e premise is simple yet profound.
BD seems to sideline PKM, but is using the underlying ideas to further his claim that we're forgetful, so capturing thoughts on paper is worthwhile. Seems a bit disingenuous. Maybe sideline the "religious zeal" and take what you need to build your argument here instead?
Alter knows it ain’t Jesus.
The colloquial use of the word "ain't" here very specifically pegs James Bruce, the author, as writing his argument for an audience of Christians in the Southern part of the United States. It's even more stark as most of his review is of a broadly scholarly nature where the word "ain't" or others of its register would never be used.
How does the shift in translation really negate room for Jesus? If it was a truism that it stood for Jesus, then couldn't one just as simply re-translate the New Testament to make sure that the space for him is still there? Small shifts in meaning and translation shouldn't undermine the support for Jesus so easily as Bruce suggests, otherwise there are terrible problems with these underpinnings of Christianity.
If one follows Bruce's general logic, then there's a hell of a religion based on Nostradamus' work we're all going out of our way to ignore.
What would historical linguistics have to say about this translation?
This site is not about evolution per se, but is an apologist platform for creationism. Possibly interesting as a study in creative memetics for culture influence campaigns.
The set is almost self-selected, in the sense that one bookleads to another, amplifying, modifying, or contradicting it.
amplifying, modifying, contradicting...
what other means of argumentation/conversation could one enumerate here with respect to a greater conversation?
A sentence "this is furthered by note xy." is almost as good of an indicator that the opportunity was passed on as "reminds me of" if there is not exploration. On the contrary, if there is "reminds me of" and a thorough exploration of the connection follows it is perfectly fine.
One can make links between ideas more explicit using words like x ["supports", "contradicts", "supports", "challenges", "extends", "contradicts", etc] y. However it can be even more useful and beneficial to not only state the connection in the loosest of terms, but to explore and develop what that connection is and how it works. The more explicit one can be, the better.
If it's a metaphor, analogy, or abstraction, how far can one push those relationships before they collapse? Can the abstraction be encompassed in a mathematical sense that one case completely consumes another?
As for committing node_modules, there are pros and cons. Google famously does this at scale and my understanding is that they had to invest in custom tooling because upgrades and auditing were a nightmare otherwise. We briefly considered it at some point at work too but the version control noise was too much.
If you don't want version control, then that's your choice, but admit it (ideally out loud for others to hear, but failing that then at least to yourself) that that's what you're about.
I’ve also begun adopting a style loosely based on the approach to introductory signals used in legal writing, where things like See: [[something]] and See also: [[something]] and But see: [[something]] each have slightly different meanings. This gives me a set of supporting, comparison, and contradictory signals I can use when placing links as well.
Shorthand notations or symbols in one's notes can be used to provide help in structuring arguments. Small indicators like "see: x", "see also: y", or "but see: z" can be used for adding supporting, comparison, or contradictory material respectively.
https://www.thesing-online.de/blog/zettelkasten-hypertext-linearity-sequentiality
Linearity of ideas and arguments is a means of building toward something.
web standards are so inscrutably complex and fast-moving that building and maintaining a new browser from scratch requires the resources of a medium-sized nation-state
no
non-concrete ideas are very hard to falsify
Maybe this is just a regional thing, but something I really began to notice several years ago is that (a) what Jamie is saying is true, but (b) it's evident that people actually love the unfalsifiability aspect of non-concrete claims—it's safe refuge that they actively seek out.
Two opposing examples from real life that particularly stuck out: * "Slow down. [You're going too fast.]" * "[...] since you always take so long"
(These were two different instances/contexts with, I think, a year+ in between them; it wasn't the contrast between them that made me notice the phenomenon. Rather, I recognized each one at the time as being part of this phenomenon. They just serve as good examples because of how easily they could be made concrete—and therefore falsified in light of the facts: "without defining exactly what 'too fast' means, what is an acceptable speed?", "without defining what it means to take too long, what is an acceptable amount of time to take?"—both arising from wholly disingenuous complaints that were forms of externalized gut reactions rather than anything that would hold up under scrutiny...)
as forking Electron to make Min wouldn't make any sense, and the replier knew this, reading it to mean that seems like a mistake to me
Right. If there are two ways to take a statement, one which is absurd because it's inconsistent with actual fact and another which isn't, it's a bad idea to make an argument that hinges on it being the former—that would mean you're insisting on an absurdity.
