"The Web’s hyperlinks entice and engage audiences, keeping us online by, in the prophetic words of Williams, offering “the reiterated promise of exciting things to come, if we stay” (95). Web texts, by giving their audiences a prodding glimpse toward what may come, engender an actively emergent Web experience that is always flowing toward the possible."

Engaging with the idea of endless possibility, there is also an idea of endless acquisition of knowledge. Which in turn brings into conversation, ethics. How do we confirm what is true? How do we determine what we can rely on as accurate? i believe this dialogue is a part of the actively emergent Web experience. To illicit criticism is to be thoughtfully engaged.

"I turn to Martin Heidegger and John Poulakos to argue that Web interactivity is driven by a rhetoric of the possible that pushes users to continuously renegotiate their online activities within structured flows."

Or by a rhetoric of the curious.

"By the rhetorical gravity of their links, certain elements of a digital text tempt users by offering a relatively narrow system of possibilities for action (see Khalifa and Shen); and this happens, of course, if one is on a user-generated website like Wikipedia, a commercial site like CNN.com that is driven by personalized ads, or even a social networking site like Facebook. In effect, these temptations contribute to an atmosphere of what critic Raymond Williams calls “flow,” which is the rhetorical means by which media consumers are continuously enticed to devote more of their time to a particular media experience."

Also known as clickbait. I think the more adept we become at navigating the internet, the more 'link jumping' will diminish. Personally, I can usually tell by the rhetorical conventions of the headline whether or not the link is useful or worth visiting.

"The social and textual transformations wrought by digital media have imposed new challenges upon scholars of rhetoric, who are striving to apply their traditional concepts to technological innovations that are rapidly changing the ways we read, shop, and socialize".

I would note that the act of writing introduced as a new technology in Ancient Greece presented a similar challenge for scholars. They had to amend their philosophies to accommodate the new technology. Writing also changed the way we read, shop, and social.

421 So there is a debate: do we redefine rhetoric in the face of new technologies or does such a definition reduce us?

"When skepticism runs so high that irrationality is resolutely accepted as the new rationality" 421

Websites get their context from the other sites they appear with. Unlike written work, they do not stand alone in a series of other things. They can and should be interrupted.

This idea of Da-sein on 322 is particularly key in organizing online resources. Nothing can be sure from this vantage point, only that everything hangs on the present moment, on the click.

Is rhetoric literally embodied through the digital? I like that he doesn't refers to a third party; the idea of the interactive communication is fascinating. Perhaps writing in collaboration with machines creates a secondary audience for us.

I like this idea of shaping and sculpting. It seems to personify machines.

So, are machines performers? Since they translate what we write and kind of interpret what we compose?

How does this transformation affect how we write or compose for audiences? Is the digital sphere a stepping stone to including a more universal audience?

Maybe I'm having a hard time grasping this because I've literally been trained to love the written word, but even a digital base has to be modulated, doesn't it? Even though we write for machines, I think we ultimately consider a human audience. Machines translate, but humans read.

This is an interesting concept in terms of disrupting the ideas of traditional categorizations. of media

This would be interesting in terms of a Marxist critique like that of Horkheimer and Adorno in The Culture Industry. When he speaks of cultural and social forces, it makes me think of ideology. #eedr2016

The idea of simulation recalls the question of embodiment.

Allagmatic – The Greek word allagma can mean change or vicissitude, but it can also mean that which can be given or taken in exchange, which more genuinely captures the idea of energy exchange in Simondon’s usage.

Simondon will also define the allagmatic as “the theory of operations” (IGB, 263), complementary to the theory of structures that the sciences elaborate. On the same page, Simondon will define an operation as “a conversion of a structure into another structure.”

from fractalontology.wordpress.com

How do we begin to write for this new audience?

Is this protocol an audience?

How do we classify what sorts our data? Do they technically mediate information for an audience?

I had never thought of this. What would Plato think of this? The digital allows us to record thoughts and words for a very large audience, but can our work adapt to future audiences?

I'm having flashbacks to Hunter's article

I'm interested to see how they develop this. I'm having a hard time relating to technology in the way that the writers are.

Are machines "beings?"

Can we argue that machines are rhetors if they are created and mediated by humans?

having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

the highest point in the development of something; culmination or climax

Is this the "hyper real?" What happens in games and simulations isn't real, but what happened was caused by a human... Ahh, the confusion.

