Perhaps this is the relationship that is materialized in a post-media world that Maiello was speaking of. We have relegated some of our sense to technology as they enable us to access perceptions that our bodies are unable to. Maybe the differences is translational rather than relational. In this instance with seismic sensors, we can translate senses we do not posses to senses we do possess. Maiello was talking more about the relational sensing that we cannot replace with technology (although it may be tempting).

This idea ties to the subjectivity and objectivity as mentioned in class. Rather the objectivity and subjectivity of sensing and perception can exist simultaneously. It reminds me of the Daoist work of Zhuangzi. This work is comprised of various parables on natural and humanist reflections. A very fundamental principle of Daoism is the mimicry of nature as it exhibits the Dao, or the Way. One such parable depicts Zhuangzi and Huizi, a prime minister, strolling along a dam. Zhuangzi makes a comment that the minnows are so joyful as they "dart around where they please." Huizi rebuts saying "You are not a fish -- how do you know what fish enjoy?" Zhuangzi eventually concludes that he know what the fish enjoy simply by standing by the river. The parable gets at the subjectivity of his observations intertwined with the objectivity of the fish's actions. They are existing together much like the observation of a stars light and the objective luminescence of a star. It gets slightly at perspective but creates a fascinating tension between the objective and subjective. If you want to read the parable is is here: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf on page 276.

This is a neat criticism of Bitzer when we recall Vatz' charge that the account failed to take the phenomenological into account

Reminiscent of the sort of determination or discernment that Cooper talks about.

I'm anticipating Boyle's "Rhetoric as a Posthuman Practice" having something to say about rhetorical situations outliving the people having them

I'm having trouble distinguishing between the rhetorical situation that's failing to be sought after and the parts-- audience, subject, speaker, occasion, etc.-- that seem to collectively comprise that situation. It seems that a rhetorical situation is the interplay of those parts, perhaps in a manner similar to the Bakhtinian chronotope? I.e., a sort of contextual intersection?

This smacks of Cooper's, Deleuze's, and Whitehead's departures from Hegelian dialectic.

The hidden transcript is reminiscent of the the "hidden curriculum" that Jessica McCrory Calarco aims to shed light on in her A Field Guide to Grad School. Although McCrory Calarco's binary is more about those with access to knowledge of the ins and outs of academia vs those who don't, the dynamic for Scott is similar in its separating those for whom the system works and those for whom it outwardly seems an obstacle to education.

I think these prepositions are important because, otherwise, the dynamic that puts the professor lording over the student similar to the banking model could just be perpetuated in a new guise.

I think Cooper goes along with this as well. That is, like Freire, she holds the overwhelmingly positive belief that if teachers just show students how to learn, then they will "know exactly what to think" about an issue. Such a philosophy is partially troubling because it implies that there is only one "correct" way of thinking, and that it is relatively easy to convince students to accept it.

Nearly all our readings are responding to Freire's claim that the "banking concept" of education is extremely wrong and ineffective. In her book, Cooper provided ways for teachers to divorce themselves from tradititional pedagogy teaching practices. One of the biggest ways is through classroom discussion, where everyone, not just the teacher, has a chance to talk and voice their opinions. This overrides the assumption that the teacher is the only person with knowledge and intellect in the class.

just like Locke's story about liquor, which was the worst liquor story I ever heard.