Masschelein's argument here seems to in agreement with Boyle's "cruel pedagogy," though the author's focuses are different. Boyle is concerned with teaching students to read and engage with an abundance, possibly an over saturation, of material: a key aspect of which is to unlearn the slow, linear, detail-focused methods of reading we assume naturally from being taught to read fiction. Creating a dynamic engagement between many texts, and therefore varying authors and perspectives, while maintaining a quick pace assumes this "labyrinth" learning style described in this passage by Ingold. "Exposure" seems to be a key concept in both author's vision of productive education.

I wonder if Mandel's argument about diminishing the conscious mind's influence on writing opposes Boyle's highly structural, but useful, outline for productive reading and responding to texts. As a student focused on language and writing, I have always been intrigued by the apparent clash between formulaic and extemporaneous forms of writing, and the ways in which we must adhere to both (in some amount) to be successful. Does focusing on checklists and strategies limit our ability to quiet our own consciousness, or does the structure give us freedom to flee from it as we venture between goal posts? Perhaps akin to driving---when we know where we're going and where the turns will be, we're more likely to get lost in thought, to focus on the music playing or notice a new billboard town.

This supports Alter's point in Chapter 8 of Drunk Tank Pink.

The Same can be said around the world and across different periods of time across human development. Present day, Communities can connect threw the aid of technological advances.

Here, Boyle explains what he calls a cruel pedagogy, in training attention with intentional oversaturation of information. This practice seems in line with Ingold's posit in Education and Attention, that perception proceeds along a path of observation, and that attention must be educated. By making the close, thorough, and linear reading of all materials impossible, Boyle seems to want students to make their way out of the maze of knowing all there is to know. 

This is a narrative few are hearing and fewer are promoting: a huge benefit of the ecosystem vision is about connecting people and opportunities

> for - addiction - graph - years of use vs loss of synaptic connections

for - internet - history - Ted Nelson - early pioneer of World Wide Web and hypertext - advocated for visible connections - but failed to materialize

for - neuroscience - example - diverse and low density connections beats non-diverse and high connections

neuroscience - example diverse and low density connections vs non-diverse high density connections - having access to many diverse perspectives is a key enabler of good problem-solving and innovation

for - adjacency - Dan Carlin - James Burke - Connections

adjacency - between - Dan Carlin - James Burke - Connections - progress - adjacency statement - What an interesting adjacency! - James Burke's Connection has been a major influence on my own thinking on progress and progress traps - Seeing it influence Dan Carlin as well

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxgUkHTvXNob8166Ezozo8NpcJ2Idn7Kw

tagline for AT&T commercials.

I saw one today watching football.

Bill Atkinson had an idea about the freedom to associate knowledge not by what comes next on the list but by the links that are associated with it. This means that information can be organized in a non-linear fashion, allowing for connections to be made between seemingly unrelated ideas. By expanding on this idea, we can create new and innovative ways of storing and accessing information, potentially leading to breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence and data analysis.

restated and called back to throughout the text.

also references the repeated theme that science / medicine / covid cannot be seperated from all other factors of the human experience.

not only are we the medium for the pandemic, we are inseperable from it.

Can be interpreted outside of this context as social justice commentary.

What are ways we categorize:human vs nonhuman, races, genders, etc

Just like any social media site.

So far, Answer Garden seems better used and similarly in demand as Piazza.

This may help me with my own research needs to crowdsource peer review and create "living peer reviews."

This feels entirely different from modern organizational memory aids like Almanac (https://almanac.io/)!

My last company had a page in their wiki with acronyms and downloadable Excel spreadsheets!

I tried to do this in my last role as a lab manager and we have a PhD student spreadsheet I added variables to for this specific purpose.

Check it out here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10qMAJjYc7fTGLLSmvrD7pk8v1KeHJYLC47JMBvqxG8A/edit?usp=sharing

In cog psych, this shows up as a small-to-moderate effect of being able to remember better when the conditions of retrieval (testing) align with the conditions of knowledge aquisition. In some studies, learning word pairs underwater and later being tested underwater was superior compared to learning word pairs underwater and being tested on the surface.

Ref: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1293702195?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Hidden curriculum -> Hidden duties and processees

relationship with zettelkasten in the history of historical methods?

Yes I think this is how to Activate learning. You have just read something and just marking the texts is not enough. Put something like this reminds me of when I use to teach and try to connect a character to someone real.

