I think Ong would take issue with the notion that there is no "material difference" between speaking and writing. Writing is a "technology" so to speak, and thus presents itself differently than mere thought through speaking. One can go back and edit writing, whereas orality is not so easily done.

Intent matters. Ignorance, though, can not be used as an excuse.

Again, Gorgias' "craft" vs. "knack." One need not only direct attention toward surface-level endeavors (cosmetics), but must also pursue those endeavors geared at the pursuit of knowledge (gymnastics).

I'm immediately drawn the notion of a "craft" vs. "knack" in the "Gorgias." Whereas a craft is genuinely good and involves the pursuit of real knowledge, a knack merely imitates a craft as a surface-level endeavor.

Prior or extrinsic credibility (based on experience and reputation), as opposed to demonstrated or intrinsic credibility (shown during speech itself).

Therefore, could we infer that Astell valued "style" as the most important of the five canons of rhetoric?

In this sense, can "logic" be at all subjective? By subjective I mean can the definition of logical different between individuals when organizing information? For example, I think it would be logical to organize my information chronologically, while someone else may think it is most logical to utilize a topical organizational pattern.

When preparing to speak publicly, the speaker's first consideration should always be the audience -- all other factors, including topic, should be a product influenced by the unanticipated audience.

This begins to take aim at the tension between individualism and collectivism, a "me vs. we" scenario with great implications in social society, as well as in the intellectual realm.

This reminds me of Plato's "Chariot Allegory:" the notion that the charioteer (logic, reason) attempts to drive and control the two horses (rational and irrational) toward the truth.

Tones aid in understanding context connotations of conversations.

Tone is crucial in conversation and public speaking. I think this is where the disconnect happens through texting, where tone is difficult to reveal, often leading others to misinterpret messages. I believe the invention of emojis was designed to combat this problem.

Words and tones must work simultaneously. The use of words enhance tones, and using tones enhances words.

"For those who have been given more, more will be expected." Luke 12:48

Ok, question answered!

What about in the instance where an animal, such as a dog, makes sounds which humans interpret? For instance, I am thinking of a dog whining for more water if its dish is empty or growling at the sight of danger.

One purpose of speaking is to generate affective effects, meaning the feelings and emotions generated in listeners during a speech. Affective effects are equally as important as cognitive and behavioral effects.

As opposed to a sign (e.g. smoke is a sign of fire)

Extemporaneous delivery would be beneficial in this sense, memorizing the crucial and main points rather than the speech word for word. This creates a conversational-style speech, rather than a rigid performance.

This is like a coding schema!

Gay valued what is being referred to as "technical assurance," meaning that all uncertainty and self-doubt in performance was removed through this carefully thought out plan of delivery. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Gay-British-author

Despite the premeditated nature of these movements, I am guessing they are performed in a way that seems inherently natural? Or are the movements meant to look mechanical?

Seemingly almost robotic?

As opposed to Astell's focus on style, could it be argued that Austin most values delivery (performance) of the five canons of rhetoric?

Word choice! That is, making such literature easier to absorb and understand (digest).

This division of pronunciation and usage is particularly visible in terms of class. Mispronounced words are often frowned upon, but all this means is that the person learned this word by reading, rather than having the opportunity of hearing someone say it first.

This reminds me of Siegert's notion of creating barriers and categories ("cuts").

More specifically, meaning: "the study of formal speaking in pronunciation, grammar, style, and tone."

I think it could be argued that rhetoric continues to be under attack today. The term "rhetoric" often carries a negative connotation, as can be seen recently through popularized terms such as "political rhetoric" or "media rhetoric." Many people throw around the term rhetoric without knowing what they are saying or referring to.

How would society be different if we paid more attention to ethics as opposed to the natural sciences? What would an ethics-oriented society look like?

Is this in terms of the individual or a communal/societal sense? Or both? I took it to mean both on the individual and societal levels, but I want to make sure I am interpreting this correctly.

Very interesting to think about -- this notion that the end of something, its ruin, may not actually be an end after all, but rather a beginning. Wow.

Word choice! Therefore, dialogue enriches thought, adding to its development.

Meaning: "containing or presenting the essential facts of something in a comprehensive but concise way"

The innate desire to please everyone hinders the progression of knowledge. Making this realization in the first sentence is remarkably important, for it immediately opens the door to discovery.

The marketplace of ideas! This free flow of ideas nurtured democracy in ancient Greece, specifically in the "Agora," the center of the city-state of Athens.

We write and speak in only the ways we know how -- as ourselves. The fear of error should not prevent the process of discovery from unfolding.

Go ahead, Margaret! Boom.

Quality over quantity!

By nature, humans are selfish. We're always thinking, whether consciously or not, "what's in it for me?" We deem actions that have a potential benefit to us as praiseworthy, while label unbeneficial actions as hurtful.

Could empirical data made up of experiences present in the form of an ethnography? Or autoethnography? I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at here, but it is a thought that came to mind!

In this sense, the mind is a machine, which operates in order to produce a certain product. What is this product? Knowledge? Can the product differ between people and instances?

Part of demonstrating knowledge has to do with the organization of thoughts. What good does it do if one's thoughts remain undeveloped and in disarray? The goal should be to not only generate knowledge, but to translate this knowledge in an organized and accessible form.

Alluding to the Transactional Model of Communication, noise can external (e.g. words, sounds) or internal (e.g. anxiety, distraction). Noise is a barrier to clear communication, which in this sense, inhibits the progression of knowledge.

We stand on the shoulders of academics who have come before us. Although Locke's work may have been "incomplete" or a starting point, his work initiated this pursuit and paved the way for future scholars.

Knowledge is the goal, the end, but the process by which knowledge is discovered, the means, is also important to Locke.

