late 14c., "action of combining," also "manner in which a thing is composed," from Old French composicion (13c., Modern French composition) "composition, make-up, literary work, agreement, settlement," from Latin compositionem (nominative compositio) "a putting together, connecting, arranging," noun of action from past participle stem of componere (see composite). Meaning "art of constructing sentences" is from 1550s; that of "literary production" (often also "writing exercise for students") is from c. 1600. Printing sense is 1832; meaning "arrangement of parts in a picture" is from 1706.

Sounds similar to the Barad article which says the act of ith in our access to representations over things is a contingent fact of history and not a logical necessity; that it is simply a Cartesian habit of mind.

Yeah, we kind of force it on everyone.

After reading the Mucklebauer article all I can think of is that those ideals are important only because we make them seem important.

present, appearing, or found everywhere.

Just an observation I made when I watched the actual movie. Things in the movie are almost making fun of reality. Nothing seems to really have a meaning. For example all the buildings and everything are labeled EXACTLY what they are and it seems that the fact that they are meaningless, builds meaning towards the object. If that makes sense.

Ive actually seen this movie and I have to say, Jude Law is the best part.

All I can think of is the episode of fairly odd parents where Timmy and his friends are stuck in the video game and have to beat Vicky the babysitter.

This is why I would argue some situations rely on rhetoric, but not every use of rhetoric is situational.

It seems to me that certain situations may rely on rhetoric but I am not sure all rhetoric is situational.

The saying, "assume makes an ASS out of U and ME" comes to mind here

I feel as though activities such as protesting exist simply to allow people to be aware of the presence of issues. This statement makes it seem pointless to do such a thing.

an urgent need or demand.

Setting aside the obvious fact that this is literally concerning her tongue and speech, I feel that this is also a good metaphor for silencing women to deny them any kind of power.

a set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.

c. 1600, "sameness, oneness, state of being the same," from Middle French identité (14c.), from Medieval Latin identitatem (nominative identitas) "sameness," ultimately from Latin idem (neuter) "the same" (see idem). [For discussion of Latin formation, see entry in OED.] Earlier form of the word in English was idemptitie (1560s), from Medieval Latin idemptitas. Term identity crisis first recorded 1954. Identity theft attested from 1995.

Very directly goes against her previous statement of writing bringing her joy, unless perhaps anxiety is joy to her?

Marking for contradiction

After byrons first comment I find myself following the unique embodiment sections of this reading.

What a burn to white America. She is stating here that the white American only ever aims to exploit and never to support. They should instead thrive to learn and live with people of color

Linking this to Gates, who believes even the most casual interactions can be a performance.

It has to be exhausting to identify with so many different identities. It struck me that she felt the need to state that they rarely own their black history.

First thought was that this was similar to internal homophobia. Someone can be scared of who their are based on what they already know about the treatment they would receive.

I should really start reading forward before I comment. This ties in perfectly with my previous annotation regarding the tongue metaphor and how it could relate to women.

Annnnnd I just saw Nathaniel's note.

Woolf was quite versed in this since she was dertermined to write about her agenda without catching the attention of those who wish to ban books with her topics of choice.

She used this as the title due to the fact that the borderlands were home to the most mixed people, not all Mexican and not all American

I am getting very tired of the double negatives.

and here I thought it was jazz. Psh.

As Corder would say, any even is technically some kind of performance for the life narrative.

Similar to Corder writing about helping someone progress their narrative

early 13c., "to substitute one for another; to make (something) other than what it was" (transitive); from late 13c. as "to become different" (intransitive), from Old French changier "to change, alter; exchange, switch," from Late Latin cambiare "to barter, exchange," from Latin cambire "to exchange, barter," of Celtic origin, from PIE root *kemb- "to bend, crook" (with a sense evolution perhaps from "to turn" to "to change," to "to barter"); cognate with Old Irish camm "crooked, curved;" Middle Irish cimb "tribute," cimbid "prisoner;" see cant (n.2). Meaning "to take off clothes and put on other ones" is from late 15c. Related: Changed; changing. To change (one's) mind is from 1610s.