There is a connection between the words that is from the setting, background, and image of the words.

Sarah Mojarad. (2020, October 23). What are some of the positive consequences of social media? Would love to hear your stories! [Tweet]. @Sarah_Mojarad. https://twitter.com/Sarah_Mojarad/status/1319722197766733825

I feel like the process is similar. It's about making connections, right? So, a long walk is instructive. Letting one's mind wander and paying attention to whatever floats in. Then sifting through it all to try and make sense. I feel like the older we get, the more connections we make, as well, because we've read more widely and have experienced more things. This little stream of consciousness vomit reminded me of an exercise of several years ago, a "twisted pair." Taking seemingly unrelated things and finding connections. I think at the end of the day, pretty much everything is connected in some way. In non-fiction, maybe the trick is to identify the strands that you want to focus on in making the connections.

I disagree, because this going to make the people more angry and it's not going to calm things down.

I agree, because by doing this you can make a difference.

I agree, because if someone racist, he's not going to tell you "I'm racist".

https://fs.blog/2013/11/taking-notes-while-reading/

Interesting but not useful to me as it's too basic within my current system. I like that he encourages people to go back over their notes and cross link them.

Some people consider annotations to be a conversation with the author. But you're also having a conversation with yourself and your own thoughts. (Cross reference Niklas Luhmann's having a conversation with himself via his notes.)

Further, there are platforms like Hypothes.is or social platforms like Twitter where you can move the conversation out of the page and engage with others. However, for this Hypothes.is has more power because it keeps the conversation linked to the original text and the original context (which I'll explicitly translate here as "with the text") to underline the point.

cf:

cum (Latin) : with

textus (Latin) : tissue, web, texture, fabric, connection, language

contextus (Latin) : context, connection, coherence, connexion, coherency, text

Connections ARE retention. They are memory.

Often forgotten in the reading and learning processes is creating connections between our new content and what we already know. This is some of the power behind the basic idea in zettelkasten of creating links between knowledge.

This point Boyle makes here is reminiscent of the concept of "intra-actions" and decentering humanistic ideals in favor for a more interactive and interconnectivity with humanity the world found in The Animal Who Writes.

Stuart, A., Katz, D., Stevenson, C., Gooch, D., Harkin, L., Bennasar, M., Sanderson, L., Liddle, J., Bennaceur, A., Levine, M., Mehta, V., Wijesundara, A., Talbot, C. V., Bandara, A., Price, B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2021). Loneliness in Older People and COVID-19: Applying the Social Identity Approach to Digital Intervention Design [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qk9hb

This chapter is dense with rich vocabulary, particularly noticeable while reading the following chapter. I would suggest this could be one of Dickens' tools to capture the mood of the story, in this case, there is a serious feeling of graveness and mystery. I recognized the term "laved" was similar to the Spanish "lavar" and searched for it with quickfind. This is the only occurrence of the word and its conjugations in the series while those for "wash" occur 30 times. To me this indicates to the reader that this action is very important. I also happened to notice that every time the word indolent is used, it follows some mention of Mortimer Lightfoot. It is often in connection to his buddy Eugene Wrayburn, but is used ironically by Riderhood in this chapter after a smug Wrayburn got the final word in a conversation.

Pinilla, A., Garcia, J., Raffe, W., Voigt-Antons, J.-N., & Möller, S. (2021). Visual representation of emotions in Virtual Reality. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9jguh

SunderlandLollipops💙. ‘Spanish Flu of 1918 Had Idiots: “Authorities Shut down Businesses & Some People Complained about Having to Wear Masks”. Covid 2021: We Have Usforthem 🙄. #masksinclass Https://T.Co/McmK9zRCjX’. Tweet. @SunderlandLolly (blog), 5 March 2021. https://twitter.com/SunderlandLolly/status/1367862995204837377.

how do students make meaning?

milky way is also a candy

Many thanks to Steel Wagstaff for suggesting this language.

Connectivism takes social constructivism a step further complimenting diverse social connections (nodes) that individuals create within the dynamic nature of the Internet. Technologies become learning tools. Consider Twitter and the connections that we make on this social tool. We are designing our own learning environment. The media, news, individuals we connect to inform us. As they connect with us, we begin to inform them. This becomes an extension or even a new system of learning. The more diverse our connections the broader our experiences will be. The more we participate and engage the more meaningful it will be. As an educator, how can the connections that we make inform our practice in more broad and meaningful ways? How can we help our students create connections that impact and enhance their learning?