This statement really encapsulates why I am so enjoying the topic of posthumanism from a communication perspective! Challenging "self-evident" assumptions, especially in communication, will allow the field to progress forward.

A striking statement/juxtaposition in a way -- interesting to think of these two concepts as "allies." However, sometimes things that are most unlike each other work the best together.

Humans are goal-driven beings. Goals are essentially cognitive processes that shape our behavior.

Word choice! Suggests eating away or destructive nature. Very interesting.

Herein lies the problem, most notably with the notion of "tools." Issues arise not because of the process by which one tries to complete the task, but rather, through the use of inappropriate tools for the job.The job at hand is to "produce postman rhetorics." This job can be likened to any other sort of carpentry job, say building a bookshelf. If one decides to use a screwdriver to nail into a board, the end product and process will not be as fulfilling. Will the job get done? Probably. Will it produce the same quality as using a hammer would? Probably not. The same can be said when producing posthuman rhetorics: we must find the correct tools to use in order to produce the best work.

Alluding to Erving Goffman, humans are actors constantly performing on the stage of life. This begs the question as to whether post-humanism would occupy the "front stage, "back stage," or even "off stage?"

Communication scholars have more recently begun to highlight enthnographies and autoethnographies in research.

Word choice! What does it mean to be "intellectually lazy"? I think a great example of this can be seen when we talked last class about note taking and how taking notes should be a continual process, one which you constantly refer to and add to your notes, as opposed to taking notes and not looking at them again until you need something.

What if we view the posthumanities as it's own evolutionary process? Much like the "Dawn of Humanity" film explained with human evolution, the posthumanities could be seen as evolving as a braided stream alongside the classical disciplines.

Posthumanism must not be seen as an end, but rather as a beginning. "Post" implies that there was a before -- it is up to us to explain just how we arrived at posthumanism. Dr. Rivers gave the example in last week's class of a math teacher asking students to show their work--how did you arrive at that answer?

Reminds me of the Gorgias "craft" vs "knack" distinction. A craft continually pursues knowledge, whereas a knack simply imitates a craft and is mere routine.

Is it true that post humanism takes issue with the cause and effect pattern? In the sense that these two things are separate entities? (Referring to Burke's belief that we are naturally divided from other people)

"Dissatisfaction" is crucial in education. It allows disciplines to not remain stagnant and content. Questioning concepts and beliefs leads to growth.

Furthering this definition, the concepts of knowing and being intersect here, along with the ever-present ethical component.

We are who/what we are in relation to others as a collective entity. I appreciate the"momentum" phrase -- suggests this constant driving force of moving forward.

Sign vs. Symbol distinction -- crucial in understanding language.

How does interpretation of the natural order differ depending on one's paradigm?

Again, as in the example of the math teacher, students must show their work as to how they came to an answer. One doesn't just arrive at an answer. It is a process.

Therefore, thought is older than language.

I have technophobia with hypothesis... I'm still learning!

Meaning: "the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things."

Commonly referred to as "disposition."

Topic selection

The Five Canons of Rhetoric!

Connecting to Rickert's claim involving the interwoven/entangled notion of culture in terms of rhetoric.

At the core of communication is the inherent need for connection.

How might one go about this process of digestion? I'm particularly intrigued by the word choice of "digest," which seems to suggest energy/knowledge conversion.

Looking at one's academic notes in this sense, what if students were taught from a young age to view their notes and note taking as a continuous process which required frequent study and conversation? Even in college, students often only refer to notes as a means of remembering a specific fact, statement or concept.

Like any other skill, living "well," which differs depending on the person, requires lived experience. It involves navigating life through achievements and failures through which skills are acquired.

Striking juxtaposition here... "wonderful" and "poisonous"

This makes me think of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED Talk: "The danger of a single story." Rather than solely focusing on the single story aspect, Adichie delves into the topic of storytelling and the subsequent power associated with it. In this sense, the discussion of power alludes to Foucault's extensive work on power.

https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript?language=en

Based on this statement, could it be inferred that Muckelbauer places importance on not only the answer to the question (end) but also the process by which that answer is sought (means)? If so, how might the process of discovery be as important as the discovery itself?

It is crucial to not approach topics with too narrow of a perspective. Considering other elements and points of view make for a more well-rounded individual and argument. When thinking of current political issues plaguing the United States, what might be an instance where broadening perspective would be beneficial?

Immediately reminds me of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave."

This phrase made me envision almost a "taste-testing" scenario -- sample different possibilities and determine which ones are worthwhile.

"Attractive, inspiring, persuasive"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychagogic

"Combine" or "come together," forming parts of a whole.

How might the "entanglement of culture" influence the definition of rhetoric? This interwoven nature calls for further examination.

This reminds me of C. S. Lewis' appreciation of the child. Lewis believed children should be taken seriously and there is much to learn from a child's perspective. These beliefs were reflected in his works.

As human beings, we naturally seek a sense of equilibrium.

"The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" Erving Goffman!

When thinking of music, it often occurs that the paring of two chords that do not traditionally create harmony (philosophy and rhetoric) may create beautiful sounds through dissonance.

Although uniformity within a discipline can be beneficial, "shifting" and "overlapping" combat stagnation. Without this constant movement, would disciplines be able to grow and develop?

Here, an identifiable exigence, an imperfection marked by urgency (Bitzer), surfaces, which provides warrant for further examination and potential action.

Aristotle's definition of rhetoric likens the notion of public speaking to persuasion. When addressing an issue of concern, using all available means of persuasion at one's disposal aids in constructing a sound argument.

What might language look like if it is indeed an enemy? Would it be different for each individual or uniformly evil?