Argumentative Strategies in Documents Regarding Iraq War

After reading the document on argumentation strategies, it was easy to notice the clear an deliberate qualities in "War and Wisdom" that define it as an argument. The article is not only divided into sections, but these sections are clear indicators of types of strageties being put into direct use. The piece begins with a clear and meaningful claim. Then the author goes on to provide authority by citing generals as havng opposition, with direct quotes. He goes on with analogies about the war, the US, Sadaam, and Iraq. He even provides concessions in claiming that Bush was right for waving a red flag, but then goes on to indict him for following through with inappropriate action. The piece continues with evidence and warrants about the cost of war, summed up with a rebuttal about how the money could be better spent.

The other articles about the war were just as argumentative, but as a whole, they seemed much less organized and precise than thier predecessor. They did, however, use a language of ethos and a personal tone that often felt much less critical or formal than "War and Wisdom". They did provide counterexamples, for instance of Sadaam's brutality, which were then followed up by showing a lack of evidence to support a war. It seemed that the body of the works were mostly made up of qualification. Finally, some of the pieces also seemed to show holes in other's contrasting arguments as a means to strengthen their own arguments. Overall, I was much more impressed by the organized manner of argument that was achieved in "War and Wisdom".

Tamara Plakins Thornton and Langdon Winner Responses

I found Thornton's article to be interesting, although I didn't agree with a main theme she discussed. I liked her mentioning of the, "marking of handwriting with telltale signs of class and gender." I couldn't imagine reading something today and being able to tell, off the bat, which demographic that piece came from. In her distinction between the written and printed word, I am not sure if she hit the nail on the head, though. If the written word is the only one which truly presents itself to the reader, then what am I doing right now? This blog was created specifically for the purpose of expressing my thoughts and opinions to an open array of peoples interested in the subject. Also, what about the incorporation of graphic design with fonts, colors, bolds, italics, and even the insertion of images into the printed word. I would say that this text needs to be updated to reflect the shift in the roles of printed and written word, as printed word is, today, much more dynamic, and personal than it's written counterpart.

Winner's article was really interesting because I had never thought about the topic in quite the same way. I had always assumed technology to be more of a digital thing, than the wider forum which he discussed. And Winner did make a point to acknowledge this difference and discrepancy between what we modernly assume, compared to what actually is. In this way, it is not only informative, but I would argue important, to analyze what Winner calls, "the social and economic system embedded within technology." For instance, his discussion of the overpasses in Long Island as discriminatory is a captivating analysis, which was very eye-opening for me. In this example particularly, I completely am for the idea that, yes, artifacts do have politics, though then we may be left in a discussion of what defines artifacts. I don't understand, though why the piece comes at such a stand still here instead of criticizing and perhaps offering pleas to remedy the situation. Why haven't these bridges been rebuilt if everyone is aware of their social significance? If so many things can be reconstructed to accomodate the handicapped, then why can't these bridges be rebuilt?

Experiences from Flickr.com and 43Things.com.

These websites all seem to accomplish similar feats, but with a different topic. Flickr.com allows users and browsers to "explore through tags". Also, there are many different sections and subcategorizations from which you can probably find exactly what you're looking for. The most impressive thing that I saw here was that photos were organized under many different key words and functions, not just one, so clearly they have been taken off "the shelf", and given the freedom that digital media allows.

43Things.com is really peculiar, in that I don't particularly see the need or practicability of it, but clearly many of its hundreds of thousands of viewers would disagree with me. It is interesting though that through postings, people can comment in response to provide criticism and/or help towards the particular goal or task mentioned, thereby creating a network of people with similar desires/goals/experiences. This network could possibly be the most beneficial aspect of this website, connecting people in a real and very human way, through shared experiences and guidance.

Clay Shirky, David Weinberger, and Bruce Sterling Responses

I found Shirky's article really interesting, but naturally I have some concerns as well. I really like Shirky's opening about how we use left-over habits from earlier stages of our communication. It makes a lot of sense because that is what we have known for X number of years. What I'd like to focus on in regards to his article is his theory of our needing to put things on a shelf, and how this should theoretically disappear in a digital world. Realistically, we have no need to choose where something needs to be placed in the digital world, as we should be able to put them in each category that applies. Perhaps I'm naive to think that this should be easy to modify, though, of course, I don't know all that's involved in the world of new media. Finally, I don't really understand why Shirky is so quick to point the finger at Yahoo for categorizing things the way they do. Is it really about "the Yahoo view", or is it just that they are subconsiously organizing a huge system in a familiar and previously trusted way. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Weinberger expands on this topic by discussing the rigid lines of digital organization as unnecessarily strict, which I agree with. Yet his overuse of this tree metaphor is so redundant and heavily hammered into our heads - I get it: trees have limbs, organization has limbs; you don't need to reiterate the theme to this degree. I do, however, like his discussion of search engines as breaking down traditional classification, as well as tagging as collective and participatory. I like the idea of information as a collaborative resource, not as a concrete definition given by a higher authority.