When students have a deep understanding they can make connections and when they see that learning can be applied to the real world we have more motivated learners. I feel if students are motivated their ideas and capabilities are boundless. I believe having motivated learners should be a huge part of education, allowing kids to see their potential and how connections can be made.

Interesting to highlight the value of financial support and network connectivity from the youth perspective.

I like how there's this very specific reference to a more stand out panel - found on page 16 of the physical book.

Barad's use of parentheses reminds me of Gate's article on signifyin(g). While he used parentheses a lot at the end of the word "signifyin(g); he also used them throughout the article around the prefix "re-", denoting "again". I think Barad is suggesting that there are always new ways to articulate something, so it is not necessarily always "re-articulated," but rather is sometimes re-articulated and other times is said in a completely different manner.

I could be way off base, but this sentence reminds me of the Romantic idea (held by William Godwin, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Mary Shelley, amongst others) that the betterment of the individual was achieved through interactions and forming relationships with others. An improved individual was equipped to understand the world and discover truth--which is I think what Barad is saying here about agential intra-actions and their production of phenomena, which results in both physical and cultural matter.

After last week, we can probably agree that "no"--it isn't. Vatz and Bitzer were talking inside the same "box," regarding the speaker, audience, and context as discrete parts, and the post-human is part of the movement which pushes us outside that box, wanting to argue that the parts are not, in fact, discrete.

I read through the next few paragraphs and struggled to understand the point they were making with these examples. I wanted more context, which I found helped a great deal in understanding the point being made here, so I thought you folks might appreciate that, as well. Here is the hotel:

And here is an excerpt from the aforementioned text in which Jameson discusses the hotel. Important points are helpfully in red: https://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/hum3930b/jameson1.htm

It seems like Edbauer is attempting to reverse what Quintillian did many years ago by compartmentalizing rhetoric, which in his mind would be a better way to understand it and practice it. However, rhetoricians have since argued that this has been problematic to the field, with which I think Edbauer would agree. In order to display a truer form of rhetoric, Edbauer wants to create a model that will showcase all of its aspects.

Sounds kind of like Plato in Phaedrus on the Soul when he said that philosophers should have control over Greece to run the society as efficiently and morally as possible.

Maybe this is a stretch, but the word choice of "hierarchy" makes me uncomfortable because it implies a great amount of self-importance and arrogant superiority.

I think Nietzsche would agree with this. Nietzsche said that language (and by extension meaning) was subjective and could not be truly universal because individuals (in this example, rhetors) would apply their own background and experiences to a particular word in order to determine its meaning. Also mirrors Locke's idea that language is not universal.

"Should be done" in this context is relative to the individual who is engaging rhetoric in a certain situation. One person might believe something should be done, while another thinks that the status quo is sufficient. This reminds me a little of Hume's theory of taste, in which he argued that certain people had "better" or "superior" taste to others. In reality, taste is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder.

This would be different depending on what type of rhetoric one is examining, according to Gates. He argues that the speaker-audience relationship in white rhetoric is vastly different from the relationship in black rhetoric. In white rhetoric, the audience listens to the speaker; in black rhetoric, the audience listens and is actively involved in the rhetorical discourse through affirmations, comments of support, etc.

I had never heard of this, so I thought there might be others who were curious, too:

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html

This is akin to Edbauer's use of "bleeding" or "flux"

Gloss: "but everyone was wrong until me!"

This whole series of readings has been very sassy and self-important. Well . . . the way I'm reading them, they sound sassy.

This was almost exactly what Consigny said about his goal. I wonder if they were writing at the same time, since Biesecker is clearly not afraid of calling people out directly for the flaws she sees in their arguments.

I feel like I'm missing something here. Perhaps problems do not formulate themselves in a vacuum and the problems may not be well-posed, but there is a large degree to which problems occur outside of a rhetor's influence. The President might have the responsibility to determine what problems he should try to address, but that ignores the fact that the question of what to say at the inaugural address is itself a problem that formulated long before any individual President is born. Similarly, the problems he must choose to address likely formed outside of his control, as well.

Yet the one thing all three of them seem to agree upon is that the very term "situation" is unclear. Bitzer seems right to say that there is no standard meaning, and Consigny seems awfully self-righteous, here, considering his point is essentially "he was right, but in the wrong way!"

