Skyward Sparks

Ponderings, musings, and reflections on rhetorical invention as part of ENC 6339 at the University of Central Florida - Spring 2014.

[jdcorlew]

Representational Resting Points

One of Bazerman's conclusions from his look at Edison is the idea that we often create these simplified convergences of meanings, almost as ways to hold us over or keep us happy in order to get further work done.  Another term that he uses (and which I learned mostly through Spinuzzi's excellent book Network) for this concept is "black boxing".  He writes that while the use of the "black box" term in technology is usually in regards to some widely-accepted concept - say, cloud computing - that helps everyone discuss, make use of the concept, and continue to work on productively without getting caught up on all the crazy complexities and intricate pieces that necessarily under-gird this simple term.  

Bazerman uses this concept in the book to talk about how patents were a type of black box for inventors, ways of simplifying immensely complex inventions into pieces of paper that "fixes the property, but [...] also the a description of the innovation and the identity of the innovator" (345).  He also expands this concept, interestingly, to brand names, to explain how "black boxing" items under brands can help a consumer avoid the complicated (and time consuming process) of having to constantly compare a variety of facets of each product before making a purchase.  If I trust everything Apple puts out to be of high quality and worth the price, that will make my technology-purchasing decisions much easier.

I think this idea needs to be discussed more in terms of the cultural conversations going on right now, particularly along discussions of controversial topics.  It is easy for different sides on an issue -and for the media especially - to black box important relevant concepts and terms, resulting in horrifying oversimplifications of what often needs to be discussed in full complexity.  When dealing with issues related to gender, marriage, healthcare, politics, religion and the like, it is necessary to have black box terms in place (i.e., some variation of liberal/conservative has to exist in order to designate the type of individual or group we're discussing) but it is unfortunate when these terms are often used in their clunky, crude, simplistic versions during real debate and discussion, instead of being opened up to reveal the complexity and variation within. 

[jdcorlew]

"Light could not just appear through the mute work of a few mute technologists. It had to emerge as apart of the drama of human meanings."

Charles Bazerman, The Language of Edison's Light, pg. 2

[jdcorlew]

A Flood of Inspiration: Invention as Revelation [Genesis 6]

The Biblical story of Noah, popularized through the kid-friendly Sunday School versions and now with an upcoming film by director Darron Afronsky, can serve as way of understanding invention through a Judeo-Christian lens, which, surprisingly, can diverge drastically from our Western conceptions of invention.

A brief recap of the story: A few generations after the Adam & Eve, mankind, plagued by the curse of sin, have become so corrupt that God deems "that every intention of the thoughts of his (man's) heart was only evil continually" and chooses to respond with a hard justice: "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them" (v.12).  Noah, however, was the sole man within God's favor (and his family).  And so, promising to start a new covenant with Noah, God gives Noah instructions.  He is to build an ark that will house his family along with "two of every living thing" to withstand a flood that will annihilate all other life on earth.  However, God does not merely give inspiration for the ark, but every minute detail required to build the ark, from the measurements to the material (gopher wood).  Noah does as commanded, the flood comes and wipes out "every living thing that was on the face of the earth", and Noah's ark eventually settles on dry land some two months later to rainbow, symbolizing God's new covenant and promise that He will never again flood the earth.

Implications for Invention:

Unlike Plato's view, where invention was akin to remembrance, or the ability to recall past divine impressions, Noah, as well as some additional accounts from the Bible, paint invention as revelation, as something "out there" being communicated to the individual/group of people.  This differentiates from the dual-option of Western rhetorical tradition, where invention has either been an act of genius or discovery, and is instead an act of imparting, whereby God - an outside being - gives the inspiration (and the means) by which to achieve novelty.  It is worth noting that Noah's Ark is not the only account where invention is achieved this way, but that this method of invention holds true throughout much of the Biblical accounts, where God is the direct source of invention for the 10 Commandments, the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple, and of course, the Scriptures.

Invention is socially achieved, but not socially constructed.  In all the above examples, the invention in question is carried out and completed by collaborative groups, but originates first with God.  In the case of Noah's ark, for instance, it is not Noah himself who works a hundred years to complete the ark, but his entire family, including his sons in laws.  Therefore, we might run into the Western paradigm whenever we are compelled to name the story "Noah's Ark", as the ark was not his idea, and he was not the only builder.  

Invention as preparation.  Additionally, Noah's story provides an example of someone inventing for an exigence that doesn't yet exist; a flood to end all floods.  In this way, inventions are not always created to meet a present or near need, but one that is almost impossible to fathom.