The idea of ontology and simulation draw close a dichotomy of the "real" and the "simulation." This brings up interesting questions about the human experience of digital simulations and the "realness" of experience. How does this apply to embodiment or emergence?

amamnesis: a recalling to mind

hypomnesis: hypomnesia, hypomnesis, hypomnestic 1. A condition of having a weakened memory. 2. Abnormally poor memory of the past.

evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial

This seems to be a thesis statement.

corrupt or tear down

"Language is the house of being" also sort of recalls the idea of language as a spore or germ, in the sense that its presence is a necessary catalytic agent. Without language as a medium, the idea of transmission is halted.

Does or can any theory of being exist outside of its historical underpinnings?

I am reminded of the fundamental ambivalence that Derrida argues in his consideration that the words have multiple meanings depending on the intention of the speaker/writer.

This is more along the lines of how I regard changes in television. They are innate features, rather than characteristics of a phase.

30 years will most certainly be a blip as television evolves, so I do not think it is valid to say that this period of time illustrates tv as a stable medium.

How have the standards for acceptable uses of television changed/evolved since we are now able to view things from essentially anywhere?

While you can access all kinds of information online, you can also get stuck in cycles of the same information relating only to people who feel/think/believe the way you do, which prohibits dialogue and growth. This can reinforce who you think you are or your view of the world, but it is prohibitive to evolution.

The embodiment of what is presented, what you present and what is presented to you can in some way define who you are

All the stuff around the edges of the page

What about the things that aren't linked? Are there no links for a reason? What is being left out of the conversation?

Don't have to click the link. How does that alter how you interact with the text or what information you get from it though?

Sounds like kairos

Life- individual experiences formed from prior experiences influenced by emotion and perception, equating to a "whole" life

Compositions- individual ideas and examples informed by prior knowledge, equating to a "whole" piece influenced by emotions, experiences, and perception

purposefully placed for specific reasons

Ah, a false sense of power or limited power at least for the audience, and perhaps a returning of power to the composer simply by acknowledging placement and organization as key to argument presentation.

I think I am doing this with my portfolio, trying to control the flow, and assuming that I need to because my audience will willfully disregard linear reading conventions.

It's the same thing, just re-purposed to fit new needs. Traditional techniques fused with technology. What would Socrates (via Plato) have to say about this?

empowering the audience with choice in a way it has never had

How do the ethics invloved in rhetoric translate to this modern gathering and use of information collection?

I bet TV wishes it could do this, play commercials directly to who is watching. They try but it is not specific like the Internet. How does this influence how people interact and respond to what it presented them? How does this change they way it is presented? Is this ethical?

Universal these days?

I've noticed more and more ads creeping into spaces between paragraphs in online article- like commercials in between acts. The translation of one use of media into another. But how do we react to ads in text versus ads in shows and movies? Does it distract us or hook us in the same ways?

Not just the sum, but the parts. This seems to equate traditional rhetorical study with contemporary- acknowledging the various pieces and the process, not just the final product

Viewing flow in this manner changes the way I think about it. I was relating a flow to a sum (the river), rather I can look at it as the parts and how those parts interact and relate to one another.

How can you meaningfully or purposefully structure the flow to move your audience in a specific direction or flow? In traditional texts a linear flow occurred but now with multimodality, how as a composer can you still have that control over your work?

Audience feels more in control of how they view things and what it is they view, more choice, more freedom. But is this just on the surface, is it just an illusion? How much control does an audience really have? Which leads to questions about how much control an author/composer has the piece and how the audience interacts with it?

Shift from traditional printed texts to mulitmodal texts.

Space for general notes:

Jane Bennett - Powers of the Hoard: Artistry and Agency in a World of Vibrant Matter Book: Vibrant Matter

Influential theorists- Foucault- Speculative account of active expressive or calling capacity of things; Hist. Sexuality- trace outlines of strange new productive power that did not operate via refusal; focusing on creative capacity of things;

Heidegger- emphasized incalculability of the thing, and its persistent withdrawal from our attempts to use, present or know it;

Spinoza- every body comes with drive to seek alliances with other bodies that seek to enhance vitalities

Call of things Metaphysical tradition of west- things as lively, vibrant materialities

Response to a set of specific things- items of trash collected in Baltimore gutter near her home She felt the call- enchanted by the tableau

