White Space

As I said in my last post, this is an iconic image of war - particularly of the Iraq War. And I defintely think it was a powerful piece of visual rhetoric back in the mid 2000's. What I didn't get into was the elements of rhetoric this image uses to convey its message. Feelin a little rusty, but here goes.

The flags draped over the coffins certainly is an iconic image. It represents our country, it represents a fallen soldier. In that way I suppose this is a paradigm. But there is also an enthymeme here, which is that we send over to Iraq our troops and equipment in this cargo plane and they come back to us like this, in coffins. The pathos is pretty clear - my first emotion is sadness, then regret, then anger.

But then I notice the spectacle of it. I see the people at the top of the photo in poses that seem altogether too casual. Who knows. Maybe it's just regret or reverence. In any case, the coldness of the temporary steel tomb probably doesn't help this feeling I get of irony. We send our people, our money and this is what we get in return. They give their lives, forsake their families and this is what they get in return.

Photography is a tricky thing to understand, because you have to be there in the moment and many times you must take what you can get at that very moment. Obviously, the photographer here did not arrange the coffins just so, nor did you likely ask the people to stand as they are. He didn't pick the harsh light at the end of the tunnel so to speak, but he is probably using a flash in the foreground of the picture. So his composition must be thought of in those terms. He certainly has plenty of constraints at work. But that also seems to make the message more authentic. Photography has a sort of ethos that some other forms of visual rhetoric do not.

Paying attention to any and all of the visual elements that something like a photograph represents also lets you emphasize things using those visual "tricks" like lighting, color, focus, etc. It tells you what is important in the photo, how your eye should travel can even be aesthetically pleasing. Visuals are also a lot quicker to absorb. They don't "overburden readers" as the article I analyzed says. And they can even be aesthetic. Even this photo, with its vivid colors could be interpreted as beautiful in the same way that Cormac McCarthy's description of a human being being murdered can be strangely poetic.

The last thing I wanted to point out was the light at the end of the tunnel effect this photo gives. It almost is reassuring, perhaps to those with religious beliefs that include bright, white lights. But it also sort of links the US with that white light, as if their arrival on US soil is a sort of reinforcement of the idea that WE are good and THEY (over there in the Middle East) are bad. In a way it also gives confirmation to the war. Perhaps that's not something that was intended, but if you stare at it long enough I think it starts to make sense.

Visual Rhetoric - White Space & More...

Text + Graphics = Visual Rhetoric

That's the link to the pdf above. I hope it works. I like how this article points out that the letters that I'm typing into this blog, even the white space that surrounds those letters, is a form of visual rhetoric. It's not just charts and graphs. I won't spill all the beans here since I think we're going to talk about these pieces in class on Monday.

Anyway, what I really think of when I think of visual rhetoric are things like this:

If anyone remembers this they'll also remember what an absolute shitstorm these photos caused. The pentagon banned the release of such images, citing a right to privacy. The press and the left pushed back, citing the citizens' right to see how our troops were coming back from Iraq. After all, WE had sent them there.

What I think this says about visual rhetoric is that it can be powerful - so powerful in fact, that a government can ban its composition. The DOD was so afraid of what these images would conjure in the minds of Americans that they decided they were too dangerous for us to see. It wasn't national security they were protecting, but rather the security of their war. The support of the American people would surely flag if they continued to watch the coffins roll out of cargo planes on a daily basis. A body count on the nightly news was one thing, but seeing the bodies, or at least a flag-draped representation of them, was apparently quite another. In the end, visual rhetoric is no different than verbal or textual rhetoric. It can be productive, it can be persuasive and it can be banned by those who would censor our right to speech in favor of bombs.

Visual rhetoric seems to convey a sense of authenticity, an ethos that the written or spoken word may have lost. Even words, though, have the power to conjure images in our heads. Think of the "smoking gun...in the form of a mushroom cloud" that 'ol Bushy deposited in our brains in the runup to the war. So is text that has the power of sparking our imagination more or less powerful than an actual image? What if Bush simply gave us a visual of a nuclear warhead detonating? I don't know. I think the visual in my head is far more powerful than the visual any Hollywood producer could create. But the visual is almost a sort of enthymeme. You use it and allow the audience to interpret it. Obviously some visuals are going to work better than others, just like an enthymeme. So I suppose visuals are only as good as their authors can create. And the author must keep in mind the same things that we keep in mind when we create text-based rhetoric.

