Responses for Questions in Week 10: Monica Reyes's Blog

In response to Monica Reyes’s third question, I have to admit that I had similar experiences with the fifth communication invention. Once I entered into my senior year of high school, I had a cell phone and was an active member of Myspace and Facebook. Soon these objects of social networking radically changed the way in which I went about my daily routines, and even the way I engaged with other people; I only resorted to face-to-face contact with people if it was entirely necessary. What do I think are the benefits and/or losses that we will have encountered with the introduction of “The interactive electronic world?” A few things come to mind, including a greater loss of the spoken word as a medium for expression. In this process, certain aspects of the spoken word which are gleaned from only aurally—including tone—are completely lost for the receiver of the message. I have had many experiences in which what I say in a text or e-mail is completely misinterpreted, and I often have to resort to calling the person just to make sure they understand what I am trying to get across. At least on an everyday basis, I also feel as if there is less spontaneity to one’s schedule because of the ability to arrange our day according to when and what other people respond to us through text or e-mail. While this invention has made life somewhat easier and more efficient, in a way it is depriving us of a sort of natural cycle that courses through the day. In regards to being able to preserve photos better, I think that it is certainly a benefit—especially for certain people who depend on others to record certain events/occurrences for them—but there is certainly a loss of novelty that goes with possessing a one-of-a-kind photo. In a way, originality and even individuality loses its merit. Of course, there are many benefits of this new invention including making the world and people of different cultures more accessible to any individual who has access to a computer. Ultimately, it leads to the creation of more inclusive, more effective methods of communication across a wide range of influences/disciplines. It is hard to say whether or not the benefits will outweigh the cons in the future for this new communication invention. While people of our generation are constantly touting how much it represents the progression of the individual and of mankind as a whole, I have to wonder if it is in fact doing the opposite. With social networking and these new lines of communication, it is just as easy to help someone as it is to hinder or criticize them (often anonymously), and many of the individuals who are being praised or respected in our world are because of odd talents or skills that in fact represent an overall decrease of human aptitude. Also, the new method of communication seems to emphasize the social well-being of the person over their personal well-being, and I feel like many people’s voices and individuality are being sacrificed in order to, for example, see how many friends on Facebook they can gather. The benefit for this type of communication, then, seems to occur only on one level of the single person.

Response to Kim's Questions: Week 9

It is difficult for me to ultimately decide whether or not television is superior to print-based sources. When you watch television, you are more likely to allow the reception of sounds and images to pass through you without second-thought or true reflection. Oftentimes with television, the sights/sounds that you experience are not necessarily what you desire or would like to process, and therefore you are simply watching certain shows with no secondary degree of participation. You are ultimately becoming desensitized to certain images or sounds that constantly perpetuated on the screen and TV in general. Print-based information is different from television in that it is completely under the person's agency or choice to read what interests him/her. The only unnecessary information that the reader is forced to consider or at least observe is simply the headlines to help direct him/her to the sections which will grab their attention and maintain it. With TV it is quite opposite, especially during advertisements, when the viewer is subjected to something he/she does not to see and are simply put off by the programming. The viewer then has the choice to switch the channel, thereby rendering TV inferior for allowing the viewer to question what he is watching. Print-based information requires a certain level of focus that TV does not necessarily call for; when you are processing print-based information, it usually regards something that you are interested in, and therefore it will lead you to distinguishing the author's stance, forming a opinion of your own regarding the topic at hand, delving into the word's themselves and wondering what the diction is telling you about the piece, and ultimately questioning the arguments.
I believe that the reason we do not engage in TV as that we majorly approach it with the mindset that its purpose is purely for entertainment. Aside from news or such channels as the history channel when the audience is viewing the program for the sole purpose of learning more about the world aroundhim/her, the majority of TV programs are simply meant to evoke emotion in the viewer, not necessarily to provide them knowledge. TV is most often background noise/scenes. While I do believe that people approach print-based sources with a passive attitude, especially if the specific source is a daily habit, these sources exist primarily for delivering information to the reader. Yes, magazines such as People or the National Enquirer are meant to entertain, but the reader finds him/herself questioning the validity of the sources, whereas the fictional TV world is not meant for this purpose. If anything, this questioning of truthfuless is what makes its requirements higher than that of viewing TV.

