Comments on the possibility of television to be an oppressive environment (not to mention a stale form of entertainment).

This function also leaves broadcast television particularly susceptible to those who would spread excessive nationalism in service of that "sense of nationhood and citizenship."

I always thought it was odd that my nephew would watch obviously homemade YouTube videos (so long as they featured Spider-Man) with the same excitement as he would have watching studio-made professional productions. Sometimes more even.

At the time, I'm sure that technology was considered anything but "incredibly cumbersome." Just as I'm sure that in my lifetime, I'll see a day where the use of something as portable as say a tablet will be remembered as "incredibly cumbersome."

This sort of flow was described in the Reeves article, as was the shift toward highly personalized content.

This assemblage is physical rather than theoretical.

Immediately presenting concrete examples of the major paradigm shift in both space (on the bus) and time (whenever) of television from its original iteration.

Reality and game shows still do not represent actual viewer participation, as the participants lose their audience status upon entry.

Some problematic assumptions surrounding those "particular times."

Neither side of any of these binaries exists without the other, so in a sense, they are constantly creating one another and renegotiating traditional roles as advances in technology allow for a more communicative experience all around. Throughout the duration of this process, the binaries become less binding, and each party takes on more of the attributes of the other.

The whole is greater than (or at the very least fundamentally different than) the sum of its parts. This fact, however, does not at all diminish the original natures of the parts, which retain their individual capacities despite their collection into an assemblage.

When applied to art or academia, this can refer to the application of interdisciplinarity to create entirely new disciplines such as the art of graphic novels or the study of political science.

A good deal of modern art seems to be a result of synthesis of preexisting forms rather than an attempt at complete novelty. This is (rightfully) celebrated by those who engage in this sort of remix culture.

This is true of all of our arts and technologies: language, writing, rhetoric, and composition for the sake of this class, but the same goes for music, radio, art, dance, poetry, animation, and so much more. As repertoires expand and access spreads to capable, creative people with increasingly varied experiences, everything we know becomes overtly temporary in the best possible way.

These concepts have been expanded on by live-streaming services such as Twitch and Periscope which deliver specialized content to specific audiences and allow for instantaneous feedback, encouraging interaction between content, creators, and audience members, often blurring the lines between the three.

I was anticipating "upload and share" to refer to television piracy, which regardless of morality is a very real and very prominent facet of the modern culture of television worthy of discussion. Maybe later?

Targeted advertising clearly plays on desires in a harmful manner, taking advantage of a user's specific set of insecurities for the sake of capital gain.

I know I personally get annoyed at excessive advertising, sometimes closing a site altogether if it is not imperative I stay on. Surely others have this response as well, right?

I've heard this called Six Degrees of Wikipedia.

This text makes use of terms like "pressure," "challenge," and "provoke" to refer to the effect of hyperlinks on a user. These terms don't seem to support their usage in the ways they are most commonly employed.

This is parallel to Plato's criticism in Phaedrus: new technology is no replacement for more traditional modes of discourse and any attempts to use it as such will inevitably fall short. However, use of technology within its own unique context has great potential for rhetorical efficacy.

Control over the user is maintained via the illusion of choice. Not a far cry from most other modern controlling circumstances.

Is the structuring of television in such a way ethical? The passive reception on behalf of the viewer is hardly engaging in such a way that television would maintain this grip on people's free time without this sort of addicting programming. Add in the feedback loop that occurs when similar practices are adopted by the instantly adjusting internet, and the ethics become even murkier.

"Rhetoric of the possible" = kairos. This embodies rhetoric in all its most effective forms. The phrasing identifies rhetoric as an constantly adjusting art, guided by the moment at which it emerges. In this way, rhetoric is choice for both rhetor and recipient, or in the case of this digital architecture of choice, a series of choices which have potential to carry a single user across the gestalt rhetorical landscape of a series of entirely unrelated creators.

Presenting too many choices at once leaves the user feeling overwhelmed and unlikely to proceed. However, given the vast nature of the Internet, following one option inevitably leads to another with many divergent paths, all of which leading to a virtually infinite array of options presented in a narrow, funneling fashion. A user may find themself at an end point very far removed from their starting point in a way not at all unlike natural human thought.