Actions Following Patterns

Of the hundreds, maybe thousands of rhetorical situations I encounter on a daily basis, it is incredibly hard to think of just one. For some reason it's the situations that involve conflict that seem to stick out in my memory. So maybe I'll just take a mundane sort of situation and see what happens. The exigence of this particular situation was that my boss wanted to know how my project was going at work. In fact, it's going less than optimally. I suppose he created this situation, but, as Grant-Davie points out, he was not wholly responsible. I suppose I was also a part of the exigence. Otherwise he would not have asked me.

We were each other's audience, but there happened to be another person in the room - our general manager. However, his role was strictly informational and sporadic at best. He was dealing with other things while he was in the room. I suppose there was also another indirect audience member - that of an investor in our company. His participation in these kinds of rhetorical situations is often fuzzy to me. But I suppose he would want to know from my boss what the status of my project is as well. On the other hand, Bitzer points out, the general manager might not have actually been rhetorical, because "the rhetorical audience must be capable of serving as mediator of the change which the discourse functions to produce" (8). As far as I have observed so far, the only way he has been involved in my project so far has been to take credit for the things I've done right. ;)

Now, obviously there are constraints that have already been placed on this situation. He is my boss. I am his employee. And we have a history of about six years in which we've both probably learned how to interact with each other in a meaningful way. For my part, I knew that saying "we're behind and I need more money" was probably not the best way to start out the conversation. But ultimately my goals were to communicate that message to him. I didn't want to hide the fact that we were behind. Nor did I want to leave the conversation without expressing the fact that I need more resources in order to have the project succeed. I started out comparing sales from my particular division with previous sales. In essence, I put the project into context for him. But putting my project into context involves using a lot of technical (internet-type) terminology that he just doesn't understand. So I brought in visual aids - namely that of Google, which probably helped to reinforce my ethos a bit as well as helped him to "get it" a little bit better. In many cases, I seemed to be pointing out a lot of the constraints I encountered in the project. So in a way, they kind of paralleled some of my rhetorical constraints.

I never thought about it this way, but Bitzer also points out that "one cannot say that the rhetorical situation is simply a response of the speaker to the demands or expectations of an audience" (9) because I too wanted to have this conversation. I needed to have this conversation in order to get the resources I needed.

Prezidentz on Rhetoric

Above is my rhetorical analysis of the piece below. I hope you enjoy it!