Expressing this and exploring through object lesson of the hoarder

“The things just speak out to me” –hoarder

Language as rhetoric—word sounds— tuning human body, rendering it more susceptible to the frequency of material agencies inside and around us; the goal: to use words to make whatever communications already at work between vibrant bodies more audible, detectable, sensible

Human vs thing-agency Perception of the hoarder- attunement to vibration of things Continuum of possession

Material agency of things/thing-power • Slowness- rate of decay; illusion of permanence; contrast to human bodies and relationships

• Contagion and porosity- from Spinoza Material entities are subject to change Porosity- between bodies body hoarded/hoarder bear impression of one another Integration; not possessions but pieces of self; see Belk’s extended self. Hoarders have an exceptional awareness

Expression beyond human agency; see micro biomes, elements, metabolized foods, sounds and odors, prosthetic technologies.

Assemblages- ideologies, cultures, etc

Inorganic Sympathy Hoarders feel the force of” it”- the hoard and the “it stuff” within the hoarder make a connection as act of sympathy

Freud’s “death drive”- body has impulse to return to the indeterminacy of the inorganic

W. Benjamin- rather than use the collection, the connoisseur makes the glorification of things his concern; irrelevance of utility

Hoarders report a high when called by an object (advenience) to be added to the hoard; non-discriminatory nature of objects collected, vs. the connoisseur’s taste.

Benjamin moves from thing-power to human agency too quickly for Bennett

Against material agency Human conceit- human-centrism Default grammar Pragmatic bias

Accessing thing-power Poetry Finnegan’s Wake

Hoarding- the call of things is difficult to ignore Enunciating the non-linguistic expressivity of things Slowing thing power into human power via words- stickiness Voluntary poverty- religion- as resistance to allure of material possessions Archaeology- testament to thing-power; material culture studies- no people can speak; reading through things ADD- the experience; refigured as preference for punctuated time of lively things of smooth linearity of intention motion World of paranoia- overextended receptivity to activity of material bodies Fetish objects- museum curators and art lovers Web marketer’s sensitivity to the call of web-data or site visits/clicks- These sites show how non-human power of things help maintain the over consumptive ecologically disastrous society we live in

Not post-human project; in order to understand social practices, we must understand non-human components inside these social practices. Looking for road to sustainable consumption practices.

Q + A

Meditation Increasing perception- Buddhist monks have commonalities with hoarders- Differences- monks have a method of cultivating attentiveness; hoarders may have a natural special attentiveness

Looking at minimalists- they are attuned to the call/noise/disruption of things, so they get rid of the things

Looking for places to develop understanding of a hypothesis that things have power

Comments: a taboo against animism? is the hoarder a reversal, wherein they know the deadness of things, whereas we assume life. Bennett looks at the taboo of animism that it looks at the problem of superstition, the pathetic fallacy. She says animism is alive and well at the level of untheorized experience.

How might a consideration of "thingness" influence political concerns? Bennett claims its usefulness towards the greenness of politics—getting people to pay attention to how our stuff has effects on the environment and one another, i.e., where does the garbage go; altering our thinking on waste in terms of the life of things

The readers are not as in control as they think. Each provided link is rhetorically provided or suggested through words or location. 320

Aristotle is deemed out of date, and Robert R. Johnson says that audiences of this generation have a great "role in producing the texts they consume", but how great is that role and how much do texts actually dictate?

The web, "Unlike broadcast television, it must engage the cognitive AND physical energies of users in order to capture them" 318 This leads me to picturing Plato's story of Ra and Theuth. Action and language come closest in the digital realm.

Planned flow is a type of rhetoric that leads from one thing to the next all within the same interface, a feature that greatly widens our horizons. 317

The Web's hyperlinks cause less of a river-like flow and more of a promising glimpse of things to come. 316

"The key novelty of digital textuality is the way in which it has 'liberated' audiences". What is now "linking" was before "research".

As they would have had to with the advent of writing, and as they did with the advent of the printing press.

There is a certain level of embodiment inherent to a webpage that replaces the content generator with the "computer" in HCI. The content creator is not prompting or asking a user to follow hyperlinks, nor are they (in the case of the Wikipedia article) actively encouraging flow. The passivity of this optional flow is born of the webpage, and though the content creator may have generated the hyperlink, it is the webpage itself the offers the prompt. This disrupts the traditional relationship between author and audience, and places the content itself in the role of offer by "pointing" away from itself.

p. 324-5: great expository writing on a digital text

Reeves argues that, though internet texts do not necessarily change the fundamental nature of rhetoric, there is an emergent form of rhetoric created by it. The locus of power in this rhetoric is in the dynamic between the rhetorical flow generated by the content creator(s)/editors and the user that navigates via their independent (though influenced and directed) flow through said content.

p. 320: flow is not necessarily inherent but user generated

p. 317: interjection of commercials within and between shows blurs that line of where one program stops and another begins

p. 315: is it actually "liberating" or just another form of restraint?

