"a lighthearted display of wit and cleverness, especially in a work of literature"

This demonstrates the necessity in finding an audience and how difficult it can be to tailor subject matter to individuals in rhetoric

Relating back to the original forms of rhetoric, before the "modern-classic" subgenre that is mentioned in Modern and Post Modern Rhetoric

protective spirits of a location

Did this man not go to college?

singular of "bona fides"

use traced back to the mid 16th century

translated from the original latin, meaning "with good faith"

Relevant to the earlier point in this text about personal experience being just as necessary as anything else to make connections to rhetoric and texts

It is a clear skill to know exactly what someone wants to hear out of anything that could be said, but this will not amount to anything productive unless both parties recognize the merit in the discussion and not just in hearing what they desire

probably the most accurate description of rhetoric given yet

This really makes me think of rhetoric in terms of the ambiguity that we have been discussing and the importance of being unable to classify it as one particular thought. In this instance, certain rhetoric can become an escape during unpleasant times and provide something that even life could not

Unfortunately, these stifling customs are still present in many areas around the world, making me wonder what sorts of works of art have the capability to be produced if not for certain cultures and laws

Murasaki Shikibu

A very clear parallel between Woolf and the Grimke sisters here

"trying to pack things away into black boxes

(total cop-out)

It seems as though this decision to mandate the "current-traditional" approach of rhetoric in the academic setting cut out a large personal aspect of what rhetoric originally had

Not to belittle anything that people did for rhetoric during the 20th century, but weren't these the same ideas present in rhetorical form during the height of the Greek philosophers? Is the difference in the theory rather than the practice?

It reminds me of earlier point Raj made about the difference between rediscovery and reinventing; was this the rediscovery aspect?

The first examples of ambiguity beginning to form in the what exactly the definition of rhetoric is?

A transcription of one of the paper's editions

also, "the obligation to prove an assertion or allegation that one makes"

Although, it may not be entirely relevant, this seems to be like a very interesting representation of the "Truth" that we kept alluding to after our first set of readings, but adapted to a more understandable scenario.

Much like Hume's discussion on the various forms of taste

For since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas, a man may use what words he pleases to signify his own ideas to himself: and there will be no im-perfection in them, if he constantly use the same sign for the same idea: for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consists the right use and perfection of language (Locke, 817).

Makes me think back to the subjectivity of what rhetoric and language can be; as long as one person believes it to be true, then it must be true

Pardon the heartache, but would this be a fitting example?

Utilizing something emotional to invoke people to care about a certain topic?

One of many times the fields of psychology and rhetoric overlap and blend

"Campbell makes a similar point about the dangers of paraphrase: Since we must be in doubt about the precise meaning of the original, any paraphrase must be consid· ered an interpretation."

Since the medical practices to reveal abnormalities was not an entirely accurate way to "read" bodies, could it be possible that the 19th century norm only became the standard because they couldn't examine bodies to their fullest?

This example of eloquence is one that I still see rather frequently being taught as a literary tool, speaking in reference to the questionable ways that rhetoric was said to be taught earlier in this piece.

I agree very much with the common misconception of the term as fluff to poor arguments, but in the written form, it is often taught to still relate every piece of work back to the general idea to answer the "so what," something that may not be present in all forms of teaching, however

Taste is different for everyone versus taste is universal, but everyone perceives it differently?

This thought reminded me of the discussion in class about how even babies are communicating before developing a sense of language.

It seems to me that as long as an individual has an understanding of their own cultural ideas and contexts, they can grasp some form of rhetorical interaction with others; rhetoric seemingly always finds a way.

That moment when you choose to take teaching rhetoric in a new direction and everyone claims you undermined the importance of what rhetoric was

This paragraph reminds me of my microresponse of "what rhetoric will be." With Blair emphasizing the importance of knowing classic rhetoricians and their styles, his point of their styles not withstanding time illustrates the ever-changing nature and flexibility of rhetoric, while still managing to place that importance on where rhetoric came from, as well

The emphasis placed on these two elements of rhetoric reminds me of the Greek use of rhetoric in politics as a way to sway audiences and public opinion through public speaking, something that relied heavily on these specific elements.

The idea of people requiring only the simplest of tools to make an impact on the world is one that makes me connect this piece to the one by Foucault. As this author states, it may be disappointing that the only tools necessary to tackle large issues are notebooks and the ideas within them, making them come off to me more as encyclopedias of past experiences to aid in future ones, or rather they are just a different representation of the self-writing that Foucault mentions.

"Blueprints for the future are a fool's errand" - Ron Swanson

To me, this idea of writing that speaks and reveals information to a "director" is the very basic idea for what first person narratives are.

Furthermore, this idea of confessing to an audience through an interactive narrative translates to various media, as well. However, even though these confessions are seemingly necessary in textual renditions of narratives, they can often be misconstrued as more intrusive fourth wall breaks due to this change in media. This creates a very thin line between these confessions being additive to the narrative or if they take away from the overall intent of the author.

To keep this idea going still, upon researching the definition of "cogitationes," the definitions were either of self-reflection, thoughts, or the act of thinking; something clearly represented through Foucault's writing, but a connection I found interesting, nonetheless.