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

I Like Big Bird Too

I tried a little experiment for these debates. I admit, it wasn't intended. On Wednesday night I tried watching the debates online while my 20-month old ran around the living room trying to get me to read books to him. Eventually I gave in. I was totally distracted, but not so much to agree with most people that Romney, despite the weird eye blinky thing and the constant constipated grin, "won" the debate decisively. The next night I listened to NPR's audio of the debates and got a totally different perspective. It actually seemed like a debate. I was able to concentrate more on the substance of what the two candidates were saying. Oh, and I didn't have Sawyer in my face this time. He was in bed by the time I got to this last night. If I had enough time I would have liked to read the transcript from the debate and see if/how that might change my perspective even more. In fact, it would probably make a great experiment in rhetoric to see how people in general would respond to the various means of delivery - tv, audio and print. The one enthymeme I can't get past is that Romney's flag pin was bigger than Obama's. Obviously he is more patriotic. So since it seems the visual is so important in determining the outcome of the debate, let's look at that. In fact, let's look just a facial expressions. I tried to pay close attention to both candidates when they were talking and when they were listening. Here's what I saw: Obama talking: Obama seemed to have a hard time knowing where to look. He made brief "eye" contact with the camera, but most of the time he seemed to be looking at Lehrer, the moderator. Beyond that it appeared like there was just black emptiness. He rarely looked at Romney and addressed him directly. He seemed more comfortable looking down at his podium. He seemed unsure of his words at times. He definitely looked professorial, which seems to imply to some that he has a superiority complex. Saying things like "it's instructive" probably helped. Romney talking: When Romney was speaking he seemed sure of himself, as if he really believed all the BS (sorry, can't help myself) he was shoveling onto the stage. But in the made for tv environment of the debate, it didn't really matter that his plans had no specifics. In fact, after the debate I heard one commentator say "I think Obama was thrown off by all the specifics that Mitt Romney had to present." Anyway, Romney seemed excited. Maybe even a little coked up. Who knows. His demeanor couldn't have been better. He seemed cured of that whole talking out of the side of his mouth thing. He was definitely on the attack and had refutations for almost everything that Obama said. He was prepared to spin away anything that Obama had to sling at him and he did it confidently. The guy is like a pro lier (sorry again). He does it deadpan. People believed him. Shit, I almost believed the guy! My wife, who is a staunch democrat, but who doesn't follow politics very closely, said "he seems like a nice guy." But what I think Romney did most effectively was that he seemed to be looking at Obama almost the entire time (while Obama looked at his shoes). He was addressing Obama (not the audience it should be noted) and I think that shaped his overall demeanor during the debates. Obama when Romney was talking: The thing that bugged me the most about Obama was that, when his head wasn't tilted to the side and looking down, he seemed to be nodding in agreement with Romney! "Yes," he seemed to be saying, "I agree with you Mitt." Was this just a nervous twitch? I would think that if when they practiced and Obama was doing this his coaches would have told him to stop doing this. It's one thing to be cordial. It's another to act like you agree with everything your opponent is saying! The rest of the time he just looked pissed that he wasn't drinking wine and eating a steak dinner with his wife. Romney when Obama was talking: He seriously looked like he was pooping...painfully. What was that grin on his face? But at least he looked like he was paying attention and he was quick to jump into the conversation or demand more time from Lehrer to rebut what Obama was saying. Stylistically, I think these social cues were perhaps the most influential part of the debate. Obama looked awkward and on sedatives. Romney looked at ease and excited. Romney spoke plainly and in generalizations while Obama tried to dazzle the audience with numbers, which easily became a blur. The fact-checking folks had a field day with both candidates and concluded neither were very accurate. But I think Romney's "victory" came largely with his ability to appeal to the common man, something he has had a hard time doing up until this point. Contrasted with Obama's performance, Romney seemed like someone you'd rather have a beer with, even though, like our last president, he doesn't drink.

Cacozelia

Accumulatio - Therefore, this man is an asshole because he stole my car, emptied my bank account, made fun of me in front of my children and kicked my dog. Bdelygmia - I hate it when someone corrects my grammar. Cacozelia - You can easily see through her Cacozelia - I mean listen to her, going on about the "pientures." Diasyrmus - Understanding rhetoric is like understanding women - just when you think you've got it you find out you're completely wrong. Effictio - She was a tall blonde, with long, thick eyelashes, curves that could knock you into next Tuesday and a pair of feet that smelled fairly of sulfur. Geographia - He stood in the center of the plain, his feet planted firmly on the ground, yet his head was in some nether region, mainly that of Uranus. Homiologia - I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, like Rhetoric. Intimation - Hey, you wanna come back to my place and, you know, squeak, squeak, squeak? (What, I meant fix my squeaky bicycle wheel!) Litotes - I fail to see why you're so angry about this mouse in your soup. Mempsis - Dude, at least help me out of this snake pit you pushed me into. Noema - When the dog barks, go West and don't stop until you hit the lumber yard. Ominatio - The communists will rise and steal all yer healthcare. Be forewarned! Paradox - The meek shall inherit the earth. Rhetorical Question - What's the point of all this? Subjectio - What should we do next? How about drink heavily. Tmesis - That was fan fucking tastic! Verborum Bombus - I have the world's largest waffle iron, which is why my waffles are so big! Zeugma - As I was eating cake with icing, Jim chips dip. Wow. That was fun.

