worry and stress over losing their jobs for reasons relevant to their constantly being left in states of degradation due to these numerous promises being broken. Perhaps it’s better that the employers keep their mouths shut, promising nothing, rather than constantly belittling the people who are there to make them money. Employees should have rights to protect them from companies being allowed to do this. If the employers are experiencing the same sort of betrayed promises coming to them from those external to these current employee-employer conditions, then they should just keep their mouths shut until something does happen. Other statistics on various other ways of influencing effective workers may just as likely exist. If their goal is to hire people under alternate conditions than the ones that they think are present, then they should not be misled.
Appeals of other emotions discussed:
Shame: The above conditions leave way for employees to rightfully lose respect for their employer. They are taking advantage of a situation, and doing so in obvious ways.
Compassion: Compassion for the employee should be given. Especially when the air does not allow one to hold a voice to speak up on the matter, nor does it allow one to leave the situation.
Hopelessness: Hopelessness is present in the employees due to the reasons listed in compassion, as well as those present in their work efforts potentially being influenced into states of degradation. Not only are they hopeless in the situation and in not being able to leave the situation, but they are also hopelessly left in conditions potentially promoting states of fatigue and depression.
Chapter 6 Rhetorical Activity # 5
Outline:
I. Letter 1: To someone close to me
II. Letter 2: To someone who is less close to me
III. Letter 3: To a company or corporation
IV. Questions:
a. What happens to your voice in each case?
b. What features of your writing are altered?
Letter 1: Grandma
Grandma,
Hi, it’s Mark.
I am writing this letter to you for an assignment in class that is asking me to write a letter to someone close to me. I don’t really have anything to say, and am having a hard time with the assignment because I’m tired and have a lot of other homework also. I think I have already spent too much time trying to think about how to go about this one, and so I guess I am just winging it.
The letter is for my English class called Advanced Composition and Rhetoric. Advanced Rhetoric must have something to do with ancient rhetoric, because that is what my book is called.
The class is one of four I need for my Bachelor degree. I am taking two others, and will be taking the fourth this summer. Perhaps I already told you that. Anyway, I am expecting my degree in August, but will be going through a ceremony at the end of April, since dad decided to come, and mom might. I don’t like the idea of going through the motions of receiving a certificate, when I haven’t actually met all the requirements expected of me to get it. Oh well, I guess.
Anyway, hope things are good out your way.
Love, Mark
Letter 2: Dr. Souder
Professor Souder,
Hi, it’s Mark Psinas, from you Fall 2010 Advanced Composition and Rhetoric class. This letter is in response to rhetorical activities question 5 of chapter six, on page # 231.
I was thinking about emailing you to ask if I should include the written letters on my blog, with the two questions that are asked after writing the letters. Or, should I just answer the questions. I guess I will just put a link up with access to them, because I am running short on time and need to finish this and make time for other things I need to get done.
I was writing my grandma, and I ended up questioning the relevance of ancient rhetoric to “advanced rhetoric.” Page # 237 says comparison and description are still used today; which were used by the ancient rhetoricians. As well, I assume learning about the ones that were used often, but not so much anymore would lead to advanced learning skills involving rhetoric. So, I guess I wonder, if these statements are acceptable descriptions? And, if so, are there any rhetorics that are in use today that were not used by the ancients?
Anyway, I have a lot of stuff coming up due with school, graduation, taxes, etc., and this assignment has already taken up quite a bit of my time.
Well, I hope I get a decent grade on this.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Letter 3: CSU-Pueblo
To: CSU-Pueblo
From: Mark Psinas
Regarding: Question 5 of chapter six of my Advanced Composition and Rhetoric course book, per the assignment.
Hello, this letter may appear odd to you, but it is following the guidelines of an assignment I am doing for one of four courses I am taking to get the professional writing minor added to my Bachelor degree. This letter is following two others I have written; the first to my grandma, and the second to my professor.
In the first letter, I discussed how I will be walking through the ceremony in April, but will not complete my requirements until August. I don’t really like the idea of participating in a ceremony for something that has yet to be completed. So, I question, what might this be teaching people? Have you ever had anyone walk through the ceremony and not get a degree? That has to be disappointing! Anyway, if not, I sure hope that I am not the first.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Question 1: What happens to your voice in each case?
It becomes more formal. I went from writing things about myself, to writing things from the previous letter relevant to the professor, to writing things relevant to the university. I discussed with the professor issues I talked about in the first letter, and then discussed issues relevant to the university relevant to the first letter. I brought up the major points in all three letters, or tried to at least briefly mention them, and then centered the writing on issues relevant to their role. My voice went from talking about my current purpose of writing and surrounding issues of my life while involved in the writing, to a voice of less issues of my life and more questioning the purpose, to a final voice of less purpose (except for some clarity, similar to the fashions of the first two letters) and more questioning the surrounding issues (brought up in the first letter, and briefly mentioned in the second) relevant to those the third letter was written to.
Question 2: What features of your writing are altered?
The attitudinal dimensions: acceptance, indifference, and rejection.
Acceptance in the first letter was seen in just letting my grandma know what was going on, without going into much specifics. Acceptance of the second letter was in the course content itself. And acceptance of the third letter was with the clarity of purpose, and relevance involving the university.
Indifference in the first letter came with not needing to elaborate on the specifics of further details about the assignment (written about in the second letter), and about the stand of question taken in the third (the first letter being more passive). Indifference in the second letter was seen in my not bringing up the personal mentioned in the first (also an indifference in the third letter), and not bringing up the issues of the third letter (instead just mentioning them).
Also indifferent in the third letter, the second letter went into detail about the assignment and course.
Rejection was seen in not really caring much for details on issues that are irrelevant to the primary purpose of the persons influence: grandma not needing course details and requests for information already known to be outside of ones influence; Professor Souder’s not needing this same influence of request to the university, and not needing the wining-like writing present in both letters; and the university not needing the wining-like writing irrelevant to their role, nor needing the details of the second letter irrelevant to their concern.