As with many front-end techniques, the approach gets a lot of criticism for being different from what people are used to.
Example of focusing on your weakest critics and choosing not to confront the strong arguments against your position.
Unnecessarily verbose, heavier file size
contradicted later
Socrates is turned into a systematic set of psycho-technologies that you internalise into your metacognition. So, what became crucial for Plato, as we saw, was argumentation. But for Antisthenes the actual confrontation with Socrates was more important. Both Plato and Antisthenes are interested in the transformation that Socrates is affording.Plato sees this happening through argumentation. Antesthenes sees it as happening through confrontation because... And you can see how they're both right, because in Socratic elenchus, Socrates comes up and he argues with you. But of course he's also confronting you. We talked about how he was sort of slamming the Axial revolution into your face! So, Antesthenes has a follower, Diogenes, and Diogenes epitomizes this: This confrontation. And by looking at the kinds of confrontation we can start to see what the followers of Antesthenes are doing. So Diogenes basically does something analogous to provocative performance art. He gets in your face in a way that tries to provoke you to realizations. Those kinds of insights that will challenge you. He tries to basically create aporia in you, that shocked experience that you had when confronting Socrates that challenges you to radically transform your life. But instead of using argumentation and discussion, as Socrates did and Plato picked up on, they were really trying to hone in on how to try to be as provocative as possible.
John Vervaeke on Socrates becoming set of psychotechnologies to internalize and augment metacognition. Agues agumentation become central for Plato, whereas confrontation itself become central for Antisthenes. They're disagree about how the cause of the transformation through the Socratic approach
Unclear is stoics take up Plato's mantle of argumentation orientation, but they at least seem distinct from the Cynics (Antisthenes & teach Diogenes
Aporia is moment of shock from experience that you're radically transformed. Could be from Diogenes' provocative performance art or through discourse a la Plato & Socrates
Nietzche may have favored Cynics approach over stoic/Socratic. Possible parallel in left-hand path and right-hand path. Quick & risky vs. slow & steady
My "quote" isn't significantly different from what was actually said
In that case: great! no problem, then—just use the original wording, since by your own argument they are not significantly different; the original is sufficient.
A glib speaker in the Brains Trust onceentertained his audience (and reduced the late Charles Williams to helplessrage) by asserting that in the Middle Ages it was a matter of faith to knowhow many archangels could dance on the point of a needle. I need not say, Ihope, that it never was a “matter of faith”; it was simply a debating exercise,whose set subject was the nature of angelic substance: were angels material,and if so, did they occupy space?
The question "how many archangels could dance on the point of a needle" was an argumentation exercise, and not the sort of frippery we imagine it to be today.
If not, his teacher and his fellow-pupils, trained alongthe same lines, would be quick to point out where he was wrong; for it wasthey whom he had to seek to persuade.
Surely Sayers would be appalled by the current state of political argument... The "Sunday Shows" are full of talking points and all of the wrong sorts of "rhetoric" without much, if any basis in fact.
Have you ever followed a discussion in the newspapers or elsewhere andnoticed how frequently writers fail to define the terms they use? Or howoften, if one man does define his terms, another will assume in his reply thathe was using the terms in precisely the opposite sense to that in which he hasalready defined them?
On this point, for instance, thebook on John Dewey's technique of thought by Bogos-lovsky, The Logic of Controversy, and C.E. Ayers' essayon the gospel of technology in Philosophy Today andTomorrow, edited by Hook and Kallen.
The Technique of Controversy: Principles of Dynamic Logic by Boris B. Bogoslovsky https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technique_of_Controversy/P-rgAwAAQBAJ?hl=en
What was Dewey's contribution here?