Presidential Paper

I probably should have sought a clarification...or maybe I missed it, but I'm not sure if we're supposed to be thinking about the means of persuasion of the presidential candidate or our own means of persuasion for making an argument about the candidates' means of persuasion. I'm guessing the former. So here goes. I think I'd like to focus on "Prepon" or Appropriateness and Propriety. When I read this section I thought it applied very well to the campaign and saw lots of fodder for stylistic dissection. The concept of Opportunity I found the most interesting. "the speaker should preempt criticism; for something that seems true when the speaker does not conceal what he is doing" (211). There is this whole idea of transparency in the campaigns. Both candidates talk about it, but neither really sticks to their own rules. Of course, the most glaring example of this is Romney's tax returns. The question that his critics keep asking is "what are you hiding?" Of course, recently his accountant said that Romney hasn't paid less than (I think it was) 12% in federal income tax. But we all know that accountants lie, especially when they manage lots of money. Look at Enron. In any regard, I think this could be enough for a paper alone...analyzing all the different types of rhetoric that has swirled around this topic, including Harry Reid's "secret source" that supposedly told him that Romney didn't pay any taxes for a couple of years. Of course, there is also a line that the Obama campaign cannot cross in using Romney's inopportune actions against him. I think it will be important to look at what tactics Obama has used to keep the issue in the news and how he has used enthymeme to let Romeny dig his own hole. I'll try to get some quotes up here soon and analyze each one based on the stylistic tools Aristotle puts forth.

Splainin' Enthymemes

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

Attacking the enthymemes in Obama's interview about same-sex marriage, I think one of the most obvious examples of logical argument is that gay people are everywhere. They are our coworkers, our friends and our family. They fight for our country, prepare our taxes and teach our children. They make our laws and fix our cars. They are a part of our society. They have jobs. They have families. They are useful. And they are just like you!

Indeed, same-sex couples do all the things that people in heterosexual relationships do. They wake up, they go to work, they raise children, they eat dinner, they go to sleep. And (gasp!) they might even have sex with their partner before the day is over. In other words, they have completely normal lives. There is nothing out of the ordinary that takes place in same-sex relationships, unless you believe that what they do in the bedroom is not ordinary. And a majority of Americans now think that what they do in their own bedroom is their own business.

So Obama, in using the "they're normal" enthymeme, then invokes a second enthymeme, which is that since gay people are normal, they should be able to do all the normal things that people do, one of those things of course being legal marriage. It is implied here that marriage is "good." In fact, marriage is considered one of the milestones of a person's life. And it has all sorts of legal and ethical implications. It's funny - the day after I got married, I didn't feel any different, other than the feeling of the ring on my left hand. But over the years I have seen how being married is very different than simply living with another person, having sex and splitting the bills.

I think the enthymeme Obama is invoking basically asks the question: "why not?" Why should gay couples not be able to experience what my wife and I experience, namely the feeling of security and commitment that marriage brings?

Of course, what I can't get past here is that the answer to Obama's enthymeme is that lots of people think that gay sex is deviant sex. They believe it is morally wrong, which is based primarily in their religious views, which just so happen to be the lens through which they view their world. For these people, to allow gay marriage would be to condone homosexuality and to violate their religious views.

I suppose this is where enthymemes fall short. They are based on the idea that many people think similarly. In Obama's case, he is counting on the fact that many people have come around (as he seems to state he himself has done) to the idea that what people do in the bedroom is up to them (as long as it doesn't break any laws of course). The fact that a majority of America now accepts gay people as (almost) "equal" and "normal" gives this enthymeme its power. Without that I think he would have had to do a lot more "splanin stuff" as 'ol Slick Willy would say.

Source: cbsnews.com  Obama never mentions these statistics.

I think that what is most threatening to those that think gay marriage is "bad" is that it counters their argument that gay people are just a bunch of promiscuous perverts that live in sin and will bring about the destruction of our society via the wrath of God, a la Sodom and Gomorra. To them, the argument gets harder to control when you can no longer cast gay people as "others." The idea of the "other" has always been a cornerstone of the hate argument. Obama's enthymeme is meant to counter this. It takes this idea of other away and lays bare the logic. In effect, he takes away the emotion.

It's amazing when you really drill down on this stuff. Less than 60 seconds of argument can spur hours of debate. I'm starting to see how enthymeme is a very powerful tool.

Coffee with Aristotle

I suppose pathos is as complicated as human emotions. I never thought about it that way. I actually thought pathos was the most recognizable tools of rhetoric. But this chapter has opened my eyes to how emotions may be manipulated in order to evoke a certain feeling or feelings in an audience. And as I think about pathos I think I am also becoming more aware of how it is interconnected with logos and ethos. They must be woven together in order to be powerful enough to resonate with the audience. But it certainly helps to break them down like Aristotle has in Book 2.

In the Obama piece I've been studying, there is certainly an attempt to create pathetic emotions in the listener. He uses a combination of calmness, friendliness (but also enmity), fear and confidence, shame, kindliness, pity and emulation to make his case. I explore those concepts in more depth below.