"Practical" application of rhetoric in a modern sense is often some sort of capitalist application.

Social lenses allow the exposure of systemic and societal failures and shortcomings as opposed to pathologizing individuals. A solely medical lens also gives an incomplete picture of size, gender, mental health, and any number of other social constructs.

Even a narrative which is entirely her own and in no way involves some sort of able-bodied savior has been co-opted by an ableist (not to mention fatphobic) agenda.

Hero narratives operate in service of individualized short-term quick fixes over sustainable, agency-restoring, long-term systemic solutions.

Even if he did, it would still be invasive and rude.

A specific example of how journalists could add depth and purpose to stories about people with disabilities in a respectful way that centers the story on the people themselves.

This passage is very rhetorically effective. There is concession (acknowledging that the stories are not bad and that the people in them are indeed doing good things), critique (identifying that the primary issue with the narratives are the way they are told), and specific proposal for change (the solution here is to tell the stories in ways that address "the real issues faced by the disability community").

An advantage of embodied, disembodied speech. Modern technologies of writing, recording, and dissemination allow Stella Young to speak directly to me (or anyone else), even posthumously, without removing the context or impact of her words, meaning that she continues to (and will continue to) positively affect change.

This sort of assumption, that a person without disabilities should be able to do whatever a person with disabilities can do, is rooted in ableism and is the sort of overgeneralization that inherently diminishes the accomplishments of anyone with disabilities.

Not only do people without disabilities shift the attention back onto themselves, but they don't even do so in productive ways. Many take in these stories and think about how they are not disabled instead of why they are not disabled, aligning their thought with the medical model of disability and not questioning further the origin of the challenges which many people with disabilities are faced with.

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.

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).

Socrates makes a number of assumptions here, among them that a dichotomy best represents any complicated subject, especially one as so passionately revered (outside of this conversation) as love. Also, he assumes that Phadrus will accept this dichotomy and immediately moves into what he clearly considers a more significant point. Was the mutual exclusion of desire and reason, if not in action then in nature, something that was commonly accepted by this school of philosophers? Because it seems to me a boring and oversimplified way of looking at life.

With this definition, Socrates has already added an element to his speech which Lysias has overlooked in his own.

!!!!!!!!

Not a dear golden ass though.

The pot calling the kettle redundant.

Phaedrus (or rather Lysias) speaks in the previous paragraph about the dangers of power dynamics in romantic relationships. The power dynamic appears again here, though not as clearly identified, in the portrayal of lover as arbiter of worth. The lover's opinion becomes an end point instead of a beginning. Instead of acting as a friend who seeks only to improve the quality of their friend's work, the lover is forced by the nature of their relationship to patronize their beloved.

The problem with trying to "win" an argument, as opposed to trying to discover the truth and arrive at a resolution. This is behavior that does exist among friends and can be corrected among lovers.

Oh people ask why. And they very much enjoy the process of investigating why. It is interesting to see this argument made so long ago, as the general public now does not seem to trust "when non-lovers meet."

It sounds like he is saying non-romantic partners do not make sacrifices for one another.

Actually had an ex point out to me how this behavior is problematic.

Interesting observation, to call into question the source (and therefore the authenticity) of these "kindnesses."

The argument here is that non-romantic love is honest and exists within boundaries which leave both participants free of both obligation and entitlement. This may sound correct in theory, but in practice, Platonic love is not without these "evils."

Plato interrupted his day at a moment's notice to sit outside with no shoes on and metaphilosophize under a tree. I'm sure he has a bit more leisure than he lets on.

Perhaps this is simply a roundabout way of saying he has no interest in the subject.

"Stop flexing (part deux)."

"Stop flexing."

Complete disembodiment in text, even "anonymous" text, is impossible to truly attain, especially online where audience is also participant. However, despite the vitriolic and oppressive atmosphere that often results from this, embodiment in the face of such opposition is not always a bad thing. Pride in a target identity, in being a woman, in being Deaf, in being a Muslim, in being queer, is largely achieved (at least in the common protest tradition here in the United States) through this embodiment.

Taken out of verse form, this reads like prose, but broken as it is by the poet, enjambed across five lines, the rhythm shifts, calling attention to each individual detail without slowing the speaker's pace.