Ninja by day, student by night

ARCS pp. 128-140

Terminology

ideology – common sense shared among members of a community, bodies of beliefs, doctrines, familiar ways of thinking.

hegemonic – dominant ideologies, ideologies that are subscribed to by large groups of people

articulate – to speak and to connect to nearby things or concepts.  Articulation occurs when new ideological constructs challenge old ones, can be held by a small group or an entire culture, none is unique

commonplaces – used to smooth over contradictions in people’s lives, ‘go without saying’, ‘taken for granted’

Commonplaces

American patriotism – downplays fears of going to war, dying, being hurt; people who don’t support the war are unpatriotic but people who didn’t support the war are also patriots because they didn’t want America to invade foreign countries.

what it means to be an American – patriot, tolerance, benevolence, golden rule, communicable cooperation, equality, freedom, truth-telling, practicality, ingenuity, independent-mindedness

Land of the free

All men are created equal

Tax and spend

family values

Outlaw guns, arm criminals

Earth first

Good planets are hard to find

Hatred is not a family value

Specific commonplaces from page 131-132

• This is the way things are; there’s no point thinking about how they should be.
• people who teach or write or report the news should be objective
• There are unjust wars, but also just wars
• If you disobey the law, you get what you deserve
• If you work hard, you’ll do well for yourself, if you aren’t doing well, then it’s your fault
• Freedom of speech is desirable, but not when it threatens national security
• Racial equality is good, we’ve gone far enough in that direction
• Our constitution guarantees liberty and justice for all
• The US has a duty to intervene in foreign countries in order to promote democracy
• Change occurs when you go through the proper channels
• We need nuclear weapons to prevent war
• There is nothing that ordinary people can do to prevent injustices in the world

Composing to learn

Commonplaces are all over the place, although I wasn’t recognizing them and maybe they are so entrenched into our daily lives that we don’t recognize them even as we are learning to look for them.  I think a good exercise might be to watch television and commercials to see how many commonplaces pop up.  My family is very analytical about what we watch and read, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to look for commonplaces in our daily lives and point them out.  The one thing I’m curious about is how to make arguments out of commonplaces, and then persuading someone using them, if that’s possible, but I’m not sure if that’s a possibility at this point. Probably will go over that in the next reading.

Questions

How to make arguments from commonplaces?

ARCS pp. 117-128

Terminology

place – first meant literally where a topic was, now more an “intellectual source or region harboring a proof that could be inserted into any discourse”.  Also a part of classification systems.

topic – formal or structural inventive strategies, such as classification systems.  Modern topics are representations of structures in the human mind as opposed to language.  Contemporary topics are specific procedures that generate arguments.

commonplace – Contemporary commonplaces are statements that circulate within ideologies.  Ancient rhetoric treats commonplaces and topics as the same because they were known by anyone who spoke or wrote the language and cared about current events.

epideictic – comparison between praise and blame.  A mode where you talk about what is good about something, or the other way.

common topics – Compiled by Aristotle, but not by Aristotle.  Topics that were suited to any argument at all.

• Things that have occurred or will occur
• Whether a thing is greater or smaller than another – the degree of a value
• What is possible

special topics – topics that belonged to some specific field of argument (politics, ethics and law)

conjecture – educated guesses about something that took place in the past, present or future (modern), describe the way things are (contemporary)

Commonplaces

Classification is a commonplace.

Women were not allowed to be credited as authors for Biblical texts.

Solomon was one person who wrote all the  songs of Solomon

Homer was a guy who wrote some epic poems

traditional family values

Composing to learn

Epideictic topics have their contemporary counterparts, such as the eulogy, the best man’s speech at a wedding, and political discussions on a topic (everything about that topic is bad!).  I was trying to think of an example where someone would only point out the bad things about a person or an event, but I couldn’t think of anything beyond the normal family dysfunction.  Maybe an infomercial could do that, they tend to show how ordinary methods are sub par to their method, the focus is how much more difficult life is when you do things without their product.

The degree of value can make a difference on whether people will reach stasis, because if a person doesn’t feel strongly about a topic, then they probably won’t make a stand.