Obama uses calmness and friendliness in order to establish the tone of his rhetoric. It's obvious he isn't trying to whip people up into a frenzy, but instead is trying to convince the audience that this isn't a particularly emotional issue for him (which is ironic because it really is an emotional issue for most people). So he calmly explains his position and casts it in terms of friendship. Aristotle puts it this way: "friends are those to whom the same things are good and bad and who have the same friends and the same enemies; for they necessarily wish the same things" (125). So if you agree with Obama on this issue you could be considered "friends" or at least potential friends, if you were ever to meet. The point is that this creates the illusion of a relationship with the President. It makes him a "good guy" if you agree with him.

Aristotle states that the speaker may attempt to "bring those who through anger or enmity are on the other side of the case over to whatever feeling he chooses" (128). I believe that Obama is attempting to sway those who may be on the fence about gay marriage to come over to his side. But ultimately it's about getting more people to think like him so that he will be reelected.

I think that there is an obvious shame component. Perhaps I am biased on this subject, but I believe that Obama is making his argument in order to make the audience feel shame if they don't agree with his position. If a majority of Americans believe it's ok to marry if you're gay then it follows that many of your peers and people whom you respect also feel this way. Obama shows his own shame and the process that lead to his coming around to his current position "over the course of several years." I think he's saying that no matter what you felt before, it's ok. There is no shame in changing how you feel now. There is only shame in continuing to deny these people their rights.

Pity is an important concept here. Obama very quickly brings pity into his argument when he gives an example of how the audience might be made to suffer. Most people know someone who is gay. They might not even know it, but their friends, family and/or people they work with may be affected by this issue, whether directly or indirectly. In particular, in the accompanying post on whitehouse.gov, when Obama brings his children into the argument (as has been pointed out he often does) he brings in this idea of the family - your "own" (139) as Aristotle calls it. No one wants their own to suffer and this becomes a particularly powerful rhetorical device when used in this particular argument. Most people are fiercely protective of their families. So it follows that they are going to accept Obama's argument that people shouldn't be "treated differently."

Obama gives an example of his kindliness - in that he took a big political risk by eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Selflessness seems to be a cornerstone of the concept of kindliness. Contrasted with Romney, Obama is trying to show that he is the benevolent character and that Romney would instead make decisions that would only benefit him (personally and politically). In a sense, Obama is taking a stand that runs contrary to his own benefit, therefore emphasizing his altruism. While Romeny gives away money as a form of altruism, Obama is willing to risk his career for what is "right."

For these reasons, emulation seems to tie everything here together. Obama's goals here are two-fold. He is not only making the argument that you should support same-sex marriage, but that you should also emulate him. He is trying to make a connection with the majority of Americans who now support this issue.  In effect, he is saying "I support gay marriage, which is good, and you should support it and me, because it is all good."

The Rhetoric of Marriage

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

I guess I just like those hot-button issues. So here's my example of rhetoric from the presidential campaign. This is the now famous affirmation from President Obama that he supports, "personally," the idea that "same-sex couples should be able to get married."

I also have a statement from Josh Earnest, Special Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Press Secretary, in which he explains how Mr. Obama came around to this resolution to support gay couples in their quest to be recognized by the state as "married." Marriage goes beyond the distinction of "civil unions" in that it is the same terminology used by heterosexual couples. This has people who support gay rights cheering and those who think that gay people marrying is an attack on "traditional marriage" chiding the President. 

Whatever your view on this issue, it most certainly is rhetoric. Even though Mr. Obama characterizes this as his personal view on the matter, it has political and historical implications that reach far beyond his family, the White House and even his political party. I'm not sure how far I am supposed to go with this, but I'll at least start by characterizing much of what he said as "pathos." Much of his text is designed to make the audience feel emotion. He speaks of friendships, family and, specifically, his children. Mr. Obama states that he wouldn't want us, his audience, to have to "somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law." He speaks of respecting the views of others and of what I would characterize as the lesser of two evils - accepting gay marriage or persecuting gay people by not allowing them to marry. To Socrates, this equates to "good." 

I believe he made this statement for several reasons. One was in the hopes that he would be seen as "a good man," by taking what he hoped his rhetoric would prove is the moral high road. Second, I believe he hoped that he would show that Mr. Romney is not in favor of gay marriage and, thus, to imply to the audience that Romney is choosing the more evil of the two. I think this was pretty smart, because, according to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. And trends show that that number has been increasing steadily over the past fifteen years.