Sterling's discussion of folksonomy as a less imposing means of classification was interesting as well. I like thinking of creating our own lists and responses to search engines as collaborative and democratic. However, I don't particularly understand why he claims that these resources are, "Useless for searching out specific, accurate information." Sure, some of the results that will generate from these resources won't be what your looking for, but often times they are, and as long as you are wise and aware enough to understand that, I think it's possible to be successful in your search.

Jack Goody: What's in a List?

Not to be rude or oversimplify the topic of literacy, but I thought this piece was honestly boring and a bit common sensical. Yea, I get it - lists exist. They are more prevalent in writing communities than oral ones. But how can you judge that statement to even be true? I would argue that lists are a pretty rudementary, and dare I say oral task, that happens to be transcribed into the written word. But I could just as soon rattle of a to do list regardless of whether I was in a literate culture or not. Perhaps, I don't need to write down twenty items to pick up from the grocery store, but instead I need to tell my children what thier chores are that day: plow the fields, sheer the sheep, tend the garden, etc. These are all plausible in oral cultures, so why are lists deemed to be literary by Goody?

Sundiata: Two Versions of an Oral Tale

The two different styles presented in this same tale is really quite interesting and entertaining. I find deeper appreciation, now, for those articles I have read up to this point in our class. While nice in theory, we never really saw them in practice. Yet the African tale of Sundiata, with its both oral and literate tellings, adds more meaning to the ideas of people like Ong, who have disected these dicotomized cultures. In particular, Ong's chapter "Some psychodanimcs of orality," provides great insight into understanding the construction, formulas, and tactics of both the oral and literate versions of this tale. For instance, the first version offered (to be used within a literate culture) is prosaic, and though it tells a story, it is done in a linear fashion with paragraphs, punctuation, and it often employs past and perfect tenses to establish a time line. On the other hand, the second version (to be used within an oral culture) is in rhythmic verse and is often repetitive through its employment of a chorus-like stanza which is sung twice, as well as redundant chantings throughout, wherein the characters repeat their cries, or make them sound similar. For example, in the thirteenth stanza, the narrator describes, "And upwards drew himself, / And upwards drew himself." Again, though not verbatim, the frequent use of the same word contributes toward the repetitive nature in stanza 13 as well, as in, "And clasped his legs / And squeezed them, / And squeezed them." Clearly then, in following with Ong's patterns, the oral version is redundant, traditionalist, lifelike, and situational, while the literate version was a bit more analytic and linear.

Chris Werry: Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat

It's interesting to write about a piece that our own professor wrote. But regardless of an academic connection to him, his piece stands alone as a very interesting and applicable work in this day in age. After reading for years about Aristotle, Plato, and Homer ad nauseum it is really interesting and refreshing to read something that is so much more applicable to modern social culture. I do, however, think it could and should be updated with the increased use of internet communication, include wikis, MySpace, and even off the web with text messages. That aside, I really enjoyed reading about how technology and the media affects our literacy habits and tactics. Typically these are subconscious decisions that we make, and then never think about, so naturally I am intrigued when someone recalls these thoughts/actions and thrusts them into my line of sight.

Ong: Psychodynamics of Orality

1. According to Ong, what forms do knowledge, thought and expression typically take in a non-literate culture?

Ong begins explaining thought and knowledge of an oral culture through their use and understanding of sound. He writes that, "There is no way to stop sound and have sound," and that, "all sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside liveing organisms, is 'dynamic'," (32). To think of sound in this way is quite amazing. We prize so much the ability to read and write, yet what about the mastery of sound? It clearly was a crucial tool for thousands of years, and even up to the present in times of presentation and public speaking, and yet it is consistently glossed over as an inate thing we easily accomplish. Recalling these sounds becomes a bit tougher as memory call is limited outside of texts, and is instad based on communication. Formulas and proverbs are ofted used as agents to elicit and inspire memory recall. He further notes that oral cultures' thoughts and expressions are additive, aggregative, redundant, conservative, human-like, antagonistic, empathetic, homeostatic, and situational.