The Gospel of Technology by C. E. Ayers https://archive.org/details/americanphilosop00kall/page/24/mode/2up
Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How To Do Things With Texts. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/9248
Joseph Harris' text Rewriting: How to do things with texts (2006) sounds like a solid follow on text to the ideas found in Sönke Ahrens (2017) or Dan Allosso (2022).
Countering represents a writer attempting to “suggest a different way ofthinking” as opposed to attempting to “nullify” a writing (p. 57).
the Toulmin model isprominent for teaching evidence-based argumentation in manydisciplines (Osborne et al., 2004). The Toulmin model centers on thefactual basis for an argument, resulting claims, and counter-claims.
The Tolumin model is an evidence based method of teaching argumentation.
Obnoxious.
As someone recently pointed out on HN, it's very common nowadays to encounter the no-one-knows-else-what-they're-doing-here refrain as cover—I don't have to feel insecure about not understanding this because not only am I not alone, nobody else understands it either.
Secondly, if your code is hard to understand regarding its use of this, then your code his hard to understand. this isn't super easy, but it's also not hard. Your code (or the code you're being made to wade into) probably just sucks. The this confusion is making you confront it, though, instead of letting it otherwise fly under the radar.* So fix it and stop going in for the low-effort, this-centric clapter.
* Not claiming here that this is unique; there are allowed to be other things that work as the same sort of indicator.
Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.10.002
argumentation mapping allows large on-line groups toinvestigate very complex issues, such as climate change, by linking issues with arguments andcounterarguments in a growing public network (Iandoli, Klein, & Zollo, 2009; Klein, 2011).
Argumentation mapping as a way to surface alignment in complex problem scenarios like climate change could be worth exploring in massive collaboration ecosystems.
I have 35 MB of node_modules, but after webpack walks the module hierarchy and tree-shakes out all module exports that aren't reachable, I'm left with a couple hundred kilobytes of code in the final product.
This directly contradicts the earlier claim that irreducible complexity is the culprit behind the size of the node_modules directory.
35 MB → "a couple hundred kilobytes"? Clear evidence of not just reducibility but a case of actual reduction...
> If I understand your critique, it's this: "How dare you critique their use of Ra? You have no standing! You have no right!" Which is basically an ad hominem attack that doesn't address any of the substance of my complaint.Sorry, no, making up your own caricature of what I said isn't an effective way of responding to it.
Yeah, why has this become so normalized? It's gotten to the point where people will respond to something by posting nothing but an attempt at false attribution by rewording the other—typically in the most convenient, pithy, hackneyed, and strawmannish way—and then putting quotes around it while drowning in plaudits from those who already agree—often for reasons no better than shameless tribal affiliation.
The basic precondition to summarizing the other's position in order to refute it is that the other side actually agrees that it's an accurate summary of their position. If you don't have that, then you don't have anything.
it's far easier for me to write a PHP script and rsync it to a web server of mine
You can read the “Effort” axis as whatever you like here; size, complexity, resource consumption, maintenance burden.
Hey, look, it's an actually good example of the "steep learning curve".
(I never understood why people insist that referring to it as a steep curve is wrong; clearly the decisions about your axes are going to have an impact on the thing. It seems that everyone who brings this up is insisting on laying out their graph the wrong way and implicitly arguing that other people need to take responsibility for it.)
ReconfigBehSci [@SciBeh]. (2021, November 26). Clearly we haven’t “kept borders closed forever”—Most borders have been open for many months now. The question is whether we urgently close a particular border now. “kept borders closed forever” = straw man (and I say this as a researcher on fallacies of argumentation) [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1464131447799922689
Many have discovered an argument hack. They don’t need to argue that something is false. They just need to show that it’s associated with low status. The converse is also true: You don’t need to argue that something is true. You just need to show that it’s associated with high status.