Facts can be argued to be part of the modern dogma, Values cannot.

a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

I am reading this as being right inbetween rhetoric and philosophy.

I keep finding myself thinking of the Q question from way back when. The Serious Man vs the rhetorical man seem to be relevant when discussing the differences in foundational vs antifoundational.

Just to recap: Foundational: Written with certain idea beforehand and then wove into narrative. Antifoundational: The curtains were just blue, because the author like blue.

and I can think of about a million English professors who would agree.

written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.

Sometimes the curtains in the main characters house are blue because he likes the color blue! Doesn't always mean he is about to jump off a building.

Best way to not get your feelings hurt.

But seriously, being able to criticize your own work and own up to the flaws is a valuable skill.

Have to be honest, I immediately confused him with Albert Fish... which is bad.

So basically this whole reading is about learning to live with view points that are not the same as yours. Hm, could've just quoted the golden rule.

This phrase seems out of place here!

Ah, this answers what I was thinking of previously, which makes perfect sense.

In the way he is stating this it seems like if we ever came across opposing narratives the argument would go on forever and cause a blip in the story. Learning to live with people who don't think like you do is pretty necessary.

So basically he is saying that whatever side of an argument we choose to be on, that further develops our lifelong narrative?

Whole intro seems very poetic to me since he is stating that life itself is merely a narrative being told throughout our lives. Kind of feels like the base of every basic tattoo I've seen that say, "I'm the author of my own story" and I've seen about four of those.

I must say, this is the first time I have actively laughed out loud at any of the texts we have read thus far (not that were funny) but I think it is quite brilliant that she is using the woman's role of hearing about a hard-on as the over all important of a woman. It seems to me that is stating that even though women have been oppressed for so many years, men just always have to look to them for reassurance.

A newly coined word or term.

I thought this was interesting as I was confused when I saw the word "unthink" It just did not seem to blend with the rest of the paragraph.

Still a problem!!

assuming power or authority without justification; arrogant and domineering.

God forbid!

Lovely idea as it goes off of Freud's idea that women are less structured and moral. Cixous finds quite possibly the only way to make that positive by stating that those qualities in a woman allow her to move freely through their imagination in the act of writing. They were granted the gift of less controlling social rules.

Seems as though she believes the most successful novels stem from true experience, I wonder where we have heard that before.

No matter how well written a document is, one powerful speech can move thousands in a single day while a document can only reach a few at a time.

Not to mention the amount of illiterate people that were around when rhetoric came about.

relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.

I happen to know of a few ladies that would argue anyone has the right to speak authoritatively.

We all know they immense power that discourse can hold, regardless of where the original knowledge came from, the appropriate discourse can light a match that starts a fire.

Lovely thought in itself. It's seems to be that it is being stated that, a;though discourse can mold an idea and present in a manner that is approachable and interesting, it does not create the idea. The idea is originated in the mind and simply spread through successful discourse.

This was the location of a victory for the english during the Hundred years war. Just a fun fact I recently learned.

Immediately thought of "alternative facts"

Perleman certainly did not follow this regime.

Needing no proof or explanation

Although it is meant to be a snide remark about rhetoric only being about elocution, it's important to remember how important elocution is to the successful orator!

the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions

To steal a line from Nathaniel, "boom."

Which we can all agree is much easier to share with the public when using rhetoric. Just saying.

Makes sense to be free of ambiguity if choosing to find "true meaning" Unlike Burke who found happiness in all things ambiguous.

Well, if we are following Hume, then it is safe to say that there really aren't any undeniable truths...

So a "particular party" would the people taking part in a political rally or something of the sort where the mind is mostly closed to the other ideas. A universal audience is a group of people with open minds, willing to accept the persuasion of the speaker if presented with logical information?