I. Letter 1: To someone close to me
II. Letter 2: To someone who is less close to me
III. Letter 3: To a company or corporation
IV. Questions:
a. What happens to your voice in each case?
b. What features of your writing are altered?
Letter 1: Grandma
Grandma,
Hi, it’s Mark.
I am writing this letter to you for an assignment in class that is asking me to write a letter to someone close to me. I don’t really have anything to say, and am having a hard time with the assignment because I’m tired and have a lot of other homework also. I think I have already spent too much time trying to think about how to go about this one, and so I guess I am just winging it.
The letter is for my English class called Advanced Composition and Rhetoric. Advanced Rhetoric must have something to do with ancient rhetoric, because that is what my book is called.
The class is one of four I need for my Bachelor degree. I am taking two others, and will be taking the fourth this summer. Perhaps I already told you that. Anyway, I am expecting my degree in August, but will be going through a ceremony at the end of April, since dad decided to come, and mom might. I don’t like the idea of going through the motions of receiving a certificate, when I haven’t actually met all the requirements expected of me to get it. Oh well, I guess.
Anyway, hope things are good out your way.
Love, Mark
Letter 2: Dr. Souder
Professor Souder,
Hi, it’s Mark Psinas, from you Fall 2010 Advanced Composition and Rhetoric class. This letter is in response to rhetorical activities question 5 of chapter six, on page # 231.
I was thinking about emailing you to ask if I should include the written letters on my blog, with the two questions that are asked after writing the letters. Or, should I just answer the questions. I guess I will just put a link up with access to them, because I am running short on time and need to finish this and make time for other things I need to get done.
I was writing my grandma, and I ended up questioning the relevance of ancient rhetoric to “advanced rhetoric.” Page # 237 says comparison and description are still used today; which were used by the ancient rhetoricians. As well, I assume learning about the ones that were used often, but not so much anymore would lead to advanced learning skills involving rhetoric. So, I guess I wonder, if these statements are acceptable descriptions? And, if so, are there any rhetorics that are in use today that were not used by the ancients?
Anyway, I have a lot of stuff coming up due with school, graduation, taxes, etc., and this assignment has already taken up quite a bit of my time.
Well, I hope I get a decent grade on this.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Letter 3: CSU-Pueblo
To: CSU-Pueblo
From: Mark Psinas
Regarding: Question 5 of chapter six of my Advanced Composition and Rhetoric course book, per the assignment.
Hello, this letter may appear odd to you, but it is following the guidelines of an assignment I am doing for one of four courses I am taking to get the professional writing minor added to my Bachelor degree. This letter is following two others I have written; the first to my grandma, and the second to my professor.
In the first letter, I discussed how I will be walking through the ceremony in April, but will not complete my requirements until August. I don’t really like the idea of participating in a ceremony for something that has yet to be completed. So, I question, what might this be teaching people? Have you ever had anyone walk through the ceremony and not get a degree? That has to be disappointing! Anyway, if not, I sure hope that I am not the first.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Question 1: What happens to your voice in each case?
It becomes more formal. I went from writing things about myself, to writing things from the previous letter relevant to the professor, to writing things relevant to the university. I discussed with the professor issues I talked about in the first letter, and then discussed issues relevant to the university relevant to the first letter. I brought up the major points in all three letters, or tried to at least briefly mention them, and then centered the writing on issues relevant to their role. My voice went from talking about my current purpose of writing and surrounding issues of my life while involved in the writing, to a voice of less issues of my life and more questioning the purpose, to a final voice of less purpose (except for some clarity, similar to the fashions of the first two letters) and more questioning the surrounding issues (brought up in the first letter, and briefly mentioned in the second) relevant to those the third letter was written to.
Question 2: What features of your writing are altered?
The attitudinal dimensions: acceptance, indifference, and rejection.
Acceptance in the first letter was seen in just letting my grandma know what was going on, without going into much specifics. Acceptance of the second letter was in the course content itself. And acceptance of the third letter was with the clarity of purpose, and relevance involving the university.
Indifference in the first letter came with not needing to elaborate on the specifics of further details about the assignment (written about in the second letter), and about the stand of question taken in the third (the first letter being more passive). Indifference in the second letter was seen in my not bringing up the personal mentioned in the first (also an indifference in the third letter), and not bringing up the issues of the third letter (instead just mentioning them).
Also indifferent in the third letter, the second letter went into detail about the assignment and course.
Rejection was seen in not really caring much for details on issues that are irrelevant to the primary purpose of the persons influence: grandma not needing course details and requests for information already known to be outside of ones influence; Professor Souder’s not needing this same influence of request to the university, and not needing the wining-like writing present in both letters; and the university not needing the wining-like writing irrelevant to their role, nor needing the details of the second letter irrelevant to their concern.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
page 193 Progymnasmata: Encomuim and Invective # 3
Watching season two of Two-and-a-half Men, episode 7 (A Kosher Slaughterhouse Out in Fontana); the housekeeper gets her sister hired to cater a party for the mother of the two brothers living together.
The sister wakes the older brother standing above him in his room as he sleeps, then asking permission to take a shot of his alcohol (which she has already poured for herself, drinking immediately after permission is given).
She goes on to tell him about her troubled life, saying "My husband left me for another woman. Know how I found out?".
As Charlie, the older brother says "to tell you the truth", she remarks "relax, it's rhetorical."
She then goes on with her story.
About 5 minute, 30 seconds into this clip:
This scene is an encomium of rhetoric for me to assess:
Rhetoric is used here in her asking a question that was "rhetorical," which in asking supported the continuance of composing her discourse effectively.
The Rhetorical Question didn't necessarily have an answer that the audience knew the answer to, other than the fact that he knew the question was asked for reasons relevant to the answer being provided by the person doing the asking.
The rhetorical distance appears to come from the notion "relax" in that she was putting off a scary vibe, but wasn't expecting anything from him, so "relax," because she just wanted him to listen.
The rhetorical situation involved the rhetor (the housekeepers sister), an issue (her being left by her husband), and the audience (Charlie). The issue was at a time where she was expected to cater this party, and the situation involved her letting Charlie know the complexities of her functioning effectively to provide the catering services needed at that time (kairos relevant).