Romney would counter that Mr. Obama is "playing politics" by distracting the public from the important issues, like the economy. But like it or not, this is one of those issues that does play into peoples' hearts and at the end of the day could sway voters over to the Democratic ticket. Or it could strengthen the base of the Republican party. Whatever it does, it will be interesting to see how this snippet of rhetoric helps determine the election.

Truth is Beauty. It also hurts.

I'm not totally sure, but I believe we were supposed to answer these two questions for Wed's class:

What bothered Plato (or Socrates) about rhetoric?
When you hear "rhetoric," what does it mean?

What seemed to bother Socrates the most about rhetoric was the end goal. To Socrates, the goal should always be about finding the "truth." It should be about imparting knowledge and improving "the souls" of our fellow citizens. But Socrates believed that rhetoric's end goal was not about finding the truth, but about gaining power or imparting pleasure, neither of which he would equate with the concept of "good."

I could go on and on, as Socrates did, about justice vs. injustice, judging good vs. evil, and flattery and cookery. But I think what it really boiled down to for Socrates was the fact that the end goal of rhetoric was persuasion not truth, not advancing the virtue of man but merely placating man with good feelings.

When I hear that, or mention of rhetoric in general, I think of things like patriotism, or at least the politicization of patriotism that I have experienced in the last decade or so. Much of patriotism is designed to create feelings of unity, of strength and an unwavering cohesiveness of the ideology of the policies of a given government. It doesn't provide much in the way of truth. It is generally 100% positive and ignores, for example, all the negative things that have occurred or continue to occur in that country. An easy example is the fact that so many Americans would consider themselves patriots. They swell with emotion when they see the American flag or hear the national anthem. They are proud of all the good that has come out of America. But at the same time they ignore the atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed in the name of that same flag. The "truth" of the rhetoric surrounding patriotism is only a carefully selected version of a country's truth.

BUT one thing I wonder, and what so much of our society would probably point to as an answer to Socrates and his sacred "truth" is that there are many truths. To someone who believes in abortion, for example, the truth might be that a woman has the right to choose. But to a right to life'r, the truth might be that abortion is murder of the defenseless. In our country, the laws of the land are created by politicians. The "truth" of right and wrong, which determines whether someone is just or unjust, and will be free or imprisoned, is in the hands of these powerful men and women. In order to advance their position or, in Socrates's terms, impart the wisdom of truth on their fellow citizens, the right to choose camp would try to persuade as many people as possible to vote for another right to choose'r so that their version of the truth is written into law. Perhaps that's where the argument falls short for me. I suppose Socrates would say that it wouldn't matter if you went to prison if you broke society's laws because you would be being true to yourself. But who ultimately decides right and wrong? Zeus's judges? God? Allah? I'm sure Socrates would have an answer to the abortion issue, but he's not exactly around anymore now, is he? And like I pointed out above, we don't all agree on what the "truth" is on things as important as life and death of an unborn child. So we can't simply hold our own version of "truth" in our heads and walk around society doing what we think is "true."

It seems to me that morality must always be tempered by the society in which you live, which often is dictated by the few powerful people in the "arts" which Socrates cites. I don't know, anyone else having trouble buying the whole of his argument? I like these ideas as a way to live your life. Pain is sometimes good (think runner's high). Pleasure is sometimes bad in large quantities (think of a kegger that gets out of control).

When I hear "rhetoric" I think it means finding that balance between your convictions and the end goal. The end goal isn't always the immediate goal. The immediate goal might be to establish a relationship with a person in your class group. The end goal is to get a better grade on the group project. The logic is that having a close working relationship with your group members will earn you a better grade. Is befriending your peer in the group dishonest because it's not the truth of why you want to establish the relationship? What if you become lifelong friends? Does that change things? What if you never see that person again after class is over? Does that make it false?

Still confused. Someone please enlighten me!

Introduction (with holes)

Hi. I'm (the other) Matt. And I'm going to leave some things out about myself. It's not that I want to hide anything from you; but inevitably in these introductions there is neither the room nor the desire to truly show who we are. It makes me wonder, like in our discussion on Friday, whether this type of exercise really gets at the "truth" of who we are. Maybe that's not the point. Perhaps the point is merely to give us a few things to help us remember each other by. Like the fact that it bugs me that I ended that sentence with a preposition, but I think the proper way of saying what I just said sounds pompous.