We've gone from "copyright infringement" to words like stealing and theft. They're fundamentally different concepts which were intentionally mixed up. If I steal from you, you no longer have what I've stolen. If I copy your software, you still have it
I know people are really fond of this talking point, but it doesn't hold up.
if you come to work at my sandwich shop, and you show up every day to make sandwiches, and then payday comes and I stiff you, then I have definitely stolen from you.
The strongest retort to this is that this would be an instance of fraud, since in the sandwich shop we probably came to an agreement beforehand that I would pay you e.g. $15 per hour, but in the case of IP, this is incomparable because we never agreed to anything. This is pretty straightforwardly addressed by the observation that we live in a society where IP laws are in effect, so regardless of how any one person feels about IP in the abstract, we're all bound by the rules that are known at the outset. Because your decision as the creator to move forward and create the thing was predicated on an understanding that the rules are such as they are, then I actually do have an obligation to observe them just the same as my obligation not to stiff you for making my sandwiches. I don't get to start a game of Parcheesi with you under the pretense that we're going to play fair and then reveal midway through that I won't be governed by all the rules on basis that I don't believe that they're entirely justified. Fairness cannot follow from false pretense.
The one way that it would be fair would be if I made my position known from the beginning and then everyone agreed to play anyway under my augmented ruleset, but it's important to observe that the obligation lies with me. What this doesn't mean, in a society with IP laws, is that it would be sufficient for me to declare (e.g. in a manifesto posted to my blog, or in an Internet message board comment, or whispered into the night) that I don't agree with IP and then proceed to fill up on all the stuff that I'd like. What proceeding with my augmented Parcheesi ruleset looks like is disengaging from the society where IP law is in effect and moving to Russia or Shenzhen or the habitat I've set up on the edge of Schiaparelli crater.
Can Windows/Linux not rename a file while it’s open, show a folder’s size, or rename a document from within its app window?
Case study in equivocation.
Pilditch, T. (2021). Why scientific evidence is no longer enough in public debate [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/98v2n
The quote that begins about halfway through this trailer in full is, "He tells a lie, and people go to track this down, and by the time you've responded to that, he's told three others. It's a sheer exercise in fatigue."
Speaker is Jelani Cobb.
Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (ordecreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader
If a speaker presents an argument to an audience, in which he asserts and defendsthe conclusion by appeal to the premises, I call this activity argumentation.
Aarts, A. A. (2021). Psychological Science replicates just fine, thanks. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h4byg
White-Sullivan. C., (2019) Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Conaw/status/1278609573973127169
ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1314493024072863744
ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “having spent a few days looking at ‘debate’ about COVID policy on lay twitter (not the conspiracy stuff, just the ‘we should all be Sweden’ discussions), the single most jarring (and worrying) thing I noticed is that posters seem completely undeterred by self contradiction 1/3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1308340430170456064
Tobie Nathan percevait dans la passion érotique l’aliénation radicale, c’est-à-dire le moment où un être est en pleine métamorphose, susceptible d’échapper à son identité première (Nathan 2013).
ce passage est extrêmement intéressant, je pense qu'il mériterait d'être un peu développé pour rendre plus évident le lien avec le récit.
qui pourtant se ressemblent énormément
Il serait intéressant d'expliciter un peu plus peut-être en quoi les deux cultures se ressemblent.
Project background – Critical Analysis Project. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://critical-analysis.org/project-background/
désigne au juste l’expression corps de texte14 ?
il semble que tu réponde à la question dans la note.
Sans doute arriverons-nous à une compréhension plus complète de ce phénomène en revenant sur ce passage dans lequel le silence d’Albertine endormie marque une clôture au sein du récit : « Alors sous ce visage rosissant je sentais se réserver comme un gouffre l’inexhaustible espace des soirs où je n’avais pas connu Albertine. Je pouvais bien prendre Albertine sur mes genoux, tenir sa tête dans mes mains, je pouvais la caresser, passer longuement mes mains sur elle, mais, comme si j’eusse manié une pierre qui enferme la salure des océans immémoraux ou le rayon d’une étoile, je sentais que je touchais seulement l’enveloppe close d’un être qui par l’intérieur accédait à l’infini. Combien je souffrais de cette position où nous a réduits l’oubli de la nature qui, en instituant la division des corps, n’a pas songé à rendre possible, l’interpénétration des âmes ! » (III, 888)↩
cette référence je pense a davantage sa place dans le cours du texte
À la vérité, cette opposition nous éloigne de la dimension opaque du langage qui se trouve au cœur de l’écriture de Proust.
peut-être expliciter ici, ce que tu comptes en faire, si le traiter pourquoi, sinon pourquoi également.
Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation. (2020). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004
, c’est à l’écrivain qu’il revient de restituer la complexité de l’expérience intérieure.
je ne suis pas sûre de la rhétorique de cette phrase
Plus récemment, dans la psychologie contemporaine, Louise Barrett, dans le sillage des études de James Gibson sur la théorie de l’affordance, montre que le cerveau ne peut être comparé à une machine Turing. L’homme, dans sa corporéité, est plus qu’un organisme récepteur d’un ensemble de signaux sensoriels qui sont convertis en impulsions électrochimiques traitées dans le cerveau humain. Au contraire, l’homme se caractérise par la réciprocité des liens qui s’établissent entre lui et le monde. Dans les mots de Barrett, « our understanding of the world is grounded in - and built up from - our ability to act in it, so that even the most abstract of ideas reflect what our bodies can physically achieve » (2015, 113). Des objets techniques, tels que le gouverneur Watt nous permettent de mieux comprendre l’intégration dynamique du corps humain à son environnement : « Dynamical systems [ajoute Barrett] present us with more useful means for understanding and thinking about physically embodied environmentally embedded organisms than do standard computational models » (2015, 130). Or si l’apport de la psychologie en général ne peut être minoré dans le cadre de ma recherche, elle a ses limites dans la mesure où, comme le note assez bien Merleau-Ponty, « elle place la conscience perceptive au milieu d’un monde tout fait » (2008, 73), c’est à dire un monde dont la présence n’est pas interrogée. James Gibson et Louise Barrett proposent des thèses qui vont à l’encontre du consensus en psychologie et des approches connexionnistes et computationnelles.↩
c'est une note relativement longue, peut-être intégrer une partie dans le texte ?
anamorphoses40.
je pense qu'il faudrait développer un peu cette association à l'anamorphose, selon la définition de Servanne, parce quand on pense à l'anamorphose on y pense dans le cadre des arts visuels
Autrement dit, la présence du savant affecte le résultat de l’expérience scientifique.
cela me fait penser (mais tu l'as certainement développé), au déplacement du grain de beauté d'Albertine lorsque le narrateur la regarde dormir
La perception visuelle s’élargit pour englober l’univers des sons et des sensations tactiles.
peut-être préciser dans les rapports au sens (juste dans cette phrase) la dimension érotique : ce n'est pas n'Importe quel rapport au toucher,etc...
Se retrouvant dans un cabinet obscur avec son ami Robert de Saint-Loup et sa maîtresse, le narrateur est frappé par l’apparition de son reflet dans une glace : « [L]’ampoule électrique placée au sommet du cadre devait le soir, quand elle était allumée, suivie de la procession d’une trentaine de reflets pareils à elle-même, donner au buveur, même solitaire, l’idée que l’espace autour de lui se multipliait en même temps que ses sensations exaltées par l’ivresse et qu’enfermé seul dans ce petit réduit, il régnait pourtant sur quelque chose de bien plus étendu en sa courbe indéfinie et lumineuse, qu’une allée du “Jardin de Paris”. Or, étant alors à ce moment-là ce buveur, tout d’un coup, le cherchant dans la glace, je l’aperçus, hideux, inconnu, qui me regardait. La joie de l’ivresse était plus forte que le dégoût ; par gaieté ou bravade, je lui souris et en même temps il me souriait » (II, 469). Bien que l’ampoule électrique ne permette qu’une vision imparfaite – à résolution faible – de la scène, le regard du narrateur est polarisé par l’aspect « hideux » et « inconnu » du reflet qu’il entrevoit dans la glace. L’indétermination référentielle du héros (marquée par la récurrence du pronom « il ») souligne la dilatation de l’espace sous l’effet de l’ivresse.↩
je proposerai d'intégrer ce contenu au texte
Ces expériences lancinantes sont
à quoi cela se réfère ? si c'est à la citation de la note, mieux vaut intégrer la citation en retrait dans le texte
Bien que le héros de la Recherche constate à différentes reprises comment la vie en société ne fait qu’accentuer la solitude de l’individu, certaines expériences collectives peuvent susciter de sa part des sensations de bien-être.