Diverts from all Enlightenment rhetoric of the Anglo tradition, which valued efficiency and straightforwardness over artistic "fluff."

Gates' idea of different cultural rhetorics can be also applied here.

Similar to Woolf's idea that the sentence is a male construct of rhetoric, Anzaldua takes the argument a step further by suggesting that language itself is masculine. It takes us back to the question throughout history of "who can do rhetoric?"; the answer was primarily rich white males for thousands of years, which stifled the development of language. I think this is, in part, why Anzaldua argues that language is inherently male.

I love the metaphor of language as a quilt. Quilts are unique, just as language is unique to each individual who engages it. It brings together different types of fabric that maybe don't seem like they would go together, but once assembled make a beautiful product.

The image of layering multiple identities is intriguing to me, and reminds me of a class I took last semester called American Mosaic, which explored literature written by American immigrants or minorities from different backgrounds, which reflected the confusion individuals felt concerning their identities. Anzaldua, I anticipate, tries to layer these multiple facets of her identity together in her literary works, a feat with which many authors struggle.

As with signifyin(g), practice and the social interchange with others are crucial.

More mirror imagery, as in Gates

As Byron is saying above, this is a really interesting new spin on embodiment and the connections between language and imagination. This feels a lot like Cixous' impassioned speaker.

A thematic return to the mouth, with which we began the piece.

Etymology of signification: early 14c., "symbolization, representation," from Old French significacion and directly from Latin significationem (nominative significatio) "a signifying, indication, expression, sign, token, meaning, emphasis," noun of action from past participle stem of significare "make known, indicate" (see signify). From late 14c. as "meaning" (of a word, etc.).

I thought it would be interesting to look at the etymology of "signification" (as it is a main topic of this essay) because Gates has been discussing the diverging meanings of the word in different rhetorics. It is unsurprising that the etymology defined here comes from the "white rhetoric" tradition, as described by Gates. I suppose upon further search and inquiry I could possibly find the meaning of "signification" as defined within African American rhetoric, but it would require a lot of extra effort on my part. This lack of available definition demonstrates the "glossing over" of the African American culture in the United States and the general lack of knowledge and understanding on behalf of the majority of white Americans, and is a reminder of the ignorance that is very much alive in the US.

This reading has encouraged me to think a lot more on divergent cultural rhetorics and how awareness and acknowledgement of the validity of different rhetorics is crucial to any progress that is to be made in race relations in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P03jmLWy6g

The idea that a good rhetorician is a good man (and is not an evil man). An evil man cannot be successful in engaging rhetoric. This has been mentioned before in our readings, specifically Lanham's The Q Question in reference to Quintilian's thoughts on rhetoric.

This sounds a lot like Corder's final line, declaring that the only truly "free speech" would be garbled nonsense devoid of meaning.

This sounds a lot like Corder's opposing narratives, particularly the idea that "evidence and reason are only evidence and reason" if the narratives are in sync.

It seems unclear whether this use of quotation marks is mean to indicate that he is pulling the word directly from Wilkins' work, or if it is just somewhat sarcastic in tone. I suspect the former, but prefer the latter. The idea of language emerging as a result of so-called emergencies sounds a lot like it results from self-made conflicts -- perhaps like the clashing of narratives in Corder's piece.

Hume would say the qualified judges are those with good taste, who have experiences that have influenced them to have a refined sense about the world, and therefore are qualified with a better judgment of all things.

To Booth, being fully human means that one can communicate with others through symbols, language, and other interactions. To him, lacking full mental capacity means that one is not fully human (at least I think that is what he is saying). This kind of broaches on the philosophical argument surrounding personhood, and whether one requires what is considered "normal" mental function in order to be considered "human." Animalists would say no, your form as a human is enough; Hylomorphists and Substance Dualists would argue that your mental capacity is necessary to your identity as a human person. I wonder how much, if at all, these schools of thought influenced Booth when he wrote this?

Booth mentioned "tripartite" earlier and here lists three phrases which three words each.... sounding Platonic.

Hey, Nathaniel, did you . . . did you by chance want to talk about love in the context of this reading? I just got this weird, uncanny sense you wanted us to think about love when I noticed it written in all caps in the margins for the third? fourth? time in this text.