There are more commonplaces in this chapter and in our discussion in class, but I’m still not coming up with my own commonplaces.  I know there are some because people assume a lot about other people.  I notice that many people in our class feel strongly about politics and assume that everyone knows about the bible, but I’m betting there are probably quite a few people who aren’t Christian in our class and probably more that couldn’t quote the bible to save their lives.

Questions

I would like to see a specific example of a topic/commonplace in ancient rhetoric so I can compare it to modern topics/commonplaces.

ARCS pp. 71-93

Terminology

stasis theory – systematic way of asking questions about rhetorical situations

stasis – refers to the place where two opposing sides come together or where they agree to disagree; place where a rhetor makes a stand

theoretical questions – address the origins and natures of things

practical questions – what people should do

hypothesis – a specific question that involved actual persons, places or events

thesis – name general questions that apply to general things not related to actual people or events

staseis – four questions to reach stasis

1. conjecture – Is there an act to be considered?
   1. Does the thing exist or is it true?
   2. What is its origin?
   3. What cause produced it?
   4. What changes can be made in it?
2. definition – How can the act be defined?
   1. What kind of thing or event?
   2. Where does it belong?
   3. How do we classify it?
   4. What are its parts? How are they related?
3. quality – How serious is the act?
   1. Is it good or bad?
   2. Sought or avoided?
   3. Right or wrong?
   4. Better or worse?
   5. More desirable the alternatives?
   6. More honorable than something else?
4. policy – Should this act be submitted to some formal procedure?
   1. Should some action be taken?
   2. What actions are possible or desirable?
   3. How will the proposed change things?
   4. Will the proposed changes improve things?

Commonplaces

Mentioning the negative aspects of your argument will help your opponent

There are two sides to every argument

Composing to learn

We learned in class that stasis doesn’t occur when people are not answering the same question, so it is the first step to make sure that we are comparing the same things.  Although the discussion was only about magazines, I felt like people were getting upset, even though they said they weren’t taking it personally.  What we learned that day was that some people were discussing the magazine’s target audience and the others were discussing the types of people who would find the magazine appealing, while others were discussing if people outside the target audience would find the magazine appealing.  So they were trying to discuss it, but got into a stalemate because they couldn’t find any way to get past that.  We never got past the first step because nobody could find a point to disagree on, where they were comparing the same things.

Questions

If you find that you can’t reach stasis, then how do you decide which argument to work with?  Are there ancient rhetoric methods for getting someone (or yourself) to let go of the argument in favor of another?

understanding analysis (texts and arguments) DK pp.81-115

Terminology

analysis – breaking something into smaller, more manageable pieces, then examining and/or questioning each piece

understand – being able to interpret the smaller pieces and explain how they fit together

rhetorical analysis – a) determine why the author made decisions about purpose, audience for the context b) determine what choices were made by the author

ethos – the assumptions people make about a composer

pathos – the strategies used to  shift an audience’s emotions

logos – the choices made about the organization of an author’s work that will help the audience have the intended experience.  Also about how ideas are structured.

evidence – a part of the thesis statement, includes the reason for the claim.  Made up of:

• expert testimony – someone who has special and thorough knowledge on a topic
• personal experience – something the author has experienced personally, but is limited evidence
• analogies – comparing two things in a way that is easy to understand, typically a description and are not evidence, but a persuasive strategy
• facts – statement about an event or condition that is verifiable, but must be supported by credible sources and minimize bias
• field research – compiled information about a topic, usually organized into statistics.  Peer-reviewed is best, but make sure that the source is credible, that the research used unbiased method and there is no underlying expectations.
• shared values – discusses an argument using the assumption that the audience shares the same beliefs and encourages the audience to agree with them

claim – a statement about what the author believes in

warrant – links evidence to a claim

Commonplaces

A cover’s purpose is to sell the book

We know an author through their work

Logos is only about logic

Composing to learn

Shared values are more important to writing than I originally thought.  I do remember that when we write that we are trying to convince, so it makes sense that you can start with the assumption that the audience will agree with you, but there are times where people want to change people’s minds, so perhaps the assumption is that the audience will not agree.   Speeches are like that as well, in my communication studies class we are reading about persuasive arguments, and how we should consider who is are audience because it will change the way you develop a speech.