This is where I am left with invective question on my own capabilities as a rhetorician, and my completion of this assignment the way it was suppose to be completed.
The sister wakes the older brother standing above him in his room as he sleeps, then asking permission to take a shot of his alcohol (which she has already poured for herself, drinking immediately after permission is given).
She goes on to tell him about her troubled life, saying "My husband left me for another woman. Know how I found out?".
As Charlie, the older brother says "to tell you the truth", she remarks "relax, it's rhetorical."
She then goes on with her story.
About 5 minute, 30 seconds into this clip:
This scene is an encomium of rhetoric for me to assess:
Rhetoric is used here in her asking a question that was "rhetorical," which in asking supported the continuance of composing her discourse effectively.
The Rhetorical Question didn't necessarily have an answer that the audience knew the answer to, other than the fact that he knew the question was asked for reasons relevant to the answer being provided by the person doing the asking.
The rhetorical distance appears to come from the notion "relax" in that she was putting off a scary vibe, but wasn't expecting anything from him, so "relax," because she just wanted him to listen.
The rhetorical situation involved the rhetor (the housekeepers sister), an issue (her being left by her husband), and the audience (Charlie). The issue was at a time where she was expected to cater this party, and the situation involved her letting Charlie know the complexities of her functioning effectively to provide the catering services needed at that time (kairos relevant).
This is where I am left with invective question on my own capabilities as a rhetorician, and my completion of this assignment the way it was suppose to be completed.
Page 186 Rhetorical Activities #3
Articulation of the statement "Elvis has left the building."
"Please, young people . . . Elvis has left the building. He has gotten in his car and driven away. . . . Please take your seats." - Horace Logan, 12/1956
although the phrase was routinely used to encourage the audience to leave, the first time that it was announced it was to encourage them to stay in their seats
"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. Thank you and goodnight." - Al Dvorin, 1970s
Enthymeme of its original use:
Major premise: "Elvis has left the building" (there is no show outside of your seats any longer)
Minor premise: "The hayride will continue" (more show will continue in your seats)
Conclusion: "if you would like to sit down now, we are going to go on with the show here in just about five minutes" (please stop standing, and sit down)
"Please, young people . . . Elvis has left the building. He has gotten in his car and driven away. . . . Please take your seats." - Horace Logan, 12/1956
although the phrase was routinely used to encourage the audience to leave, the first time that it was announced it was to encourage them to stay in their seats
"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. Thank you and goodnight." - Al Dvorin, 1970s
Enthymeme of its original use:
Major premise: "Elvis has left the building" (there is no show outside of your seats any longer)
Minor premise: "The hayride will continue" (more show will continue in your seats)
Conclusion: "if you would like to sit down now, we are going to go on with the show here in just about five minutes" (please stop standing, and sit down)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Chapter 4: Progymnasmata: Common-Place #1
Common-place, by Aphthonius, “appears to favor a focus on evil,” attacking those that have done evil rather than favoring those that have done good or those that approach issues in ways that attempt to look at both sides.
(PROLOGUE): Since bullying of classmates has been known to lead to lower self-esteem, can lead to the harm, even hospitalization and death, of persons, the bullying of classmates must be considered.
(CONTRARY): Not letting nature take its course in bulling and the bullied of classmates while at school can also be supportive of being capable of observing the actions occurring under supervised conditions, rather than outside of view. Also, it draws on building up the confidence of those who are bullied, by leaving them to deal with the problems on their own, leaving them with a learning experience on how to deal with the “real world.”
(EXPOSITION—to gain interest of the reader): However, this leaves the bullied lacking “real world” conditions because on many occasions bullying is outside of one’s ability to control, and authoritative stands and influence on such conditions needs to occur. These acts, when handled properly, can leave one who is bullied with the notion that support does exists (as opposed to the alternate message one may receive; that one is incapable of preventing oneself from harm, and incapable of reaching for support).
(COMPARISON –attaching blame to the accused): Bullying, being repeated acts of dehumanizing, picking on, or beating up an individual, done without repercussions or intervention of others, leaves the bully with the notion that such acts are permissible. This not only gives the bully a false sense of what society will allow them to get away with in the future, but also gives the bullied a complex that can escalate to the harm coming to them (continuing to come to them) and perhaps others.
(INTENTION—attack on the doers motives): Those who bully have various motives, whether they be learned conditions from home, genetics, the environment they live in, a medical condition needing attention, a lack of attentiveness they need, a lessening of the pressures too much attentiveness is bringing them, unawareness of their doing any harm, etc.
(DIGRESSION—castigates the doers past life): These conditions perhaps need evaluation and the root of the problem sought out, while perhaps also working on the issues at the surface (the bullying going on) as well.
(REJECTION OF PITY): Those that bully, and those that let it slide (perhaps considering it a phase, something they went through their self, something the bullied need to learn to deal with, etc.) hold less, if not just as much, weight in their actions as those that are bullied, and those that intervene (perhaps considering it for what it is, an escalating problem; something that holds qualities similar to those that end up placing people in legal conflicts later in life; something the bully needs to learn to deal with).
(reminder to audience of the standard topics that were relevant to the common-place being amplified: legality, justice, expediency, practicability, honor, or result):
(LEGALITY): “If it is custom to praise those who protect people, then it follows that it is right to punish those who destroy them” (pp.156).
(JUSTICE): Given that laws have been set up to prevent the spanking of students, it should follow that actions should be taken against those that bring harm to other students.
(ADVANTAGE): Those that are bullied will be provided with learning conditions that are capable of worrying more about their academic performance, rather than spending time worrying about unnecessary harm coming to them while going to school.
(POSSIBILITY): If intervention occurs properly, those prone to bullying could have less concern/worry leading to emotional-based fatigues which prevent one from learning to their fullest potential. If intervention occurs properly, those that bully may learn social skills at a critical time which benefit the rest of their life; where not learning them could lead to their living a less fulfilling life. If intervention occurs properly, it may avert the nonproductive living and social skill conditioning of the bullied.