So to make that connection explicit, this is a good example of the problem Corder was trying to address at the end of his piece, in which an earnest attempt to work out steadfast and competing narratives must come from a place of love, or will otherwise result in dissatisfaction/danger/subjection of one narrative.

[I know this is brief, so feel free to build on this gloss, guys]

I found the use of this phrase very interesting. My inference from previous reading was that a "monstrous birth" was a phrase from a much earlier period in history, used to describe still-births or severely deformed babies that died shortly after birth. From my understanding, they were seen as a punishment from God for some moral failing on the part of the mother. This usage implies that a monstrous birth is someone who has moral failings. I wonder whether this is the true version of the "monstrous birth" for the present age.

[Side note: I tried finding the etymology, but struggled to do so, perhaps because it is a phrase rather than a single term.]

I had a sort of fuzzy recollection of this group from a history course a few years back, but since they are often glossed over in history books, I thought this might be helpful, especially since this piece is so historically situated in its strange political moment:

"The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American militant radical left-wing organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the U.S. Government."

(This is all from the Wiki, if you want to read more:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground)

This sounds a lot like Cixous' "Who am I? I am 'doing' French history." (Of course, Cixous goes on to emphasize the body a great deal, but this sounds like a more abstract appreciation of individuals as historically situated.

I think Foucault would not be comfortable with the use of the word "undeniably." He says that language is a sign, but he also says it isn't because it depends on exactly what one means by "sign" (1448). I wonder how his theory of language would translate to writing?

Reflects Locke's idea that language is not standard and cannot convey a universal meaning because individuals apply their own backgrounds and experiences to the meanings of words, so their perceptions and understandings of a statement will vary.

This is the reason, I assume, that Nietzsche would give for why language is a lie.

He is here discussing the prohibitions around the very topic, but of course there were doubly taboos on who could talk about the taboo subjects, and whose accounts of the matter were considered downright dangerous.

This narrative voice is interesting, considering the way he considers the problems of the author/narrator in the previous pages.

In J.L. Austin 's How to Do Things With Words, a "speech act" is a performative utterance. That is, "speech acts" do something; whereas most of our concern with language thus far was regarding its relative "Truth," Austin was interested in language that was not meant to assert, but to do. (For example, "hello!" is not meant to persuade, but to greet. It does something rather than conveying information.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin#Performative_utterance

This is only one of many factors, but the materiality is--I think--crucial, and recalls Woolf's five hundred pounds a year.

This seems to link us back to the problem of embodiment, and those rhetors for whom the very fact of public speaking was an urgent political problem and social action. (Douglass, Palmer, Stewart, Grimke(s), etc.)

I was curious about this line, so I did a little searching and I found this particularly interesting, since Cixous did her dissertation on Joyce:

The episode both begins and ends with "yes," a word that Joyce described as "the female word" and that he said indicated "acquiescence, self-abandon, relaxation, the end of all resistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Bloom#Soliloquy

You can apply Burke's idea of breaking something down to its absolute basic level in order to fully understand it; once you understand it, only then you can recreate it to make it your own.

Is she acknowledging the intersectionality of feminism?

Many authors use literature as a way to express their views on society, politics, economics, etc. Some prominent authors that come to mind are William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, both of whom wrote extensively on the struggles of women and criticized the societal structure in which they lived, but expressed these views through characters and stories.

Interesting to note that in Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther, the protagonist Werther mentions multiple times that words/language could not accurately describe his feelings or the world around him; this takes the stance that not only does language not accurately convey logic, but also lacks the ability to explain one's emotions. It's similar to Locke's (and other Enlightenment thinkers') idea that language cannot allow us to express what we want to express because it does not accurately capture anything in the world around us, whether that be objects, emotions, other people, etc.

References the Rickert piece, which stated that the rhetorical/cultural environment influenced the rhetoric that was produced. Similarly, the rhetorical culture of America and Europe differed, and the primary opponent of rhetoric changed as a result of the different rhetoric produced (due to different rhetorical environments). This web of rhetoric is kind of confusing, but also makes sense because rhetoric is everywhere.

In the general university system, I would tend to agree with Burke. Whenever I tell anyone I am an English major, they immediately assume that I study literature (which I do sometimes, but also not all the time) and ask what I want to teach, and can't possibly imagine that there are other careers available for English majors. When I mention that my concentration is Rhetoric, people are confused as to what that even is. This kind of references the readings from the first week when we tried to define rhetoric, but never actually established a definitive definition; in the same way, I struggle with communicating exactly what I learn with my friends who have no contextual background or understanding for what I study.