Je pense que cette note est trop longue et pourrait être inclue dans le texte.
L’influence décadentiste qui marquait encore les premiers écrits de Proust semble également loin du style de la Recherche.
peut-être développer un peu plus cette idée
dimension originaire de silence
je ne suis pas sûre de bien comprendre ici le rapport au silence
L’ancrage dans les abscisses de la chair renvoie le narrateur à sa propre absence, à l’image des chambres closes dans lesquelles se joue le drame de son existence.
Peut-être que cette phrase, très stylisée, arrive un peu vite et qu'elle aurait besoin d'être un peu plus introduite par des phrases plus dans l'explication concrète
Lévinas (qui a lu Proust)
peuut-être citer la frence qui l'atteste
C’est en ce sens que le visage s’établit comme texte original au même titre que le regard.
il manque, je trouve, des phrases prmettant de lier les idées dans cette fin de paragraphe, cela va un peu vite
l’indétermination spatiale du grain de beauté d’Albertine.
peut-être citer des extraits
Au moment où j’écris ces lignes, je prends vaguement conscience des Gnossiennes n.1 d’Éric Satie en fond sonore.
peut-être faudrait-il introduire ce témoignage par une phrase
le pur quale «
peut-être nécessaire à définir rapidemment
Ce n’est là qu’une des dénominations de couleur mythique que nous trouvons
Je ne comprends pas le lien entre le texte et la note.
cinéaste américain David Lynch de quelques décennies.
peut-être développer un peu cette association avec un exemple.
du futurisme
je pense qu'une courte définition ici serait la bienvenue
L’écart qui subsiste entre le narrateur et le dispositif architectural de la scène est l’une des conditions nécessaires à l’immersion totale de l’expérience théâtrale.
peut-être une référence sur ce point ? il y a des études qui ont notamment parlé du 4e mur et de l'importance de la distance du public à la scène pour que le théâtre "agisse".
l’Oculus Rift amplifient la sensation de choc sensoriel en plongeant le spectateur dans un monde sans gravité, la porosité du rapport sujet-objet persiste.
peut-être insérer une note explicative qui présente l'oculus rift ?
(dé)limitent.
Pourquoi cette précision avec parenthèse ?
font constellation.
peut-être développer davantage cette idée de constellation
Or pourquoi recourir à l’image du stéréoscope pour expliquer la profondeur de l’image perçue?
peut-être faut-il mieux exprimer l'apparente incohérence dans l'association : image intime / dispositif extérieur ?
clarté de cette description
clarté dans quel sens ?
On peut alors se demander pour quelle raison Proust recourt à la vision artificielle du stéréoscope.
est ce qu'il y a un fait étonnant à ce qu'il le fasse ?
es plus belles pages de Guermantes.
quelques références de pages exemplaires ?
peut résulter d’une quête de vérité.
peut-être développer un peu cette idée ? ou la lier davantage à l'idée qui suit ?
propre
l'idée de propre n'est pas claire ici pour moi (mais certainement cette idée est développée dans l'introduction).
le processus de sédimentation des roches semblables à la formation de nos souvenirs les plus intimes.
je pense qu'il faudrait peut-être développer un peu plus cette idée de sédimentation.
caractère stérile
pourquoi stérile ?
t également
ce "également" n'est pas évident je trouve dans la suite des paragraphe. je propose de l'enlever
Si l’espace nous renvoie toujours à la pensée que nous pouvons en avoir, comment cette notion peut-elle répondre à la réalité de corps qui nous apparaissent dans leur finitude? Autrement dit, comment l’espace assimilé au cogitatum - à la chose pensée - peut-il rendre compte de ce qui est donné?
je dirai qu'il manque peut-être un fil liant la fin de ce paragraphe et le paragraphe suivant.