Just continues to pop up again and again!

early 15c., "creed, summary, religious belief," from Late Latin symbolum "creed, token, mark," from Greek symbolon "token, watchword, sign by which one infers; ticket, a permit, licence" (the word was applied c.250 by Cyprian of Carthage to the Apostles' Creed, on the notion of the "mark" that distinguishes Christians from pagans), literally "that which is thrown or cast together," from assimilated form of syn- "together" (see syn-) + bole "a throwing, a casting, the stroke of a missile, bolt, beam," from bol-, nominative stem of ballein "to throw" (see ballistics).

The sense evolution in Greek is from "throwing things together" to "contrasting" to "comparing" to "token used in comparisons to determine if something is genuine." Hence, "outward sign" of something. The meaning "something which stands for something else" first recorded 1590 (in "Faerie Queene"). As a written character, 1610s.

honest man

Getting a Hume, Standard of taste, vibe from the mentioning of experience over up front knowledge.

"Their foundation is the same with that of all the practical sciences, experience..."

It would seem the influence of the audience is one of the ideas that is consistently part of our readings. As I have said before The question of whether a good orator is a good man seems very insignificant to me, as it depends entirely on the audience at hand

Darwin's Bulldog?

Oh. Well there you go.

Sounds similar to the cute mnemonic we all learned as kids for the interrogative words: when, why, what, where, and who. The 5-W's, never forget.

Perhaps like the witch hunts which was a part of long tradition of feminizing rhetoric in order to demean it. (Nathaniel)

the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

Similar to the elocution that Douglas acquired or the feminine tone in which Stewart spoke.

The Sonderfahndungsliste G.B. which was a list of people that were to be immedietly apprehended if Germany invaded Britian. Virginia Woolf, Leonard, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, E.M. Forster, and H.G. Wells were also on the list.

Other novels such as The Well of Loneliness were censored so heavily that Woolf developed new strategies to encode her homosexual references

Makes sense considering she liked ladies.

Very important term. The Bloomsbury group were united by an abiding belief in the importance of the arts. Their works and outlook deeply influenced literature, aesthetics, criticism, and economics as well as modern attitudes towards feminism, pacifism, and sexuality

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

The OG rhetorician. Seeing the possible means of persuasion: Ethos, logos, pathos. All that fun stuff.

As 99% of job postings read today, "Ability to communicate efficiently in spoken and written word."

Key paragraph here. As composition and literary study grew apart, composition and rhetoric grew closer, giving rhetoric the opportunity to move back into the limelight.

enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves.

a type of writing that is used to explain, describe, give information, or inform. The text is organized around one topic and developed according to a pattern or combination of patterns

"the Greeks frowned upon their usage of the methods and found the act to be distrustful"

Stick that in your juice box and suck it Greeks!

This seems reminiscent of the problem of induction that Hume was particular about. To state that something will forever be (or mean) the same thing, is foolish.

self centered much?

The longer it takes for the reader to decipher the sentence, the more time is taken away from the reader receiving the authors message.

This phrase is really quite interesting as it means that a zinger or witty statement is only witty if it is presented in a succinct manner.

a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual.

Mary Anne Evans (22 November 1819 – 22 December 1880; alternatively "Mary Ann" or "Marian"), known by her pen name George Eliot, was an English novelist, poet, journalist, translator and one of the leading writers of the Victorian era

Totally gonna start saying "part first" instead of "part one"

To paraphrase what is being said here. He believes that mastering the English major is something that must be done through a lifetime of usage, not something that can be crammed into a composition class.

an important quality as the audience is the deciding factor of any movement.

Brings the idea of audience up again for me. For this particular situation she found that being a "womanly woman" succeeded in moving the crowd her way. It is interesting to see as the other speakers we have read took the opposite approach, denying society's picture of a woman. By using her womanly tactics, the men they were simply "entertaining" her ideas.

Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.