Reflects Astell's (and other Enlightenment thinkers) view that writing should be clear, concise, and without superfluity.

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

This idea seems similar to Nietzsche's that all language is a series of socially-agreed-upon lies.

Author of "Maurice" a homosexual novel that was never intended to be published.

Ah, the lies again!

The benefits of experimentation in consciousness writing, which Woolf goes on to utilize in her own fiction.

(Please forgive all the bullet points, but hypothes.is was not cooperating with my formatting. The options were either this, or to have the poem become one long paragraph)

• Excerpt:
• Man must be pleased; but him to please
• Is woman's pleasure; down the gulf
• Of his condoled necessities
• She casts her best, she flings herself.
• How often flings for nought, and yokes
• Her heart to an icicle or whim,
• Whose each impatient word provokes
• Another, not from her, but him;
• While she, too gentle even to force
• His penitence by kind replies,
• Waits by, expecting his remorse,
• With pardon in her pitying eyes;
• And if he once, by shame oppress'd,
• A comfortable word confers,
• She leans and weeps against his breast,
• And seems to think the sin was hers;
• Or any eye to see her charms,
• At any time, she's still his wife,
• Dearly devoted to his arms;
• She loves with love that cannot tire;
• And when, ah woe, she loves alone,
• Through passionate duty love springs higher,
• As grass grows taller round a stone.

This reminds me of Iris Young's "Five Faces of Oppression." Young argues that we often neglect to see the many faces of oppression, and that we misrepresent reality by comparing dissimilar experiences of oppression as existing under the same general umbrella of subjectivity. Anyone who experiences even one face of oppression is oppressed, but many individuals and groups experience oppression differently because they may experience different combinations of the faces of oppression. One face of oppression which often goes overlooked is "powerlessness."

Powerlessness is a distinction between technical freedom and actual self-possession and choice. Examples Young gives are that although we are technically allowed to choose our employer, many employees are placed at the bottom of the totem pole, where they are dictated to, rather than consulted about their own work. Those who work menial jobs, for example, in which the minutia of their jobs (what to do and how to do it) are strictly controlled are powerless. In contrast, professionals such as doctors, teachers, managers, etc. are given a degree of freedom and choice about how to best go about their work, and they might even have employees working under them, whose work they get to control. This freedom gives one "respectability" in the eyes of society and one's own eyes. If someone does not have access to professionalization, they are denigrated for this lack of "respectability," by the implication that they are inferior to professionals. This, of course, becomes a vicious economic and psychological cycle.

This system of oppression through powerlessness is what Woolf is referencing here. Although she is employed, society has denied her the freedom allotted to most literary professionals, most of whom are men. She is employed, but she is not a professional because she is denied the freedom and respectability that being a professional connotes.

I think Nathaniel is right to point out a gender problem, as he has in his marginal comment, here. However, I think we also see a class problem arising more starkly. Whereas before there was a certain "professionalization" automatically associated with teaching at the college level, the "respectability" teaching once granted has disappeared. Although he does not explicitly invoke the word "class," Weaver clearly feels that those who make up the "instructional staff" are low in stature and respectability. To be a little crass, this sounds an awful lot like Weaver is complaining about "the neighborhood going down hill," so to speak. Although the "instructional staff" presumably have some sort of authority and experience to earn this teaching role, Weaver sees their arrival as signaling the decline of rhetoric as he once knew it, rather than seeing it as a sign that rhetoric is becoming more accessible and that more groups of people are actively engaging in rhetoric.

Ah ha! So I guess this answers my question about the Burke reading. I had a hard time following the Burke, but Weaver's connection to Plato is obviously much clearer. (And Weaver in general is also much clearer.)

My mind immediately leapt to Woolf's rather graphic visualization of killing the Angel in the House. The timeliness did rather seem to underscore his point, here.

Although this particular quote is about women rhetors, this ties us back to our discussion of Douglass' choice of carefully-tailored personae during his lecture circuits.

It feels like we are finally getting to his most important point. This also seems related to Nietzsche, to an extent, in that to claim a "right" or "good" usage implies that we can improve on language by narrowing it, but this sort of view of language ignores that it's all just a system of metaphor.

But we are inherently trapped within our own perceptions of other people's perceptions. He is trying to call out the problem of introspection, but seems to overlook that the influence of introspection can not be completely avoided.