(PROLOGUE): Since bullying of classmates has been known to lead to lower self-esteem, can lead to the harm, even hospitalization and death, of persons, the bullying of classmates must be considered.
(CONTRARY): Not letting nature take its course in bulling and the bullied of classmates while at school can also be supportive of being capable of observing the actions occurring under supervised conditions, rather than outside of view. Also, it draws on building up the confidence of those who are bullied, by leaving them to deal with the problems on their own, leaving them with a learning experience on how to deal with the “real world.”
(EXPOSITION—to gain interest of the reader): However, this leaves the bullied lacking “real world” conditions because on many occasions bullying is outside of one’s ability to control, and authoritative stands and influence on such conditions needs to occur. These acts, when handled properly, can leave one who is bullied with the notion that support does exists (as opposed to the alternate message one may receive; that one is incapable of preventing oneself from harm, and incapable of reaching for support).
(COMPARISON –attaching blame to the accused): Bullying, being repeated acts of dehumanizing, picking on, or beating up an individual, done without repercussions or intervention of others, leaves the bully with the notion that such acts are permissible. This not only gives the bully a false sense of what society will allow them to get away with in the future, but also gives the bullied a complex that can escalate to the harm coming to them (continuing to come to them) and perhaps others.
(INTENTION—attack on the doers motives): Those who bully have various motives, whether they be learned conditions from home, genetics, the environment they live in, a medical condition needing attention, a lack of attentiveness they need, a lessening of the pressures too much attentiveness is bringing them, unawareness of their doing any harm, etc.
(DIGRESSION—castigates the doers past life): These conditions perhaps need evaluation and the root of the problem sought out, while perhaps also working on the issues at the surface (the bullying going on) as well.
(REJECTION OF PITY): Those that bully, and those that let it slide (perhaps considering it a phase, something they went through their self, something the bullied need to learn to deal with, etc.) hold less, if not just as much, weight in their actions as those that are bullied, and those that intervene (perhaps considering it for what it is, an escalating problem; something that holds qualities similar to those that end up placing people in legal conflicts later in life; something the bully needs to learn to deal with).
(reminder to audience of the standard topics that were relevant to the common-place being amplified: legality, justice, expediency, practicability, honor, or result):
(LEGALITY): “If it is custom to praise those who protect people, then it follows that it is right to punish those who destroy them” (pp.156).
(JUSTICE): Given that laws have been set up to prevent the spanking of students, it should follow that actions should be taken against those that bring harm to other students.
(ADVANTAGE): Those that are bullied will be provided with learning conditions that are capable of worrying more about their academic performance, rather than spending time worrying about unnecessary harm coming to them while going to school.
(POSSIBILITY): If intervention occurs properly, those prone to bullying could have less concern/worry leading to emotional-based fatigues which prevent one from learning to their fullest potential. If intervention occurs properly, those that bully may learn social skills at a critical time which benefit the rest of their life; where not learning them could lead to their living a less fulfilling life. If intervention occurs properly, it may avert the nonproductive living and social skill conditioning of the bullied.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #5 (part 3 of 3)
Rush Limbaugh, a conservative, received a lot of attention for saying that we it wasn't necessary to donate any more to Haiti.
He says we already support them enough by paying our taxes, and suggests that what happened has occured for reasons that should not be (do not need to be) supported.
The Wall Street Journal, considered conservative, supports the notion that ending foreign aid would help Haiti.
The article says that the support will end up leading to "more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy..."
CNN appears to be supportive toward helping Haiti.
They hold the slogan of being "the most trusted news," and I assume they attempt to keep this stand by not taking sides on issues. I didn't see anything in this article read suggesting not supporting Haiti, though.
This article from Time draws on the emotional impact of the tragedy, and apparently is supportive of helping Haiti.
USA Today draws on the stats involved in the casualties that have occured, the poor conditions, how less support is present than was from the Katrina catastrophe, and the despiration of those affected leading to acts of despiration.
An article in The Nation (considered liberal or left-liberal) appears to cover more sides of the matter than the others I have read did, and concludes that the US response should also consider more long-term supportive aid, in addition to the current support given.
Another article by The Nation challenges the anti-support of Haiti notion, and concludes that under circumstances where so much "death and destruction" has come, not helping shouldn't be considered for any reason.
The Pueblo Chieftain has an article involving Puebloans helping out.
From what I read, the Earthquake in Haiti has caused a lot of damage and injury; more than commonly occurs in tragic events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. Supportive effort debates question the emotions and good will of others. There is also debate on whether or not giving support would cause more harm than good (i.e., support leading to less funds to support more people elsewhere in other ways). This incident has been all over the news, yet other catastrophes, at times, get little to no attention. This catastrophe, occuring in a country of poverty, does not appear to draw on any gains coming from supporting them, making it appear to be a good thing. It is argued that the support going to the country will end up in the hands of the privileged and not reach those who need it most. The exaggerated remarks by Limbaugh appear to have deeper-rooted notions at play than heard or read about on the surface. Of course, it also could be the case that making such remarks led to radio show hosts losing their jobs, like when Don Imus attempted to plead his case after losing his job for saying something (I am not sure if this is similar, but I did not really hear anything about underlying issues involved in the surface of this remark that lost him his job.). I do believe that certain natural disasters occurred in the Phillippines, not too long ago, and received little to no media attention. In a struggling economy, like the one we currently live in, where it is difficult to even pay ones own bills, I don't think 'not' looking toward the future of attempting to take care of oneself via giving money or other support one really does not have should be considered (nor even give up ones attempts at trying to live in ways that make them happy...like giving up a much needed vacation.) However, if capable of helping, then it does appear that Haiti is a place one can give it, where it is greatly needed, and has the potential of being given in ways that relate to the aid actually reaching the places it really needs to go.
He says we already support them enough by paying our taxes, and suggests that what happened has occured for reasons that should not be (do not need to be) supported.
The Wall Street Journal, considered conservative, supports the notion that ending foreign aid would help Haiti.
The article says that the support will end up leading to "more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy..."
CNN appears to be supportive toward helping Haiti.