How does this change the way we think about audience awareness? Will multimodality become the norm to create texts that can be used by multiple audiences?

Acknowledging and embracing the diversity in experience that we collectively represent brings a net benefit to us all. However, this benefit is disproportionately granted to hearing, sighted, and other temporarily able-bodied individuals, as they are the ones who are learning the lessons.

It is important to know who produces information, as that person may focus more or less on one mode of receiving that information than another. This can happen by choice, by affinity, or by necessity.

Plato spoke down on both the art of rhetoric and the usage of writing to present something other than the author's most authentic self. However, even discourse that is presented impromptu or extemporaneously in a spoken fashion, can still be "carefully curated and systematically managed" in that way. In fact, it often is.

The kind of reduction described here is exactly what many early students of English suffer from, distancing themselves from their own expression for the sake of being "correct."

Advertisement inherently disembodies a product in the same way that text disembodies communication. Only through skilled, honest, and thoughtful execution can a rhetor overcome the limitations of either medium.

Similarly, spoken languages are more complex than verbal communication. Words and signs transcend simple utility as signifiers and carry meaning, emotion, connotation, and even beauty. Words and signs can comprise a significant part of a person's identity or exist independently of that same person as art.

Despite certain gendered conventions in the usage of written language, it is more possible to disembody text than performance.

We also communicate relationships of submission, love, support, and awe via nonverbal gestures.

This contrasts with the previous description of bored and disengaged students. Even if her students think themselves capable of multitasking, the reality is that task-switching, however rapidly it occurs, diminishes attention to both tasks. Engaging students in three-dimensional space, however, demands more of them and discourages this, as they transition into a more receptive state of constant anticipation.

Limitations on time and judgment inspire emergence in a near improvisational mode of production that is normally overridden by what could be considered more tempered or even more rational thought.

Students feel their time is wasted in class. Teachers want them to pay attention but don't give them much of anything to pay attention to. This may not be the fault of the subject matter specifically but of the mode of expression for that subject matter. Students are uninspired learning only from "the book" (and increasingly "the powerpoint").

ASL is more than gesture, just as English is more than just sound. Even the most basic nonverbal communication has a number of expressive factors simultaneously at play, which are integrated with one another and embedded into the language. Encouraging uninitiated students to engage in nonverbal multimodal communication without some sort of discussion of nuance and complexity is almost certainly always grounds for subpar expression.

Even thoughtful people with good intentions can overlook certain people in ways that they are only made aware of when the overlooked party is present.

This is the reverse of the sort of disembodiment of text that Plato critiqued. Instead of the writer decreasing the value of thoughts simply by recording them, the reader decreases the value of thoughts simply by reciting them.

"Formal" education, at least as it stands today, implies some sort of standardization, which is also normalization, which, should your culture be "Other" in any way, is also erasure.

Necessity is the mother of invention, is it not? The limitations of spoken language are largely in place because the users are hearing, and therefore comfortable operating within those limitations. Language, and thus culture and all other things driven by it, is then expanded by deafness.

Why should hearing people be made to deal with Deaf people when Deaf people can be made to hear?

Disability, like class, race, sexuality, and gender, is a social construct that is only made possible by normalizing one set of circumstances ("able-bodied," middle-class, white, heterosexual, cisgender male in the cases above) at the expense of any who do not fit within those circumstances. When dissecting disability specifically, there are a number of widely disparate circumstances (that one is hearing, sighted, capable of walking unassisted, etc.) which are normalized in such a way that when someone does not fit within them, they are called "disabled" and subsequently made Other. This social exclusion compounds any difficulties inherent to the disability itself by blocking access to physical and social resources made available to those who are considered "normal."

Language has its limitations, but so do all things. The particularly frustrating thing about some languages, particularly the English language, is the limitation to only one or a few modes of communication. An oppressive and irrational insistence on "proper" usage, slow moving public lexicons which lurch forward at the pace of society's most linguistically conservative, operation within the constraints of established typographical conventions (lettering, spacing, punctuation and all that): these are the issues which have stunted the progress of the English language.