Questions

None

Read “Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation: Seizing the Moment” -ARCS pp. 44-63

Terminology

kairos – seizing the moment, opportunity. In rhetoric, we use this to discuss issues that are important now, because if you wait, they might not be as meaningful later

heuristic – any system of investigation, lists of questions that investigate issues systematically

invention – created through multiple means such as kairos, statis theory, commonplaces and topics

Commonplaces

In order to ‘seize the moment’, one must know everything about an issue at any given moment

Composing to learn

I tend to have a lot of missed kairos, opportunities to say and do things that I regret later, so most of my resolutions are based on, “Let’s try to do this or that next time”.  However, after thinking about how prepared you need to be in order to “seize the moment”, I wonder how the ancient rhetors did it.  Obviously in their case they knew they would be discussing things, so they could prepare, but I think it also takes a bit of mental agility to predict that an opportunity will come up, much like a chess player (I know some of the chess moves, but to be honest, I don’t know how people can think that many moves ahead).  I also think kairos asks for courage and the willingness to take a risk.

Questions

If powerful people don’t make a stand or give an opinion, how can they say they believe in anything?

How can an ordinary person be aware and be able to take advantage of opportunities without going into information overload?

Read “Finding Ideas” -DK pp. 17-37

Terminology

composing to learn – used in personal writing, the audience is you.  Is built from input and output such as reading, writing and sketching for your personal use

composing to communicate – used in public writing, the purpose is to share information (communicate) with others

thesis statement – logical arguments for your conclusion

statement of purpose – the process of coming up with a thesis statement

brainstorming – letting your brain make associations without prejudice

freewriting – recording your thoughts on any ideas

clustering – viewing relations between ideas, also known as mapping

statis questions – help determine what is at stake in an argument and the complexity.

Questions of:

• Fact
• Definition
• Interpretation
• Consequence
• Value
• Policy

Commonplaces

linear writing – follow the steps and you will have a good piece of writing

Composing to learn

Since I’m coming from a computer engineering/science background, I have seen the process of iterative design, and it makes sense that the same process will work for writing.  I’ve never been able to just write a paper and be done with it, I typically have to write outlines, research, revise, write, pull hair and then revise, write until I feel I have a good start to whatever I’m trying to get out of the process.  Then I read it out loud so I can assure myself that it doesn’t sound idiotic or that I missed some words or make a huge grammar blunder.  After that I usually have someone look it over, but to be honest, I think I’m the pickiest out of the people I know right now.  I also need a lot of time to go with this process because my brain gets overloaded and needs a break from thinking about the editing portion, which is something that the book mentions as part of the writing process.  This process doesn’t usually happen in my blog posts because I treat it as personal writing, and want it to be in my personal voice, so I tend to run on without any restraint.

Questions

None for this one.

ARCS pp. 1-22

Terminology

ethos – ethical proofs, depend on the rhetor’s character

pathos -emotional proofs, persuade by appealing to the audience’s emotions

logos – logical proofs, persuade by deriving arguments and manipulating the arguments to prove a conclusion.  I remember inductive proofs from logic class.

ideology – networks of interpretation, the way people interpret and use facts, a set of beliefs by a group of people used to understand, and predict events and behavior in their society

issues – contested commonplaces

Commonplaces

Your opinion – opinions aren’t important, opinions aren’t facts, opinions belong to individuals, can’t change a person’s opinion because they are tied up in people’s identities

Challenging opinions – Rude, insulting to a person, implies a person is stupid

Facts – provable, can’t be denied, solid as a rock, facts belong to everyone

Specific examples from book:

• anyone can be president
• all men are created equal

Still can’t come up with my own examples.

Composing to learn

The differences between ancient and modern rhetoric breaks down into three types in the ARCS book:  ancient rhetors didn’t value facts as much as arguments and/or the belief system in place at the time, which is called invention.  The second difference is that ancient rhetors valued opinions, while modern rhetors treat opinions as if they were purely emotional, unsubstantial constructs.  I liked the idea that if you were an expert, or that your ethos had value, then your opinions matter because it was based on the society you grew up in (although that means that probably someone low-class might not have the ability to build their ethos like nobility or upper-class citizens).

My commonplaces list has some of my own assumptions about opinions, I definitely feel that if someone questions my opinion, that they are trying to make me look bad, which in turn means that I don’t questions others as much as I should, because I try to be polite and avoid getting into big arguments with people I don’t know.  I don’t have that problem with people I do know though, but I definitely take things too personally at times.  I think that I will work on changing my attitude about opinions, and see if I can keep myself from jumping to conclusions.