They hold the slogan of being "the most trusted news," and I assume they attempt to keep this stand by not taking sides on issues. I didn't see anything in this article read suggesting not supporting Haiti, though.
This article from Time draws on the emotional impact of the tragedy, and apparently is supportive of helping Haiti.
USA Today draws on the stats involved in the casualties that have occured, the poor conditions, how less support is present than was from the Katrina catastrophe, and the despiration of those affected leading to acts of despiration.
An article in The Nation (considered liberal or left-liberal) appears to cover more sides of the matter than the others I have read did, and concludes that the US response should also consider more long-term supportive aid, in addition to the current support given.
Another article by The Nation challenges the anti-support of Haiti notion, and concludes that under circumstances where so much "death and destruction" has come, not helping shouldn't be considered for any reason.
The Pueblo Chieftain has an article involving Puebloans helping out.
From what I read, the Earthquake in Haiti has caused a lot of damage and injury; more than commonly occurs in tragic events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. Supportive effort debates question the emotions and good will of others. There is also debate on whether or not giving support would cause more harm than good (i.e., support leading to less funds to support more people elsewhere in other ways). This incident has been all over the news, yet other catastrophes, at times, get little to no attention. This catastrophe, occuring in a country of poverty, does not appear to draw on any gains coming from supporting them, making it appear to be a good thing. It is argued that the support going to the country will end up in the hands of the privileged and not reach those who need it most. The exaggerated remarks by Limbaugh appear to have deeper-rooted notions at play than heard or read about on the surface. Of course, it also could be the case that making such remarks led to radio show hosts losing their jobs, like when Don Imus attempted to plead his case after losing his job for saying something (I am not sure if this is similar, but I did not really hear anything about underlying issues involved in the surface of this remark that lost him his job.). I do believe that certain natural disasters occurred in the Phillippines, not too long ago, and received little to no media attention. In a struggling economy, like the one we currently live in, where it is difficult to even pay ones own bills, I don't think 'not' looking toward the future of attempting to take care of oneself via giving money or other support one really does not have should be considered (nor even give up ones attempts at trying to live in ways that make them happy...like giving up a much needed vacation.) However, if capable of helping, then it does appear that Haiti is a place one can give it, where it is greatly needed, and has the potential of being given in ways that relate to the aid actually reaching the places it really needs to go.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #3 (part 2 of 3)
I got a ticket for running a red light. I had my picture taken by a camera and was mailed a ticket. I was at work and showed the ticket to someone I worked with, and a few others were there and discussed the issue. I brought up the notion that maybe I could argue it in court, saying that the pain caused by my tooth cause me to have delayed reaction. One person in the group, whose name I do not know, said that if my tooth pain was causing delayed reaction then I shouldn’t have been driving. I asked, “then how am I suppose to get to the dentist.” The person said, “have someone else drive you.”
Issues involved driving with impaired ability to respond, the lack of time to respond in the first place given that the light stayed yellow for such a short period, the weather conditions could have made the situation worse if I had attempted to stop, the fact that they don’t teach you how long lights stay yellow on different mph roads, the fact that I was going five mph over the speed limit in poor conditions (along with the notion that even under good conditions and going the speed limit, if you hit the light turning yellow at just the right time, it is a difficult determination to make), the fact that only one angle of the camera was presented (the view of my going, but not the view of my approaching), and that other factors were not (could not) capable of being taken into consideration (i.e., what certain things on the ticket meant and the lack in the amount of time present to make such determinations, as well as other factors relevant to what an officer can determine about a situation that a camera cannot).
I believe the person I had the rhetorical discussion with, involving driving with slightly delayed reaction and driving somewhere to prevent this delayed reaction, took more of a conservative commonplace. Beliefs of this person suggested that having someone else drive me was a easy thing to come by. Openness to persuasion of this person didn’t appear to be possible, but perhaps for reasons more relevant to my stance than theirs.
Issues involved driving with impaired ability to respond, the lack of time to respond in the first place given that the light stayed yellow for such a short period, the weather conditions could have made the situation worse if I had attempted to stop, the fact that they don’t teach you how long lights stay yellow on different mph roads, the fact that I was going five mph over the speed limit in poor conditions (along with the notion that even under good conditions and going the speed limit, if you hit the light turning yellow at just the right time, it is a difficult determination to make), the fact that only one angle of the camera was presented (the view of my going, but not the view of my approaching), and that other factors were not (could not) capable of being taken into consideration (i.e., what certain things on the ticket meant and the lack in the amount of time present to make such determinations, as well as other factors relevant to what an officer can determine about a situation that a camera cannot).
I believe the person I had the rhetorical discussion with, involving driving with slightly delayed reaction and driving somewhere to prevent this delayed reaction, took more of a conservative commonplace. Beliefs of this person suggested that having someone else drive me was a easy thing to come by. Openness to persuasion of this person didn’t appear to be possible, but perhaps for reasons more relevant to my stance than theirs.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #1 (part 1 of 3)
I assume, in this blog, that my assumptions on what Hirsh and Zinn are trying to suggest and how they related to which direction their views go, will suggests whose description I find more accurate more-so than I can say for myself.
Hirsh discusses the vaguely defined morals of Americans, where Zinn discusses the impact of the influences on Americans. Hirsh uses “our” to discuss views in ways that appear introverted in individualistic perceptions. He uses “we” in a way that suggest collective outlook extraverted onto others. “American culture” is used to represent an externalized view on the traditional views that are not effectively supportive to the way things really are; perhaps suggesting that one externalize the notion that ‘they’ are a certain way, while ‘we’ should shun such notion via the appearance of ‘us’ being practical, ingenuous, inventive, and dependent-minded. Finally, he refers to the “myths” fostered by “American culture” as “it.” And, “it” (the beliefs of history external to our collective beliefs) welcomes punishment for ones beliefs in ways that it should not.