In 2007, researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center conducted a study linking music and language to some of the same exact major neural processes. In 2008, neurologist Aniruddh Patel published the book Music, Language, and the Brain on the same topic. Since then, numerous studies have reasserted a point that has been known in a number of cultures since antiquity: music is language.

The question then becomes, if we've overlooked and undervalued music's capability for expression (in mainstream, white, hearing, able-bodied US culture at least), then what other modes of expression are we leaving untapped simply because we've never considered their value? Surely gesture qualifies, as sign languages worldwide all rely on gesture and little else to communicate meaning.

An article like this is able to be so critical of the "seemingly better technologies of language" because those technologies as we understand them today or two-dimensional and largely incomplete.

The choice (and omission) of words here lends itself to multiple interpretations. Hunter could be referring to the usage of technology in this way as a simulation of face-to-face interaction, but she doesn't specify that. She simply says "simulations." I interpret this as meaning that there is nothing real about purely technological interactions, that they are not truly interactions at all but rather a series of inputs and responses to and from a machine. And when discourse is de-contextualized in this way, kairos dissolves entirely, leaving an irreconcilable disconnect between rhetor and recipient.

Technological modes of expression, when used as a replacement for, rather than an enhancement for, face-to-face interaction, seems to have potential to stunt a person's comfort and willingness to engage in these interactions without some sort of added layer of separation (or disembodiment). Bringing these sorts of technologies into the classroom can benefit both professors and students by more accurately measuring student responses, allowing anonymous feedback on sensitive topics, increasing multimodality (and thus better maintaining interest through variety), and encouraging technological literacy and familiarity with prominent forms of modern communication (for those students who don't already use Twitter and the like). However, no one innovation in pedagogy is a cure-all, and the use of technology in this way may as much encourage the problem as solve it.

These sort of attempts at engagement can be just as frustrating for the student as the teacher. Not all students are comfortable speaking in front of entire classes.

A way to use social media to educate students about change and tragedy.

How do you tell your students about what is happening? This has every thing to do with rhetoric and how it can be used.

The now iconic photo of Michael Brown in graduation cap and gown.

While this piece does not directly address the subject of race in its body, the theme runs through the narrative and the syllabus alike. The subject at hand inherently has to do with the "marking" of Black bodies by white police officers (and white society as a whole). What is subversive about this is the use of the digital sphere to create a voice in the education of the youth that does not exist in our education system. In this case, it is the syllabi of the school systems that silence Black bodies by exclusion and erasure from history books and lesson plans. I did not read the Derrida article, but as long as America excludes peoples from recognition in the education and rhetorical spheres, the binaries we are confined by will be perpetuated indefinitely. This is not to say that Black and white will not be used as identifiers relating to struggle, oppression, and history, but that, essentially, you cannot escape a binary while one end is experiencing oppression.

Brings up a great point that if we are not white in America, then we are Hyphen-Americans. As a result, we get treated differently and are under a different set of rules than white Americans.

Digital rhetoric, such as Twitter and its hashtag #FergusonSyllabus, has created discourse communities that must work together in order to discover ways to reach out to and interact with the community as a whole.

Multimodal

News reporters/journalists set the stage for the ways in which Michael Brown, protestors, and police are represented rhetorically in society

This article and the movement to which it refers is just the sort of conversation that Perry wants us to have about the disabled or otherwise disrespected bodies in our society. He wants us to figure out why they are in a system that causes them to be put at the mercy of others so that we can go about repairing that system. I wonder though, what does repair on such a massive and engrained issue look like?

Strong call to action and pathos. Lots of statistics to back up points. Good one to read.

children are the future, and where we move as a country will be determined by what we invest in and teach our children

At first, prompted. Now, it grows on its own. How is it that things online seem to take on a life of their own?

How our lives and society shape our memories and our education. We do not only learn inside a classroom, and what happens outside the school building directly affects what happens within it.

Backing away from the real issues due to backlash.

The reader knows all about the quarterback. But what about Mary? Do we know her?

In all three stories, the disabled person's story has taken the backseat to someone who aided the person in a way, making them the "true hero."

I've seen this over and over again. "This is a disabled person who has achieved something great while overcoming obstacles. You're not disabled, you have no excuse."

Perry is claiming that disabled people are being objectified for the benefit of people who are not. The same can be said of many other groups throughout history.