Pour rassurante qu’elle paraisse,
rassurante parce que calculable ?
la dimension immersive que nous lui connaissons
peut-être que cette dimension immersive est à relativiser selon un contexte d'audience: le visionnage de L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat a vraiment fait peur aux spectateurs qui avaient l'impression qu'un train leur fonçait dessus.
Par conséquent, et en suivant la logique du héros, la représentation mimétique du réel en littérature est assimilée à une vision cinématographique.
Peut-être développer un peu plus l'assimilation, le développement précédent se fait davantage sur le rapport à une réalité et moins sur les accointances entre ce rapport et la vision cinématographique. (cela demeure mon avis)
il [apparaît comme] un simple appareil enregistreur qui prend les instantanés » (II, 813). À propos de l’image en mouvement
peut-être qu'ici il manque une transition entre photographie et image en mouvement
Each defines argumentation to suit his theoretical goals, and there is nothingwrong with that. The mistake occurs when any one of them criticizes the others’definitions for failing to be based on his theoretical preoccupations
Accepter la pluralité de point de vue
Law traces this connection from Locke and shows its implications for rhetoric.
One element of this is persuasion and argumentation
Emma’s multiplicity of subplots, andits preoccupation with the reading, rereading and misreading of writing within,and events internal to, the text, renders the novel a manifesto for Austen’sapproach to the‘‘judicious’’, critical reading necessary to understanding thefunction of literary influence in her fiction
The author makes it clear that she will be explicating her thesis via the example of Emma. In this sentence, she connects Austen's approach to reading, writing, and readership to the notion of literary fiction. Again, I'm not sure if the following paragraphs do live up to the expectation she sets up here.
It is this practice of judicious, critical, ingenuous reading that we mustadopt in order to understand the ways in which Austen uses the texts of otherwriters to create her own fiction*in order, that is, to rethink the meaningof‘‘influence’’as it pertains to this central figure in the history of women’swriting.
In this sentence, the author makes a transition between Austen's expectations for her readership's literary knowledge and reading practices and the notion of literary influence. Here, she argues that Austen's requirement for "judicious, critical, ingenuous reading" is necessary for the reader to understand how influence operates in Austen. I am not quite sure if I agree with this assessment. In the later paragraphs, I do not feel that the author's argument explicitly shows that informed readership is necessary to understand influence in Emma. Rather, the audience gives more of a plot summary and information about the reading practices within the novel, not those required for its audience.
Austen, unsurprisingly,rejects Brunton’s didacticism wholeheartedly. She also tones down Brunton’sheroine, and Emma Woodhouse has none of Ellen Percy’s monstroustendencies.
This coincides with the notion of influence from the beginning of the article that claims that influence occurs with a misreading or revision of the original work.
The catalyst forthe novel, however, seems to have been a straightforward reaction to a newwork by an author Austen considered her competition*the Scottish MaryBrunton’sDiscipline(1814).Disciplineis a fictional autobiography with the strong religious themes ofsin, repentance and redemption.
The author claims here that Emma was inspired by the 1814 novel Discipline by Mary Brunton, which surely is not part of the male literary canon laid out earlier in the article. The author outlines the main themes of Discipline and explains the relationship between the two authors.
I feel like a broken record here, but again, this seems to be a very tenuous point without computational analysis. The author's own language belies this tenuousness as she says that the novel's inspiration "seems to have been a straightforward reaction" to another novel. The word "seems" does not inspire confidence.
s the late Brian Southam has noted, Austen benefited personally from thisimportant educational development through her access to an extraordinarilybroad range of literature from a very young age.8By the time she came topublish her novels, the benefits of this advance in education were being felt inan unparalleled expansion and sophistication of literary culture.