Zinn uses “we” as he discusses the influences of American society on our thinking/choices, how we cannot escape them, and how less trouble will come our way if we accept them (‘less trouble coming’ is supported by the externalized notion that “most people” agree with them). He says these external influences are not coming from a ‘survival of the fittest’ influence, and also are not from a free-thinking society. Instead, they come from culturally collective persuasions that lean toward a safer world to live in; one that doesn’t attempt to question authority. Finally, although traditional notions set up by society are not accepted by everyone, enough people believe in them to make them highly influential on our thoughts.
Hirsh suggests liberalism in promoting a positive view of human nature in discussion of “our” and “we”, yet does not by suggesting “American culture” appears more negatively viewed. However, septicism of authority appears relevant to this “American culture” statement, perhaps suggestive toward a liberal stand.
Zinn appears to lean against skepticism toward authority, therefore lacking suggestion of being liberal. He doesn’t appear to take any personal stand toward saying things are right or wrong for the ways they are, he is just saying that ‘they are this way.’
Zinn appears to be more supportive of tradition and authority than Hirsh, therefore being more conservative than him. Hirsh appears to believe more in equality of all citizens (liberal), where Zinn appears to highlight the importance of the influences on us more than giving discussions on equality (conservatism).
Various other issues involving ones taking a liberal or conservative stand were difficult (if not impossible) for me to find even a sense of recognition as being one way over the other. Perhaps making notes on all of these could suggest how much grey area (and/or area of unclairty) influence appears present within each person’s statement.
Page 135 says that the two dominant parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, no longer represent liberal and conservative roles. Democrats are more in the middle, and Republicans are more to the right of conservatism rather than conservatism-based. I assume that this exercise suggests two dominant views being taken into account for this comparison, and that Zinn is one while Hirsh is the other. If so, I would think that Hirsh is a Democrat (being between liberalism and conservatism), and Zinn is a Republican (being somewhere to the right of conservatism).
Page 131, just before Zinn’s description, gives us a hint in stating that his “politics are to the left of Hirsh’s.” Therefore, I cannot “justify my placement of either writer on the political spectrum.” I don’t know much about politics, and have apparently overlooked some things (and/or misinterpreted some things) suggestive to Zinn’s being more to the left of Hirsh.
Hirsh discusses the vaguely defined morals of Americans, where Zinn discusses the impact of the influences on Americans. Hirsh uses “our” to discuss views in ways that appear introverted in individualistic perceptions. He uses “we” in a way that suggest collective outlook extraverted onto others. “American culture” is used to represent an externalized view on the traditional views that are not effectively supportive to the way things really are; perhaps suggesting that one externalize the notion that ‘they’ are a certain way, while ‘we’ should shun such notion via the appearance of ‘us’ being practical, ingenuous, inventive, and dependent-minded. Finally, he refers to the “myths” fostered by “American culture” as “it.” And, “it” (the beliefs of history external to our collective beliefs) welcomes punishment for ones beliefs in ways that it should not.
Zinn uses “we” as he discusses the influences of American society on our thinking/choices, how we cannot escape them, and how less trouble will come our way if we accept them (‘less trouble coming’ is supported by the externalized notion that “most people” agree with them). He says these external influences are not coming from a ‘survival of the fittest’ influence, and also are not from a free-thinking society. Instead, they come from culturally collective persuasions that lean toward a safer world to live in; one that doesn’t attempt to question authority. Finally, although traditional notions set up by society are not accepted by everyone, enough people believe in them to make them highly influential on our thoughts.
Hirsh suggests liberalism in promoting a positive view of human nature in discussion of “our” and “we”, yet does not by suggesting “American culture” appears more negatively viewed. However, septicism of authority appears relevant to this “American culture” statement, perhaps suggestive toward a liberal stand.
Zinn appears to lean against skepticism toward authority, therefore lacking suggestion of being liberal. He doesn’t appear to take any personal stand toward saying things are right or wrong for the ways they are, he is just saying that ‘they are this way.’
Zinn appears to be more supportive of tradition and authority than Hirsh, therefore being more conservative than him. Hirsh appears to believe more in equality of all citizens (liberal), where Zinn appears to highlight the importance of the influences on us more than giving discussions on equality (conservatism).
Various other issues involving ones taking a liberal or conservative stand were difficult (if not impossible) for me to find even a sense of recognition as being one way over the other. Perhaps making notes on all of these could suggest how much grey area (and/or area of unclairty) influence appears present within each person’s statement.
Page 135 says that the two dominant parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, no longer represent liberal and conservative roles. Democrats are more in the middle, and Republicans are more to the right of conservatism rather than conservatism-based. I assume that this exercise suggests two dominant views being taken into account for this comparison, and that Zinn is one while Hirsh is the other. If so, I would think that Hirsh is a Democrat (being between liberalism and conservatism), and Zinn is a Republican (being somewhere to the right of conservatism).
Page 131, just before Zinn’s description, gives us a hint in stating that his “politics are to the left of Hirsh’s.” Therefore, I cannot “justify my placement of either writer on the political spectrum.” I don’t know much about politics, and have apparently overlooked some things (and/or misinterpreted some things) suggestive to Zinn’s being more to the left of Hirsh.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Progymnasmata: Confirmation & Refutation Chapter 3 pp. 116 #2.
Debatable question from history:
Confirmation
Assertion to be confirmed:
There is life on at least one other planet.
Encomium (Panegyric), discourse of praise:
"NASA remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimulating public interest in aerospace exploration, as well as science and technology in general."
Exposition of the Situation:
"There is also a strong possibility of planets outside of our solar system having the conditions necessary for life. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains at least 200 billion (200,000,000,000) stars, and recent observations with very powerful telescopes suggests that many of the stars in the night sky have planets orbiting them. There is a famous equation called Drake's Equation that tries to calculate how many stars contain orbiting planets that have conditions suitable for the development of life. The equation suggests that life forms are very likely to exist on planets in our galaxy or any of the billions of other galaxies in the Universe. Scientists are still working hard to observe earth-like planets around other stars, and to understand the conditions under which life formed and evolved on the ancient Earth." - Brian W. Stewar
"Understanding planetary habitability and the relationship between the occurrence of life and the evolution of planets is a primary organizing theme of NASA's Solar System Exploration Program."