This is the problem noted in the introduction, when Richards would remove the author and title from a poem and then critique the test subjects' responses as being "wrong" for various reasons, when he was drawing on his own outside knowledge of the poem and literature generally to establish how and why they were "wrong." He cannot get outside himself, but he seems to forget that, from time to time.

It feels like this is a distinction between Nietzsche's social lies and anti-social lies. If I'm glossing this correctly, bona fide communications are those social lies which we have all agreed upon to enable communication. "Misdirection" is the anti-social lie for the purpose of trickery.

Like Spencer and Bain, Hill is very focused on the efficiency of language.

Reflects platonic division into three parts; also seems to be somewhat Augustinian in nature. Augustinian divided the soul into three parts: Memory, Understanding, and Willing.

The Understanding, the Will, and the Feelings seem to be Bain's update on Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

Lots of connections in this passage!

Wouldn't this inverted sentence structure go against Spencer's principle of economy? The comma in between clauses really threw me off, personally.

Contrasts general enlightenment thought, but especially Astell:

"But we shou'd fold up our Thoughts so closely and neatly, expressing them in such significant tho few words, as that the Readers Mind may easily open and enlarge them. And if this can be done with facility we are Perspicuous as well as Strong, if with difficulty or not at all, we're then perplext and Obscure Writers" (852).

This attitude is in contrast to the weak defense idea that a good reasoner was a good person. Here Spencer is rejecting that idea, and also rejecting the idea that good grammar is indicative of a good character.

Lifted by Bain and Hill.

An opportunity for a man to participate, but also ropes him in to offering an implicit endorsement of the group/meeting by blessing it. Willard is recommending another sort of testimonial.

This reminds me of Douglass' argument that slavery was dangerous to whites as well as blacks because it corrupted even the most tender-hearted mistress. These sorts of appeals remind us that these rhetors are always thinking about the make up of their audience.

I'm confused about what this is referencing. Is this the same passage Palmer refers to when she argues that the Bible indicates men and women were present when the apostles gained the ability to speak in different tongues?

Another example of white male testimony being necessary for Othered bodies to be taken seriously, connecting us to Palmer, Stewart, the Grimkes, and Douglass last week.

an extremely white community to this day, the 2010 census says about a 2% percent of the population is African american

Reflects Hume's point that: "It is well known, that in all questions, submitted to the understanding, prejudice is destructive of sound judgment, and perverts all operations of the intellectual faculties..." (836).

Historically, this sort of testimony was fairly common as a preface to the writing of women and people of color. Such testimonies from (white, wealthy, well-connected) men would sometimes appear prior to the text itself to convince the reader that the author was worth taking seriously, since women and people of color were not considered worth of consideration on their own merits.

This seems like quite an understatement, given the last sentence of the next paragraph. Do we have any historical info regarding the ways the hostility of the audience manifested itself? I imagine it must have been fairly extreme to force her to leave the city. For example, was it heckling, attempts to speak over her, jeers and boos to drown out her words, perhaps even a dramatic attempt to pull her from the stage? It seems like the reactions of such hostile audiences offer important historical information, as it should be kept in mind when we consider how women and people of color first needed to shape a type of rhetoric that would quell a hostile audience.

As an example from a different historical moment, there are conflicting reports of Sojourner Truth's reception at the Seneca Falls Convention. Some reports imply that she was heckled, or at least that there were interjections from the audience, while other reports offer an opposing narrative that present Truth as largely supported by the audience and not decried at all. The hostility or receptivity of the audience (and the way such information is mentioned in accounts) shapes the way we can interpret Truth's oration and its effects.

I do wonder what the reasoning was for this (I mean, besides the blatant "women and the lower class are too stupid to understand our Great Books and/or will lead lives that do not require a 'polite' education"). We've already read arguments that the "polite" education supposedly improved the virtues as well as the mind, right? Wouldn't all of society benefit if women and the lower class were virtuous, as much as possible?

In the Douglass piece someone made a comment about the ethos of the author. Here, the author seems to be asserting the truth, based on his knowledge as a translator, but then throwing in the towel when it comes to interpretation.