Questions

Still can’t come up with my own commonplaces…how do I think of commonplaces by myself?

I decided to merge all my vocabulary from Week 1 into the terminology for this week.

Read: ARCS – preface (pp. xi – xvii); DK chp 1 (pp. 2-16)

Terminology

rhetoric – the art that helps people compose effective discourse

analogy – a comparison, either of particulars or of relations; also, a proof developed by Aristotle wherein a rhetor compares one hypothetical example to another

commonplaces – any statement or bit of knowledge that is commonly shared among a given audience or a community; also, an elementary exercise, a progymnasmata

invention – The process of examining positions held by others.  Aristotle defines invention as finding and displaying the available arguments on any issue. Also is a division of rhetoric that gives the rules of engagement for creating an argument.

argument – people involved disagree about something, also another term for a proof

facts – statements that have been substantiated through experience or proved through research, or events that really happened (pg 10-11).  Facts are repeatable and/or verifiable statements, like an experiment, where you can verify the results by getting information about an event, or getting the same results.

testimony – a person’s account of an event or state of affairs

conjectures – any issue of topic that considers a proposed state of affairs

stasis – a stand; place where opponents agree to disagree

network of interpretation – the rules or point of view that makes facts useful or interesting.  Older societies felt that facts were interpreted through a human’s perception, thus including some type of bias into the fact.  There was also the idea that rhetoric needs persuasiveness to make it work, facts do not have that persuasive bit about them because they just exist.

proposition – any arguable statement put forward for discussion by a rhetor

descriptions – one of the elementary exercises, or progymnasmata; discusses attributes or appearance of something or someone

comparisons – placing two similar items together and examine their similarities, also an elementary exercise or progymnasmata

invective – a discourse that casts blame on somebody or something

tale – a short narrative

logos – everything that can be said about a person

Commonplaces

Sheryl Crow and Laurie David vs Karl Rove

• Out of touch Hollywood, confrontation is a type of acting
  • “to set aside Hollywood histrionics and try to help with the problem instead of this baseless, and tasteless, finger pointing”
• “You can’t speak to us like that, you work for us” vs “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people.”, “We are the American people”

Opinion as identity

Composing to Learn

This first reading had a lot of new and old ideas mashed together and I’m not sure how commonplaces will work at this point.  As far as I can tell, everyone is pretty much clueless about all the ancient and modern rhetoric, but definitely have ideas about contemporary rhetoric.  There was a lot of discussion about political rhetoric, which is something I don’t like discussing because it can get personal and people get really angry because they take it personally.  This also includes me, I am clueless about rhetoric, I take things personally but I don’t want to, so this should be a good learning experience for me on how to have difficult discussions without getting out of hand.  Ideally I will learn how to use rhetoric and avoid commonplaces by recognizing the differences.

Questions

How do I recognize commonplaces?

DK pp. 450-455

Terminology

revising – done when the author has completed a full draft, the editor checks the persuasive elements of the text, organization and style

editing – done when the overall argument is set and no major changes are going to be made.  The editor checks sentence style and the larger details such as citations.

proofreading – check spelling, punctuation, grammar.  This is the final step, and should not be done until all revising and editing is completed.

Commonplaces

revising, editing are the same thing

Composing to learn

I always thought that revising and editing (and I guess proofreading) were all the same all-encompassing thing.  It makes sense that splitting the paper into smaller parts would make catching specific errors easier, and the editor just needs to focus on a few things, rather than hitting them all up.  I’m also guessing that this would speed things up as well.  Instead of moving slowly through the text, trying to fix errors then trying to make sure that the content is correct.    Overall, I like the method because anything done in steps is easier to follow, you can check off things and probably won’t miss as much because you are looking for specific things.  I think this counts as a heuristic method.

Questions

I don’t really have any questions about editing and proofreading, they seem to have covered all the bases.  I am surprised that they don’t have a ‘cheat sheet’ that includes all the questions for revising/editing/proofreading on one page so students can check things off as they go along.  I wonder what would be the best format to do this?  I’m thinking that would be a better question for my 356 class.