Certainty:
"In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose, or sugar. The chlorophyll in plants absorbs more blue and red light from sunlight, and less green light. Chlorophyll is green, because it reflects green light more than blue and red light."
Credibility:
"Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space."
Possibility:
"NASA scientists believe they have found a way to predict the color of plants on planets in other solar systems."
Consistency:
"No one knows" - David Morrison
Propriety:
According to the reliable source Nancy Kiang, detecting the color of plants on other planets is possible. "Kiang and her colleagues calculated what the stellar light would look like at the surface of Earth-like planets whose atmospheric chemistry is consistent with the different types of stars they orbit. By looking at the changes in that light through different atmospheres, researchers identified colors that would be most favorable for photosynthesis on other planets. This new research narrows the range of colors that scientists would expect to see when photosynthesis is occurring on extrasolar planets."
Convenience:
"Mars, Titan, Europa, and other promising objects"
Refutation
False assertion to be refuted:
There is life on at least one other planets.
Exposition of the Situation:
Same as above
Uncertainty:
"Thre is no direct evidence today of life on any planet beyond Earth. The search for life beyond Earth is one of the major goals of astrobiology." - David Morrison
Incredibility:
"...only on Earth does the whole complicated mix come together in a way that encourages life"
Impossibility:
"In order for life (in the form that is most familiar to us) to evolve on a planet, scientists believe that the planet must be warm enough to contain at least some liquid water, but not so hot that all of the water turns to vapor, as appears to be the case on the planet Venus." - Brian W. Stewar
Lack of Consistency:
"In order for life (in the form that is most familiar to us) to evolve on a planet, scientists believe that the planet must be warm enough to contain at least some liquid water, but not so hot that all of the water turns to vapor... It must also contain certain important elements, like carbon and nitrogen, that are necessary to build living cells, and the environment must be calm enough that life has time to develop - the planets in some star systems may be hit so frequently by giant meteorites (causing all the surface water to boil or vaporize) that life never has a chance to form there." - Brian W. Stewar
Impropriety:
"There is no direct evidence today of life on any planet beyond Earth." - David Morrison
Inconvenience:
"little is presently known about habitable environments within our Solar System"
Confirmation
Assertion to be confirmed:
There is life on at least one other planet.
Encomium (Panegyric), discourse of praise:
"NASA remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimulating public interest in aerospace exploration, as well as science and technology in general."
Exposition of the Situation:
"There is also a strong possibility of planets outside of our solar system having the conditions necessary for life. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains at least 200 billion (200,000,000,000) stars, and recent observations with very powerful telescopes suggests that many of the stars in the night sky have planets orbiting them. There is a famous equation called Drake's Equation that tries to calculate how many stars contain orbiting planets that have conditions suitable for the development of life. The equation suggests that life forms are very likely to exist on planets in our galaxy or any of the billions of other galaxies in the Universe. Scientists are still working hard to observe earth-like planets around other stars, and to understand the conditions under which life formed and evolved on the ancient Earth." - Brian W. Stewar
"Understanding planetary habitability and the relationship between the occurrence of life and the evolution of planets is a primary organizing theme of NASA's Solar System Exploration Program."
Certainty:
"In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose, or sugar. The chlorophyll in plants absorbs more blue and red light from sunlight, and less green light. Chlorophyll is green, because it reflects green light more than blue and red light."
Credibility:
"Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space."
Possibility:
"NASA scientists believe they have found a way to predict the color of plants on planets in other solar systems."
Consistency:
"No one knows" - David Morrison
Propriety:
According to the reliable source Nancy Kiang, detecting the color of plants on other planets is possible. "Kiang and her colleagues calculated what the stellar light would look like at the surface of Earth-like planets whose atmospheric chemistry is consistent with the different types of stars they orbit. By looking at the changes in that light through different atmospheres, researchers identified colors that would be most favorable for photosynthesis on other planets. This new research narrows the range of colors that scientists would expect to see when photosynthesis is occurring on extrasolar planets."
Convenience:
"Mars, Titan, Europa, and other promising objects"
Refutation
False assertion to be refuted:
There is life on at least one other planets.
Exposition of the Situation:
Same as above
Uncertainty:
"Thre is no direct evidence today of life on any planet beyond Earth. The search for life beyond Earth is one of the major goals of astrobiology." - David Morrison
Incredibility:
"...only on Earth does the whole complicated mix come together in a way that encourages life"
Impossibility:
"In order for life (in the form that is most familiar to us) to evolve on a planet, scientists believe that the planet must be warm enough to contain at least some liquid water, but not so hot that all of the water turns to vapor, as appears to be the case on the planet Venus." - Brian W. Stewar
Lack of Consistency:
"In order for life (in the form that is most familiar to us) to evolve on a planet, scientists believe that the planet must be warm enough to contain at least some liquid water, but not so hot that all of the water turns to vapor... It must also contain certain important elements, like carbon and nitrogen, that are necessary to build living cells, and the environment must be calm enough that life has time to develop - the planets in some star systems may be hit so frequently by giant meteorites (causing all the surface water to boil or vaporize) that life never has a chance to form there." - Brian W. Stewar
Impropriety:
"There is no direct evidence today of life on any planet beyond Earth." - David Morrison
Inconvenience:
"little is presently known about habitable environments within our Solar System"
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Blog 2: Everything Heuristic
pp. 13: "an aid to discovery"
pp. 432: "any system of investigation"
pp. 80: enriching stock of arguments with; enrich intellectual "copia" (abundant and ready supply of language; arguments or figures available for use on any occasion).
pp. 387: functions of ancient memory: "software is now available that serves the heuristic functions of ancient memory-something that literate storage could not do.
pp. 51: Generations of: "Invention" (the art of discovering all of the arguments made available by a given rhetorical situation) mechanisms ("can serve as a means of") include karios, stasis theory, the commonplaces, and the topics. All "can generate heuristics, which are usually lists of questions that help rhetors to investigate issues systematically."
pp. 51: interested communities serving as: "because it can be used to ascertain the available arguments that are in circulation among interested parties.