Nathaniel has drawn our attention to the phrase "ignorance will involve guilt," which I think is significant, but I also want to reflect on the idea that chiding for the wrongs of the past is not necessary because it was born of ignorance and that it is only the time (that is, the moment in which she was writing) which moves us from forgiveness to guilt in the audience. This seems like a similar move to Douglass when he posited that his mistress had been a good, tender-hearted person before she was poisoned by slavery. He called out slavery as a threat to white slave owners, just as Palmer here decries oppression of women will soon lead to a corruption of the souls of men who go on participating in it, once they have been stripped of their ignorance.

Here is that "mental and moral" argument referred to in The Rhetorical Tradition introduction to this section.

This is an important claim that was a prominent argument in the Seneca Falls convention, notably as an argument of Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman?"

This is a partial answer to my concern about Stewart's speaking experiences. I wonder whether heckling (and its consequences) was better recorded against the Grimke sisters because they were white women (and therefore viewed as more fragile and worthy of protection).

A second example of a well-documented consequence of women speaking to a mixed crowd. (Though, to be fair, it would be sort of difficult to overlook this one/fail to record it. It's pretty dramatic.)

I think it's important to be able to identify the changes in attitude, relationships and moods that we can see when at-risk teenagers begin to be self-directed learners. If we could see what these changes look like and agree on them, then we might be able to assess students better. Currently none of the ways we move or prevent students from moving through school make sense to me: social promotion (advancement because of age), testing (usually of a small subset of math and reading skills), or even portfolio assessment (because at-risk students usually don't have a body of "mastery" level work).

I agree with the above connections to Nespor - but I think that there is also a great connection here to Figured Worlds. This line can be read as the definition of the figured world of Whyville.

Does anyone else find it strange that students are playing a game where the ultimate goal is to buy/sell virtual identities?

This is interesting. This is proportionally heavy on the girls, what could be the possible reasons for this? Could the science curriculum component make it feel like less of a game and more like school? This makes me think of Allen's article about the exploratorium and trying to make content driven tasks not feel artificial in the produced space.

When Nespor discusses public spaces, he describes them as a space produced through repeated actions- in this case the 'play places' are socially structured through online interactions.

Something that is both bothering me about Whyville and interesting to me in terms of our other readings is the focus of the game on creating or changing the "faceparts" of the avatar. It bothers me for reasons Raquel mentioned earlier about "preparing them" (or i might say "figuring them into" a world that values beauty and perfection above a lot else. But it is also a really interesting take on Ma and Munter's idea of editing space. Maybe this is a stretch, but I am subbing out "spaces" in the sense of where we interact or "are" with the avatar - thus the player - who gets edited but also does the editing. Maybe it's too weird and doesn't work, but it seems like the player would be impacted and impacting their experience of the world at the same time.

Why is there a feeling of different access to participation? In what ways did they not have the ecology of action or the resources to participate (Heath, et al. 2002)? Because, unlike the case with Nasir and Cooks, there is not specific arbiter giviing the students more resources for participation in the community of practice.

Makes me think of LPP because the resources for newcomer participation may prohibit people from wanting to become a participant. This could turn off a lot perspective users.

This made me think of the discussions we had around figured worlds vs. communities of practice. One of the biggest differences that we identified is the component of identity in each- in figured worlds, identity can be ascribed to you, whereas in a community of practice, you are taking part in that identity. Here the British writer was ascribed to an identity in the virtual world.

Makes me think of all the articles on apprenticeship that we read about; what does learning entail? Is it the transfer of problem solving to real world contexts and careers, or are we using the basis of school curriculum? Here the author articulates that they will cover many types of learning and not just a translation to curricular learning.

This phrase definitely has me thinking about intent participation and also has me thinking back to Ma & Munter with the same connection. Like Maddy, skaters often sat in this "on deck" position waiting for the right opportunity to participate.

As seen in FoK (Moll Tapia and Witmore 1993) and FW research read earlier in semester. But are these "psychology" research?

Here we can see that roles shift depending on the situation. The sharing of the controllers shows that they see each other as equals, but also that each has strengths which they can share with the other. This again reminds me intent participation, where there are "fluid negotiations of responsibilities" (185)

This is similar to the multisited article in that it acknowledges that learning happens both within multiple setting and across them (and time). It also has me wondering something new that I didn't think of when I read the other paper and that is, how much of this "figuring out" is necessarily conscious? In what ways are we (in every setting) applying/adapting/repurposing knowledge from other settings (CoPs/islands of expertise) in order to be successful in the new setting (and thus to create new knowledge)?