2. Ong writes: “Human thought structures are tied in with verbalization and must have available media of communication: there is no way for persons with no experience of writing to put their minds through the continuous linear sequence of thought such as goes, for example, into an encyclopedia article.... Until writing, most kinds of thoughts we are used to thinking today simply could not be thought.” This seems quite a radical statement. What might this mean? According to Ong what sort of limits on thought/expression might the absence of writing produce? What new kinds of thought/expression might writing make possible?

Ong's statement does in fact seem quite radical. He discusses a research study in which oral cultures were asked to describe something they knew, but that had been given an arbitrary title. I loved the discussion here, for it really made me realize that the emphasis we put on everything as having to be defined is almost ridiculous. Sure it is practical in a literary sense, but does it really help us in terms of getting by in life, or socializing? I'm sure we would (and have) get/gotten along quite fine, thank you. He claims that, "With writing, the mind is forced into a slowed-down pattern that affords it the opportunity to interfere with and reorganize it's more normal, redundant processes," (40). Clearly, writing gives us, then, and advantage in organized and thoughtful syntactic structure and rhetorical messaging, but it does not, however, mean that the other side of the spectrum is entirely lacking. Oral language is often more beautiful and enjoyable, whereas written language is formulaic and under harsher grammatical confinement, making it stiff and formal.

3. What relationship is usually assumed between writing and thinking, and between writing and learning? Does this article challenge these assumptions?

I would say that we assume writing to be an integral part of the learning process, as well as a way for us to keep thinking and continue in advancing what we learn. Yet I also am sure that oral cultures go on just fine without the obstruction of writitng - which to them is an arbitrary thing that would merely get in the way of their real lives. Instead of wasting time on blogs (no offense) or Myspace, they could be out working, living, and communicating with others just fine. The only thing I would worry about here is the challenge for them to go outside of their own social unit (for instance, into an office or a library) and have any clue as to what to do. Either way, I am confident that each group does just fine learning and thinking, regardless of whether they are oral or not. The only question left to ask would be what they are learning. Would you rather use a textbook or an apprenticeship to learn about literature? Farming? Art? The line gets blurrier as you work your way down because there is no sure fire answer, and I think Ong is to aggressive in adamantly stating his.

Ong: The Orality of Language

In response to the Ong article we read, I am quite surprised to be reading this information. Call me naive, but when something is penned or even spoken by a particular and recognized author, I trust the legitimacy of that creator. Granted, I had realized that oral tradition is not the most accurate form of preserving miraculous poems, stories, and literature. Yet I trusted that the true and original message was held to and passed on, and that at the core, Homer's originality shone through. It is, then, no surprise that I find shocking the idea that the Iliad and the Odyssey may have been written up to 100 years apart, making it impossible for Homer to have written both. Sure, this is just one of thousands of theories on the topic. But many of the theories Ong introduced had been well researched and quite thoroughly asserted by their own creator. It is entirely plausible that someone else may have added to, changed, or created these epics themselves. It is even more likely that the oral nature did not preserve these works, and that they have been significantly altered by cultures, locations, and beliefs. Also, to think that Homer used a formula of contructed cliches is rather disappointing, for originality is what we all strive for in writing, and an idolized literary figure should be one that is original and trustworthy, not just clever.

Havelock: The Coming of Literate Communication to Western Culture

I found the Havelock article very interesting, if only for the discussion of the creation of the written word - something that at this point we take entirely for granted, and don't think twice about. I found Havelock very poignant during his discussion that, "Human culture is a creation of human communication." How true - for what would we be without the ability to communicate with one another? The idea that prior oral tradition had to be rythmic and mythical is to say that it had to be altered and shoved into a box that it may not have fit well in. To think that stories, fables, and even histories had to be told in an artsy and creative way is lovely, but not very realistic today, for we know that sometimes these subjects are rather boring and uninspiring, but must be recited or recorded for communication and preservation. In essence, as Havelock notes, "Vocabulary and syntax had been controlled by the pressure to memorize." In opening the door for more concrete expression, the Greeks began a movement wherein expression, communication, and literature was opened up with the potential to be shared, enjoyed, and criticized by a wide population.