There was one exception: a man's acts with his wife, to which rape law, and hence the age of consent, did not apply.

So it was okay to marry a 10 year old.... hm.

Proselytize comes from the noun proselyte (meaning "a new convert"), which comes from the Late Latin noun proselytus. Proselytus means "stranger" or "alien resident," and comes from a similar Greek word (prosēlytos).

Interesting to see the social change that has occurred since then. Women are now more than 60% more likely to win custody if a divorce is filed. Sort of reminds me of the quote from Stewart, " look at many of the most worthy and most interesting or us doomed to spend our lives in gentlemen 's kitchens"

As the kitchen is now one of the sexist jokes regarding where a woman belongs, that statement seemed odd to me. This seems like a similar situation, although I'm sure that few jokes revolve around custody battles.

I know that coffee houses were often times the meeting places for political discussion among men in London and Paris and that women were not usually allowed to partake unless employed as a waitress or servant. It seems like a notable connection that the meetings were happening in saloons in America as well and consisted mostly of men.

Behind the WCTU's temperance reform was "protection of the home." The slogan "For God and Home and Native Land" (later changed to "Every Land") expressed the WCTU's priorities. Through education and example the WCTU hoped to obtain pledges of total abstinence from alcohol, and later also tobacco and other drugs. The white ribbon bow was selected to symbolize purity, and the WCTU's watchwords were "Agitate - Educate - Legislate."

ac·qui·esce ˌakwēˈes verb to accept something reluctantly but without protest.

Definition: The quality of being sage, wise, or able to make good decisions

Etymology: From French sagacité, from Latin sagācitās ‎(“sagaciousness”), from sagāx ‎(“of quick perception, acute, sagacious”), from sāgiō ‎(“I perceive by the senses”).

Excellent rhetorical question as it brings forth all the reasons that God brought fourth women in the past. It is like a slap in the face to the people who quoted Paul in Corinthians to support women not speaking in church. "But the Apostle says, I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church-hut learn at home. I answer-was not that spoke in reference to a time of dispute and contention, when many were striving to he heads and leader~. so that ]us saying. She is not to speak. here seems to me to imply no more than the other, she i~ not lo meddle with Church Government."

Im interested in this phrase simply because in most literature of this time the kitchen was truly the one thing women owned. It seems to me like this is a praise to African American men but still a stab at men in general. As if only men get the ability to own anything.

I can fully understand how this poem would help to win over the whites among her crowd, but it seems to be a bit like she is giving in to the idea that white is better than black. It comes off to me that she is stating they are not equals unless the souls reflect as white.

This immediately made me think that I've one too many years of Catholic school as I made the connection to the book of Kings as soon as I read the first sentence. I find it interesting she uses this passage as I am fairly certain that it is talking about lepers in the bible. The comparison between how African Americans and Lepers are treated is a very bold statement in and of itself. It seems she is referencing the the rejection that came from physical appearance.

Jeremiad is a piece of writing that depicts whatever state the society is in, usually in a pessimistic way. The references to Jeremiah are most likely regarding his choice of speech to describe the falling of the kingdom of Judah. I think that Jeremiads usually tell the impending doom upon that is sure to destroy everything. Pretty heavy stuff. Veggie tales does it in a much kinder fashion.

Attacking other scientists as conspirators would not be helpful for most scientists' careers Immediately thought of the conspiracy meme reading when they mention that only crazy scientists would attack other scientists when they get denied tenure.

tsk, tsk, tsk.... Naughty Whatley trying to say what rhetoric is. Shame on him.

Though black their skins as shades of night Their hearts are pure, their souls are white I can fully understand how this poem would help to win over the whites among her crowd, but it seems to be a bit like she is giving in to the idea that white is better than black. It comes off to me that she is stating they are not equals unless the souls reflect as white.

I believe my previous annotation is relevant here. I can understand the wish to fit in, but it almost seems counter productive in promoting the opposite race. In the following sentence he mentions styling his hair in African texture and I believe this is a good way to promote his race during his public speeches.