pp. 133: potential of commonplaces and: "they (Rhetorical commonplaces) give rise to an inexhaustible supply of proofs. They can be used as major premises for arguments, and like all rhetorical proofs, they can also be used to persuade others to join the community and to accept its commitments." ... "Using it, a rhetor can think through his position on almost any [political] issue."
pp. 72: questions raised by: "Rhetors who work through the questions raised by [this] heuristic in systematic fashion will find that the process: Clarifies their thinking about the point in dispute, forces them to think about the assumptions and values shared by members of their targeted audience, establishes areas in which more research needs to be done, suggests which proofs are crucial to the case, [and] perhaps even points the way toward the most effective arrangement of the proofs."
pp. 126: using topic of degree as: "to discover the wide range of arguments that are available on...almost any issue."
pp. 432: "any system of investigation"
pp. 80: enriching stock of arguments with; enrich intellectual "copia" (abundant and ready supply of language; arguments or figures available for use on any occasion).
pp. 387: functions of ancient memory: "software is now available that serves the heuristic functions of ancient memory-something that literate storage could not do.
pp. 51: Generations of: "Invention" (the art of discovering all of the arguments made available by a given rhetorical situation) mechanisms ("can serve as a means of") include karios, stasis theory, the commonplaces, and the topics. All "can generate heuristics, which are usually lists of questions that help rhetors to investigate issues systematically."
pp. 51: interested communities serving as: "because it can be used to ascertain the available arguments that are in circulation among interested parties.
pp. 133: potential of commonplaces and: "they (Rhetorical commonplaces) give rise to an inexhaustible supply of proofs. They can be used as major premises for arguments, and like all rhetorical proofs, they can also be used to persuade others to join the community and to accept its commitments." ... "Using it, a rhetor can think through his position on almost any [political] issue."
pp. 72: questions raised by: "Rhetors who work through the questions raised by [this] heuristic in systematic fashion will find that the process: Clarifies their thinking about the point in dispute, forces them to think about the assumptions and values shared by members of their targeted audience, establishes areas in which more research needs to be done, suggests which proofs are crucial to the case, [and] perhaps even points the way toward the most effective arrangement of the proofs."
pp. 126: using topic of degree as: "to discover the wide range of arguments that are available on...almost any issue."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Blog 1: class notes from 1/19 and 1/21 2010
Progymnasmata: rhetorical situation. Conditions for debate are set up.
Sophism: people trained to debate, teach, learn what to say.
Socrates: knowledge is inherent.
3 Types of Rhetoric: In classical rhetoric, oratory was divided into 3 branches or kinds of causes.
1. Judicial
2. Deliberative
4. Epideictic
1492: Gutenberg: Printing press
"Ancient Rhetorics"
Aristotle: Poetics
-codify rules of arguing, debate, ...
Augustine: Polytheist: wrote a lot about christianity.
Descartes
The Rhetorical Triangle: all three link, and story goes on in middle.
Audience
Purpose Occasion
Superadressee:
Purpose = Occasion
Cisero: original discusser to talk of 5 cannons of rhetoric:
1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Style
4. Memory
5. Delivery
3 Appeals:
1. Ethos: Credibility
2. Pathos: Overly emotional
3. Logos: Reason
Sophism: people trained to debate, teach, learn what to say.
Socrates: knowledge is inherent.
3 Types of Rhetoric: In classical rhetoric, oratory was divided into 3 branches or kinds of causes.
1. Judicial
2. Deliberative
4. Epideictic
1492: Gutenberg: Printing press
"Ancient Rhetorics"
Aristotle: Poetics
-codify rules of arguing, debate, ...
Augustine: Polytheist: wrote a lot about christianity.
Descartes
The Rhetorical Triangle: all three link, and story goes on in middle.
Audience
Purpose Occasion
Superadressee:
Purpose = Occasion
Cisero: original discusser to talk of 5 cannons of rhetoric:
1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Style
4. Memory
5. Delivery
3 Appeals:
1. Ethos: Credibility
2. Pathos: Overly emotional
3. Logos: Reason
Progymnasmata: Cheria
"The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits" (Isocrates) In other words, Education is hard, but the benefits that come from it make it worth the effort.
Rhetorical Activity 2 #2
The Chief Illiniwek mascot was retired after a game on February 22, 2007.
The mascot is not the only display of Indian heritage that has caused controversy. Dickson Mounds Museum", which is considered a National Historic Site, once had the archaeological sites’ burial ground exposed, showing the deceased ancestors of Native Americans to tourists.
Governor Jim Edgar had the museum closed in the early ‘90s to remodel the museum and cover the bones, and either placed artificial replications above them, or closed the observatory for good.
Near Dickson Mounds, it appears that an archeological dig has been going on for some time.
The mascot is not the only display of Indian heritage that has caused controversy. Dickson Mounds Museum", which is considered a National Historic Site, once had the archaeological sites’ burial ground exposed, showing the deceased ancestors of Native Americans to tourists.
Governor Jim Edgar had the museum closed in the early ‘90s to remodel the museum and cover the bones, and either placed artificial replications above them, or closed the observatory for good.
Near Dickson Mounds, it appears that an archeological dig has been going on for some time.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
About me
Short introduction to myself:
This first blog is to write about my major, what I plan to do with it and what I hope to get out of the class.
I am a Psychology Major, English Professional Writing Minor; planning to graduate in August of 2010. I plan to remain in the Colorado area and pursue another degree or work somewhere near the mountains.
I hope to increase my composition and rhetoric skills in this class, and have proficient ability to refer back to my book in the future when certain skills relevant to the course material are needed. This course is one of four I need to receive the Professional Writing Minor.
This first blog is to write about my major, what I plan to do with it and what I hope to get out of the class.
I am a Psychology Major, English Professional Writing Minor; planning to graduate in August of 2010. I plan to remain in the Colorado area and pursue another degree or work somewhere near the mountains.
I hope to increase my composition and rhetoric skills in this class, and have proficient ability to refer back to my book in the future when certain skills relevant to the course material are needed. This course is one of four I need to receive the Professional Writing Minor.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)