What exactly are these "real actions"? Young talked about changing the way we view disabled people, but has anyone talked about the necessary steps to take in order to change anything? I'm also wondering how government action could change how individuals view disabled people. Don't we need to change the way we think first?

Even after her talk, TEDx takes agency away from disabled people.

It would be interesting to approach disability from this model. We work so hard to make progress in gender and racial equality, but we continue to disable other human beings. Why do we other ourselves from them?

They are literally dehumanized. Are they disembodied by society because they have different bodies?

is this "othering?"

Does this speak to the objectification of the female body? Why couldn't she just achieve her goal and end it there? Why does this now have to be a story of fat shaming? Would the situation be different if she were a man?

Part of me would like to believe that eventually, our society will move away from binaries. I think a problem that we face, though, is that we have not yet realized the true power in collaborative work. One single person cannot speak for all groups of humans, but a group of people with different perspectives can create a more inclusive environment. I think we are just now starting to experience this in rhetoric; multimodal literacy is finally making its way into the academic world, and we are beginning to create more inclusive documents that engage all modes of composition.

The fact that this is something that has to be questioned signals a problem. They are PEOPLE, regardless of their abilities

The word "pity" here is interesting. Even though this promise clearly involved two consenting individuals, the media only focuses on the able-bodied participant. Lapkowicz is disregarded, it seems, and she is excluded from the story. She is objectified and becomes the "damsel in distress," so to speak.

I've seen this in other instances as well. Could we argue that people objectify poverty this way? What about minorities?

Each story is about the good of someone "normal" and not at all about the person who is "disabled"

Who controls the rhetoric of these stories? And why are they presented the way they are? For what purpose?

A tried and true tale we've been hearing since the 1950s. But whose tale is it? Who does it really represent?

I have never thought about it this way before. Interactions with people who are disabled, first usually put me in awe, but second make me thankful that I have the health and ability that I do. This completely shifts the focus from them back to me. Why is this? Why can't the thought or action following this interaction stay with them? I will always be conscious of this now, and will strive to not do it.

The tweets and comments in this link speak to problematic issues around disembodied conversations wherein the disabled are objectified—to problematize the situation further, it seems that in dealing with #stellaschallenge, "it appeared to [The president of People with Disability Australia] no-one from the disability sector, including himself, had been consulted about the campaign." Such an exclusion of the disabled in a conversation about disability further highlights the ideology of the social model of disability.

This statement speaks to representation directly—Stella talks about the lies that society, consciously or unconsciously, propagates about disability, wherein the representations of the disabled are displayed for the ability-normative. This kind of binary is damaging for everyone, because it simultaneously reinforces the status quo and serves as a barrier to understanding. Here, a person's identity becomes mediated by society's conception of the limitations of the body.

In the TED talk, Stella mentions that she subscribes to the social model of disability, that the person is more disabled by the society one lives in than the body one is born with.

This is interesting considering the meaning of disability and the Derridean implications of meaning, revealing a trope of representation, pointing to the notion of double consciousness.

Perry's article brings me back to Hunter's idea of the embodied classroom. How much more handicapped might the embodied classroom feel for those who are unable to move? I also wonder what it would say for the "able-bodied classroom" to operate one way while the "disabled classroom" operates another. We already see this division in our public schools, but how and why is it there? Is it beneficial?

This reminds me of Lane's article. The work of women is always tied back to their bodies. The gaze is shifted here from Stuart, a woman following her dreams, to how women should occupy space.

Instead of seeing the situations such as what happened in Qdoba as ghastly, we see the civilian who must step in as a hero. What we fail to see is the humiliation that is ingrained into the disabled person's cries for help.

He just won't let up. For someone who thinks himself so close to a god, Socrates is very petty.

Presumably why he spent the entire day passively agreeing with whatever Socrates said.

So Phaedrus is supposed to go to all of these people and tell them Socrates's opinion of them based on a conversation they weren't even present for? Are they supposed to care?

All this for writing?

How does he define what is adequate? Perhaps the writer does not assume their words to be a replacement for live discourse but rather a different thing entirely, with entirely different purposes.

In a digital age where texts are often preserved, arranged, and archived by the original author, in a space that often has multiple forms of direct correspondence with that author no less, this observation is becoming less and less true.

Physically writing allows ideas to outpace and outlive their authors, which leads to development and proliferation of thought at a rate that cannot be matched by memorization and literal word-of-mouth transfer.