Really love the extreme detail here given to the use of his voice in speaking. It is reminiscent of the comparison between men and women in Stewart. Perhaps Fred had a little bit of womanly softness with his "tenderly moving, quiet tones"

Interesting statement to read so casually as the other readings exaggerated the intelligence of women and here it is so nonchalantly. Only one thing remains consistent and that is that the man was the one to stifle learning of anyone believed lower than him.

I am recognizing a pattern of how organizing meetings, of any kind, are frowned upon.

Perhaps that idea was only the effect of the sagacity common to the ,sex, and the advantages which their natural address gave them over rough and simple warriors. Stewart would agree that there was more to woman than the their beauty, but perhaps there is something there in terms of softness and ability to woo a crowd that gives women a little extra something?

I believe this to be a key phrase in the writing as she is pointing out the demeaning role that man has placed women as opposed to the dignity filled role that God meant for her.

is it not the God of ancient times the God of these modem days? Did he not raise up Deborah, to be a mother, and a judge in lsrael?

This man was a huge influence on the Salem witch trials!! I totally called it.

"Mather published Memorable Providences, detailing the supposed afflictions of several children in the Goodwin family in Boston. Robert Calef, a contemporary critic of Mather, considered this book responsible for laying the groundwork for the Salem witch trials"

Gee, almost seems like the phrase, "She's a witch!" is about to appear here.

This seems like a very crude form of rabble rousing. Feels as though they had nothing else to say and this is what they yelled before slamming the door from embarrassment of being wrong.

I believe that this a key term (Phrase) to the development of the article as its the basis of a lot of arguments for women speaking. In Corinthians, Paul makes a statement that references the "woman's place". He says that they are not allowed to speak when in a church, but if any questions arise, they are to wait until they are in their home to ask their husbands. It was considered disrespectful for a woman to talk in church.

A nice little taste of some gender role-reversal here.

Beginning with Margaret Fell in the late seventeenth century, Quaker women were among the first lo speak in public on social issues, Similar behavior between the two woman of allowing meetings in their homes. Only difference was that Margaret ended up in prison.

I feel as thought this a key term for the reading. During the pre-civil war era abolition and women rights were two of the most important issues. This was what gave the rise to many African-American speakers and many women who were known to have supported the abolition movement also went on to also have popularity as public speakers.

No Compromise With Slavery! No Union With Slaveholders!" (Preface.13, Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas)

I read this book in one of my classes recently and it was interesting to see how different William Garrison and Frederick Douglas were in their fight to end slavery. Garrison was an extreme abolitionist who thought that if the government did not end slavery then it would better to leave the states.

Her most famous work was literally called Women's Speaking Justified which she wrote in prison for using her home as a meeting place for Quakers.

"The hearers must be convinced that there are good and sufficient grounds for their entering with warmth into the cause. They must be able to justify to themselves the passion which they feel; and remain satisfied that they are not carried away by mere delusion."

"Rhetoric serves to add the polish; and we know that none but firm and solid bodies can be polished well." Blair

Perhaps we can link this to Campbell's idea of experience molding us and our ideas?

curlyQ 1 hr "Good artists copy, great artists steal." -Pablo Picasso

This reminds me of the Q question, YET AGAIN. I made an annotation regarding the audiences' acceptance of whether the orator was speaking for good or evil. To think that a speaker with evil intentions first had to have a "good character" is absurd to me, because of this, I think this statement further proves that the audience decides the nature of the speaker as well as the speech.

The comparison of a dog and a child is a very useful way to explain, not only the notion of experience and how we come to adapt to the world, but also in saying that without experiencing human interaction being given to us, we truly are no different than beasts. Feral children and all that jazz.

Aha! But then we come across the Inductions Fallacy once again. Assuming that an object will fall to the ground based upon memory is presumptive and has the potential to halt further progress in the area.