Here, the author ties Austen's education in with her expectations of her readership.
Austen allows Emma to imaginatively misattribute herself. In doing so,she offers the reader a literary red herring. While Harriet may fall in and out oflove as if she is subject to one of Puck’s spells,Emmatakes its cues from adifferent Shakespearean comedy.24Emma, who has‘‘very little intention of ever marrying at all’’, yet is happyto consider Frank Churchill as a potential husband (84), resembles Olivia, the‘‘too proud’’heiress of Shakespeare’sTwelfth Night, whose resolution to live‘‘like a cloistress’’is quickly abandoned when she meets Viola, disguised as aboy.25
In this brief introduction to the next section of the paper, Murphy challenges existing scholarship that aligns Emma with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Rather, the author outlines the parallels between Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. I find the connection somewhat tenuous as it almost ignores all of the gender bending and performance of Twelfth Night. While the author's later claim that "the broader themes of deliberate misrepresentation and self-serving delusions" are the tie between the two plays, I find that ignoring the aspects of performance and disguise is problematic.
I also think that this takes away from Murphy's main argument, which is that Austen's view of influence is broader than the historically main canon, evidence by her parody of Brunton's novel. This section seems to show the opposite, which is a parallel between Austen and Shakespeare.
It is not to be expected that any character withinEmmamight be able toexercise the kind of judgment of its creator or perform the kind of judiciousreading that Austen’s text ultimately demands. This does not prevent Austenfrom demonstrating how her characters can betaughtto read and to judgeclearly.
Here, Murphy makes the connection back to readership and the characters of Emma.
This, incidentally, made me think of the quote on the new British ten pound note: "I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading!" which was certainly a satirical denotation.
Like other quixotic heroines before her, Emma has a habit of turningeverything she sees into a romance plot.
Much like Catherine in Northanger Abbey!
Austen’s debt to Brunton is in the tradition of eighteenth-century parody,a descendant of works likeJoseph Andrews(1742), and does not indicate herartistic approbation of the novelist or her works.
This is a key point as Murphy argues that while Austen is influenced by Brunton, it does not mean that she endorses her work. Rather, as Murphy states later, Emma is a direct rejection and parody of Brunton's "didacticism" (106).
If we enlarge our understanding of the concept of‘‘influence’’, we canbegin to see the ways in which artistically unremarkable, canonicallydisregarded works inform the development even of masterpieces. Ros Ballastercorrectly states that:[...] most women novelists of the eighteenth century tended to locatetheir own writing in relation to a strong line of male predecessors orcontemporaries [...] if women read each other’s work they did not, forthe most part, openly acknowledge influence.16Jane Austen is the exception to this rule. Far from shamefacedly concealing herdebt to Brunton’s novel, on the contrary, Austen’s linguistic allusions toDisciplineinEmmadraw the reader’s attention to the two novels’intimateconnection
This is a key section. Here, the author claims that Jane Austen's Emma is influenced by the rather unremarkable and certainly much less well known novel Discipline. This is in contrast to the existing tradition. Murphy cites and agrees with Ballaster's argument that 18th century women authors situated their own work within the male tradition and did not seek recognition for the influence of other female authors. However, Murphy argues that Austen makes obvious the connection to Brunton.
Despite the continued aggravations ofconservative, moralistic, unskilful novel readers, whose tedious responsesto her innovative fiction Austen collected in her‘‘Opinions’’ofEmmaandMansfield Park(1814), Austen could rely on a growing phalanx of clever,curious and‘‘judicious’’readers whose taste for more complex literary fare hadbeen nurtured since childhood.
Here, the author summarizes her paragraph on education and access to literature to bolster her argument about Austen's assumptions about the knowledge level of her readership. I believe that this is an important point, as it shows WHY and HOW Austen was able to have such high expectations for her readers.