Socrates describes the syllabus of a good teacher of rhetoric, arguing for depth and comprehension in its pedagogy.

If blindness and deafness were so singularly natured in reality as they are portrayed here, then maybe this comparison wouldn't be so problematic.

Socrates is giving himself praise over Lysias under the guise of religion. At best, he's just using religion as a medium of praising himself and still seeming likable (to Phaedrus at least). At worst, he actually believes that he was divinely inspired and that Lysias was not, which is him literally having a holier-than-thou attitude regarding personal opinions about love and sex (which rings very true today).

He literally just did this.

So... just that one?

It's a start, but still not all the way there. Rhetoric is not only what follows the truth, but it is a means by which a person may arrive at the truth.

This is probably the realest thing Phaedrus has said so far, but persuasion serves a purpose beyond manipulation. An orator (or rhetorician or politician or philosopher or whomever) is not necessarily in possession of the truth just because they believe they are on the side of "true justice." But ideally an orator also would not bend simply to what is currently "likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment" if it is not what they truly believe. Sometimes, disapproval serves as a necessary check, calling that orator to interrogate their own opinions, and any resulting arguments or acts of persuasion are then in pursuit of a common truth. This is the ideal situation, but of course, in practice, things often go as Phaedrus describes.

After giving a long speech about the dangers of loving excessively, he praises a bunch of musicians who neglected themselves so much that they died? His value doesn't seem to consistently lie in a distaste for excess, but rather a constant pedestal raising of what he deems godly and intellectual pursuits.

Phaedrus seems to be caught up in the false dichotomy of mind and body, as if the mind is not part of the body and stimulation of the body does not also stimulate the mind. This sort of talk is not only inaccurate but it seems dismissive of any people (who are conveniently not present) that he may deem "slavish."

What does he define as discourse? Can regular conversation be deemed discourse, or does it need to be long and dramatic, self-praising and self-referential as his and Socrates's is? Do non-verbal forms of art and communication qualify?

The disembodiment of text, particularly text that is not necessarily meant to be disembodied (such as a speech) can have devastating effects on the ethos of that text.

Weak.

Hegemonic Ancient Greek beauty standards rooted in classism (only the rich could afford both to avoid the sun and to purchase the lead and sometimes chalk-based cosmetics that gave a whiter complexion in that time).

This is the complete opposite of what was stated above. Presumably loving someone who is like the god you worship is the only way to avoid "feelings of envy or jealousy." People aren't always exactly as their significant others wish them to be though, and this sort of philosophy does not seem to leave much room for compromise in that regard.

Those who love divinely, love also more patiently. This is imperative for anyone looking to sustain any sort of long-term relationship. Though perhaps being "ready to kill" is a bit more figurative today than it was then.

Socrates finally gets to the point of all of this talk of god and divinity. The madness of love is only to be preferred when the lover is aware of their own divine beauty and capable of recognizing that in another. He finds this love deeper and more meaningful than any rooted in earthly perception.

This may be the most theologically interesting point of this part of the speech. Here, Socrates constructs sin in a way that is similar to many traditional interpretations of the Abrahamic religions: it is a "corrupting influence" that separates mortals from the divine. However, the divine in this case is not external but rather internal, an inherent facet of our very nature as humans.

Narcissus was Greek. This may exceed narcissism though. Philosophers are divine because they concern themselves with what is considered divine according to other philosophers? Seems circular.

Hell as a literal correctional facility. It's the other way around today.

Sounds exactly like something "a philosopher, or artist, or some musical and loving nature" would say.

My thoughts exactly.

And this is the only alternative to having a physical and intellectual equal as a romantic partner? A relationship that consists of what is (in the United States) now illegal in at least three ways: rape, statutory rape, and sexual misconduct (if the older man is a teacher or supervisor). Either this is a horrendously false dichotomy or ancient Athenian culture is terrifying.

This sort of possessiveness is yet another problem that persists in modern relationships. The irony is that the sort of wealth, happiness, independence, and social fortitude that Socrates observes as sources of jealousy would likely also be sources of initial attraction.

Women are often subjected to this same insecurity, especially as gender norms continually deteriorate and notions of femininity become more fluid and less rooted in hegemonic oppression. Should the men referenced in this passage (men who are still very much present in modern dating pools) find their masculinity so challenged by other men, then they must certainly be even more intimidated by women who are wiser, braver, cleverer, or more talented than they (and heaven forbid they make more money).

