Sunday, September 30, 2012
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.
Friday, September 28, 2012
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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Splainin' Enthymemes
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. |
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.
Monday, September 17, 2012
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."
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."
Saturday, September 8, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
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!
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!
Saturday, September 1, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)