CMJR: Questions for Week 4

1) As I was reading Chapter 11, I was quite intrigued by Hauser defining a rhetorical act as “both an unmasking of the partial and negative aspects of our previous identifications and a creation of a new mask.” This definition suggests that a fluid motion to the act of rhetoric, describing it as almost an organic body or state where symbols occur constantly within it for the shedding of perceptions and creation of new, more accurate ones. It is a very fitting definition because it captures the formal guise that language may take in certain situations, but the question that I have is to what end? Teleologically, how do acts of rhetoric proceed and to what exact purpose? If there is a constant shedding and reconstruction of masks because of the intricacies of language, is there even an ultimate purpose to each rhetorical act, or is language always in constant flux with no end or goal?

2) In the sixth chapter of his book, Verderber mentions that important steps for delivering a speech is for the speaker to be fully-prepared, and to this statement I have no contention, at least for the validity of the statement. However, I do believe that Verderber is underestimating the ability of unprepared rhetoric or when someone speaks “off the cuff.” In tiny doses, it can be very effective to the audience, especially if the statements are pointed and help to augment the speech. It also depends on the speech, because there are different types of information speeches in themselves. For example, I act as a leader for one of the retreats at SU, and I usually give a talk centered around the concept “Where do I come from?” It is certainly informational in that it chronicles my life’s experiences to help establish a certain atmosphere for the retreatants and to help them relate. But it is important that I do not give the speech word for word and with full preparation; the talk should be not be so technical because it forsakes the natural feel of the talk. It is not that I do not agree with Verderber’s claim that it is vital for the speaker to be fully prepared. Rather, his idea of “winging it” seems a little biased, doesn't it?

3) Lakoff and Johnson’s definition of metaphorical concepts as partially structures, but with the potential of being extended one way but not the other, completely takes into account the often obscure value that is placed on a certain metaphor. And it is with this important aspect of the metaphor in language, that I raise my question. According to Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor as language is a device where “poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish,” but when used poorly, the metaphor is often lost in translation. Depending on its worth, the metaphor may turn out to be a hindrance in the rhetoric itself, and in this case, the metaphor fails, having a purpose that turns out to be the opposite of what the authors claim. I think this points out a caveat in the use of language overall—a limitation that I often encounter when I do my philosophy homework—and instead of solving it, I believe that metaphor and its usage is simply worsening the problem. Is this a correct assumption?

CMJR 205: Questions for 1/12/09

1) Within the first chapter there was a discussion concerning the different categories of action and specifically in the included definition of symbolic action, the writer declared that “every attitude is also an incipient act, an act waiting to be done.” To this statement I have to raise contention because attitudes do not necessarily project what the future might turn out to be; in some ways attitudes merely act as responses, either intentional or not, to events in the present with no intention to change an outcome in the future. For example, if you happen to wake up late to class, you will automatically have a sour attitude. While this attitude might affect your disposition and actions for the rest of the day, it is not due to some unspoken objective, but was merely a response to waking up late. To call attitude an incipient act is to assume intent for the person with the attitude, which I believe is false. Is this reasonable?
2) The chapter concerning narratives and Homeric epics immediately caught my eye because of the writers’ claim that narratives occur in normative tradition and “act as bridges between cultural standards of conduct and belief and the material realities confronting members of that culture.” A key aspect in the Homeric epics was its supernatural theme involving Greek gods/goddesses who were heavily involved with the characters and their actions within the epic. Being a fan of fantasy (for that is my main draw to the Homeric epic), I would like to take this definition further and try to apply it to a fantasy narrative, not set within our world as we conceive it, involving characters that are completely inhuman and using themes that are not representative of cultural norms (such as cannibalism as a moral act). How then does this fantasy narrative adhere to the definition provided by Gerard Hauser if it itself is completely devoid of normative characteristics that could be applicable to current human lifestyles?
3) In the summary at the end of Chapter 2, Hauser says that language is inherently persuasive, and that it exists merely as a means for humans to draw themselves towards their own purposes. To assume that language is inherently persuasive is to posit that humans are inherently selfish; that our interactions with others is never for the benefit of them but for us to persuade other people to adopt our own opinions or turn them into pawns for our own gain. Perhaps, I might be taking his statement out of context, but at least connotation-wise, that is what I think of when he says it is inherently persuasive. Also, in doing so, he forgets the category of language that may fall under the term chitchat or small talk. During small talk neither of the parties are necessarily attempting to propagate their own particular views and to persuade the others to agree with them. Small talk is for the mere purpose of wasting an indeterminate amount of time, and often occurs between parties that do not know each other well. Is small talk/chitchat also considered inherently persuasive?