A powerful message that uses English grammar/language to explain the differences between White Americans and non-white Americans

Writerscorps on Instagram posted a quote by W.E.B Du Bois, "A system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect," with the hashtag #FergusonSyllabus

In the face of humiliation, of course there is going to be push back?<br> This just adds to the need or desire for defiance.

This empty, purposeful space represents the imposed and internalized rhetoric of our society and how individuals (these boys specifically) attempt to live with it.

How does that define us as society, not giving people an opportunity and a fair chance? Instead they have to use their valuable skills in a way that threatens their freedom. How do the messages sent and received (the rhetoric of society) perpetuate this?

we emulate the role models we are exposed to and can relate to

This statement reminded me of the Perry Article. For some reason, I was reminded of the scene in which a disabled woman has to ask a server to feed her. It seems that in a society where there are so many odds against you, you either bow or you stand. These boys stood.

It is my opinion that there is no escape from the embodied reality of binaries. In relation to Derrida, one thing is simultaneously something and not something at the same time. It is the same with people, and it shapes how we relate to each other. While we may try to condition ourselves away from our natural responses, the fact of the matter is that we are all different, and different has always scared humans.

No good deed goes unpunished.

This is one way to challenge attacks using social media

E.g. "Abortion Barbie"

Why is this? Based on the content of their comments?

unknown term that I had to look up: “Cultural scripts" are representations of cultural norms which are widely held in a given society and which are reflected in language"

http://faculty.washington.edu/vaz2/Documents/AW_Russian_Cultural_Scripts_Wierzbicka.pdf

Is it the popularity of hashtags that can help sustain feminist rhetoric? Or its accessibility/convenience? Both?

Men can identify as feminists as well

If she were a male, this would not have gotten as much attention

women are discouraged and silenced from leadership positions along with their positions in the rhetorical atmosphere

This notion ratifies the means by which the Greeks asserted and maintained the ideology of the patriarchal power apparatus.

This is the essence of what hashtags and digital footprints offer: "the rhetorical power of digital visibility." The digital has the power to move rhetorical speech from a place of relative academic obscurity towards a more public and popular sphere by coopting the "available means" that include blogs and social media.

In terms of that digital-mind-body link, these disruptions Lane talks about are important for shaping an ethos of safety and respect for diverse voices in digital spaces

The idea of discrete and separate notions of the "real" or material world and digital space as something virtual breaks down in the face of the connection between the physical body and online identity—consider suicides tied to cyber bullying, or the many types of violent threats and morally demeaning statements made to women online, perpetrated by males behaving as trolls or as enacting some attempt to preserve patriarchal dominance through intimidation. The digital sphere affords rhetors the ability to subvert the normative abusive models to allow for a calling-out of abuses. The use of hashtags across social media platforms allows for greater visibility and accountability in terms of rhetorical ethos, enabling rhetors to embody their identities and create a collective identity in terms of establishing agency and authority.

diaphanous-light, delicate, translucent

Derrida shows the side of Socrates that finds a lure in the printed word. As we discussed in class, there is a coming-to-terms with a changing rhetorical landscape. Socrates is not railing against alphabetic literacy; he is rather, drawn to the catalytic power of writing, pulled away from his usual patterns of behavior.

Derrida expounds on multiplicity and ambivalence here, which really brings home the argument against the (T)ruth-seeking that Plato drives home in Phaedrus.

Autoscopy- disembodied; the individual perceives the environment from a perspective outside the body

Autognosis- self-knowledge

nervure

The central connective vein in a leaf

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nervure

posterity

"all future generations of people"

via Google.com

Sumploke

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symploce

Defining a work of art as a living being calls into question the definition of art: what constitutes a work of art? If a literary text could be considered art—art as a living being—does not Plato, then, offer a complicated view of writing also? Can for Plato, writing occupy a space of being embodied and disembodied simultaneously?

This is interesting towards complicating the notion of embodiment and writing—equating writing to a game to be won or lost implies a since of engagement. To engage requires a physical or intellectual relationship with a process. Derrida also complicates any notion of having a singular statement about writing, embracing a duality of "loss" and of "saving" something in the same breath.

This is particularly interesting in conjunction with the addition of feminist critique, in terms of how Platonic and Aristotelian rhetoric is inherently masculine and exclusionary.