This statement brought me back to the 3 minute philosophy video about Hume and the induction fallacy which states that we cannot assume that something will be the same. I believe he used the green apple as an example for this.

Fun fact: The word for studying proper pronunciation is called orthoepy. Im sure everyone in this class is aware of this fact, but it is still fun.

Just wanted to point out what Nathaniel said in class about how parents do not acknowledge a child saying "dog" as learning until the child can point to a dog while they say the word. I think that was an excellent, and very simple, way to explain how language in important to knowledge.

Herein lies the reasoning for philosophers to dislike the usage of rhetoric. Using it for means of vanity of deception were what Socrates and Plato fought against as was mentioned in "The Q Question" I do not however, see how this would lead to confusion of the audience aside from constantly changing view and acceptance of rhetoric for public speaking.

I find myself questioning the use of the word "Knowledge" in this passage. Whenever I come across the word knowledge or its cousin wisdom, I immediately think of the saying, "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad." It seems to me that sense impressions would lean more on the side of wisdom than knowledge. Would this distinction make a difference?

Here it is stated that rhetoric and philosophy were seen as opposites in regards to the Western culture. Rhetoric was seen as an amazing form of communication for the Sophists, but posed a problem to the philosophers of the time. The act of speaking in the methods of rhetoric were often seen as distrustful and misleading as it was often times used for the sake of personal gain by politicians or other public speakers. Philosophers such as Plato and Socrates opposed the methods but by reversing the platonic effort, they philosophers were able to use rhetoric to their own advantage and use it as a way to support their messages. Rhetoric and philosophy truly went hand in hand when used in this method and proved to be quite successful for them when speaking to the masses. (even though Socrates ended up being persecuted for the usage of it)

This paragraph hinges on the idea that the orator has to empower good or evil. It is clear to me in recent times that it is not always the case that an orator must only lean one way or the other. An orator may have the desire to simply have their voice heard, whether that statement alights motivation in the followers of the good or the bad is moot. On top of that point, the view of good or evil is entirely subjective upon the listener. Using recent speakers, Donald Trump to many of people can be considered an amazing influence on the country while to a great many he is only speaking plans that will lead us to the end of America. The question of whether a good orator is a good man seems very insignificant to me, as it depends entirely on the audience at hand.

This whole reading just knocked around the opposite of the hupmnemata to me. In the previous reading it was stated that records of past lives and events were used not for recollection or gain outside of personal growth. This article is showing the use of keeping notebooks for the sake of recollection and other gains. While I see the usefulness in the keeping of records and being able to pull any at a certain time, the idea of improving oneself through past writings is more preferable to me.

This is a beautiful way of stating that the purpose of the Hupomnemata. The idea of bettering oneself is not an obscure one, so being able to take part in the experience of others to become oneself is a great thing. The books allow the individual to grow deeper by fusing memories into the soul.

This correlates with my annotation on the Q question reading. I stated that not all orators have good or evil motives but simply wish to have their voice heard. Women speaking about religious views (whether the audience received this as good or evil) was simply to promote. Having to defend themselves to the public to be allowed to speak and such could also be determined as evil to the crowd due to the thinking of the time.

This phrase made me envision a film so clearly that it felt like I was being hit upside the head. The movie "The Invention of Lying" immediately came to mind. Although rhetoric is not lying, the film portrays the world exactly as it is and, quite frankly, its boring. Nothing of interest ever happens. I feel that a world without rhetoric would be similar to this portrayal.

This phrase stood out to me in particular because of the comparison used between the question of what is man and what is rhetoric. Though we learned in class from Nathaniel that the glory of rhetoric is that it cannot be defined, it brings forth the thought of whether man is definable. In some way I believe that the act of defining man could be simpler than defining rhetoric due to predictability of humans.The real question is, why must we, as humans, seek to define everything? Even the topics that are better off as undefined such as rhetoric or man?