So here we go. I am a part time student turned full time student this semester. I'm also a full time marketing and website manager at Northern Lights, though I have a flexible enough schedule that I can attend class and hope to get my homework done in what is sure to become some very long evenings. I am also a proud papa of a 1.5 year old boy named Sawyer that has absolutely baffled me with wonder. My favorite part of the day is seeing him and helping him explore this big world full of new things.

I came to Bozeman several years ago chasing that elusive dream of "living in the mountains." I love to backcountry ski, trail run, climb mountains and anything else that gets closer to the pure pleasures of life's necessities: food, water and crisp air tinged with a tiny dose of fear. These days I do a lot more 2 mile hikes with a toddler strapped to my back, stopping to inspect bugs and rocks. I don't mind the slower pace. I feel like I'm biding my time until I'll be chasing Sawyer through the Bridgers, unable to keep up with the fearlessness of youth.

I'm in the writing program to develop my writing skills and to abide by my desire for lifelong learning. I have no idea what I'll do with an Engish degree, though I hope to get away from the dripping words of marketing copy and into a career in which I can write about things that are truly meaningful. To me, that's the meaning of life: pursuing your passions. And if you don't know what those passions are then you pursue the answers that will uncover those passions.

That's me. I hope that gives you a snapshot. Wow. Ok, one more thing. I seriously just watched two sandhill cranes fly by my window. Amazing.

Similarly Similar - Rhetoric, Opinion and Pre-Writing

Pre-writing. Whenever I hear "pre-" anything I think of that master of language George Carlin. He hated prefixes. "'At this time we'd like to begin the pre-boarding process.' What is that? Pre-board - to get on before you get on?"

Ok, that probably wouldn't make the final cut on a 5/5 essay. Nor will most of my blog entries. But I think they are useful tools for writing and learning about writing. I suppose it's all a pre-writing exercise, building up to a final paper or, in some cases a magazine article or even a book. Is there value in pre-writing exercises. Yes, of course. I suppose that's why we're pushed by teachers to participate in exercises such as brainstorming, outlining and rough drafts. Pre-writing allows you to "exercise your writing muscles" as one professor told my class once. It gets the creative juices flowing, allows you to test your ideas on paper. Often contrasted by how much sense they make in my head, they often don't look as great in print.

So writing allows us to ramble, to grumble, to lay it all out. Often the work I produce in pre-writing exercises becomes all the stuff I don't put in my paper. It usually ends up in the recycle bin. But from all this pre-writing mess I eventually start to form solid ideas. And I don't feel obligated to keep much of my pre-writing because, honestly, I'm not invested in it like I am a 3rd or 4th draft.

I'm far removed from high school English classes, but I remember a great deal of emphasis being placed on outlining - rigid outlines. I was required to submit a formal outline of everything I turned in for one teacher. Of course, I cheated and created the outline based on the paper I had already written. In college I feel as if I was already expected to know how to write (even though I'm paying lots of money to have someone teach me HOW to write). So I must say that pre-writing in general hasn't had much of an emphasis placed upon it. Maybe it was my hillbilly education or my avoiding all manner of planning, but I much prefer to just start writing and see where it goes.

I probably could stand learning some rules, tips and tricks on the writing process. So I'm curious to hear what everyone else has learned. I'd never heard of the 'ol 5/5 essay thing until Monday. I guess that's why I'm here.

As for Gorgias, I think I followed until he said: "All who have and do persuade people of things do so by molding a false argument. For if all men on all subjects had both memory of things past and awareness of things present and foreknowledge of the future, speech would not be similarly similar, since as things are now it is not easy for them to recall the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future. So that on most subjects most men take opinion as counselor to their soul, but since opinion is slippery and insecure it casts those employing it into slippery and insecure successes" (2). I think he's equating persuasion to "false argument," which seems to me simply a euphemism for lying. Perhaps it's no small accident that many people have this opinion of rhetoric. Though Gorgias uses rhetoric to try to persuade us to share his opinion. I know, that's not what he would call it. But isn't that really what it is? Or is that simply my opinion? Now my head is spinning...