God as inventor, man as transcriber.  This is closely connected to the first point, but it is worth noting that in all the instances previously mentioned, men do not play an active role in the "invention" process, but serve as transcribers for God's invention.  They either build from His blueprint, put pen to paper to write His words, or say what He has told them.  Rather than man being the person who pieces things together to create novelty, God is the source of novelty, and communicates it to and through men explicitly and implicitly.

The story of Noah, and the other stories I have mentioned, need not be assumed as theoretical foundation from which to look at all actions of invention, but rather a way of understanding how invention is believed to have occurred in certain instances.  Each instance described invention as coming from outside of physical and linguistic reality, and is instead imparted to men through divine revelation.  The Bible shows quite a consistency for this action, with explicit statements that the Old Testament laws, the Psalms, and even the very words of Jesus - God Himself as a man - were not invented as a product of man, but of God's revelation; "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing" (John 5:19).  

[jdcorlew]

Amy and Joshua's Chapter 3 Notes for Ambient Rhetoric

In this chapter, Rickert continues to put forth his call for writing that is more fluid, less static, and influenced on and by the writer or rhetor in juxtaposition with the environments around him or her. He begins by positing that “all writing is ghostwriting”, implying that all writing occurs in the midst of “innumerable” conscious and unconscious realities – past, present, future (100).   This leads into his explanation of network culture. Mark Taylor’s work showcases the difference between something being complicated, and yet able to be broken down into separate parts, versus something being complex, or composed of simultaneous working parts that change, alter, and create within an environment. He gives a great example with, “An airplane is a complicated system; a pond ecosystem or the brain is complex” (100). Hence, he sees a writer as part of a complex transference of discourse, not just one human being in the act of writing, but one human being influenced by other human beings, the situation, and the environment, both past, present, and future, as part of a continuous act of creation in language.

Furthermore, Rickert speaks of kairos (time) and chora (space/place).  He believes that the digital world has increased this interconnectedness of human beings and writers. He states, “Digitality provides new haunts, new places for the spectral traces and strands of communication” (101). He credits earlier modern theorists who introduced this concept of complexity and how it can be so important to current rhetoric and composition movements. Rickert pulls on the work of Heidegger with his use of “iSituation” to explain a human beings “entry point” into this network of communication. Rickert calls on rhetors to understand that chora is a place where humans can be networked together, but again, it is not static, but transformative in its togetherness.  Additionally, Rickert wants us to see that when humans write, they are not responding to a situation while writing in an environment, but that their environment is “always a situation” that allows for a range of constrains and affordances (116). 

Rickert discusses that language does not define a human being nor does a human being solely establish language. He writes, “Language does not grant things their being. Rather, language stems from world, understood as a composite of meaning and matter (102). He uses Heidegger’s work again to show that language is us (humans) and we are language. Network culture allows all material, language, and meaning to be uses together continually changing and taking on new meanings as it expands or contracts. Taylor claims that, “information and telematic technologies are recasting the very social, political, economic, and cultural fabric of life” (104). Rickert sees complexity theory as a useful way to explain contemporary culture. He wants to “expand on the argument that person, situation, and environment are all coadaptively enmeshed, with kairos being their coming to disclosure through decision” (106). Importantly, he believes his theory of ambience helps dismantle our notions of an autonomous, Platonic rhetor (107).

Finally, Rickert explores his theory using the ambient music and creations of Brian Eno and the ambientROOM of a group of researchers at the MIT Media Laboratory. It is all about changing human perspectives. He shares, “A person in the ambientROOM is fundamentally wedded to the entire situation, so that changes in the room result in changes in the person. It becomes difficult to separate one from the other” (116). He uses these examples to prove that ambient work is “emergent”, intertwining the generative properties of the chora with the tipping-point nature of kairos (116-117). It is a very lengthy chapter with in-depth coverage of these experiences. Near the end, Rickert illustrates once more with Rodney Brook’s advances in robotics at MIT. Rather than approach his robot’s CPU with the same traditional paradigm with known limitations, Brooks reorders his approach to agency. In doing so, he creates a new robot mind. Rickert connects this ambient work back to the writing process. He shares, “Writing is an art of ambient rhetoric” (129). Writing is a process; the writer has both conscious and unconscious interactions with physical environment, mental thoughts, and influences of the past. The writer/rhetor is at one and the same time influenced by kairos and chora, but also influences the environments around him or her. It is not closed, but a matrix.      

[jdcorlew]

Technology Invention Exchange: Evernote

In the span of a year, I have transferred nearly all my writing and invention activity to the green-grey hued locale of Evernote.  It has two web-services that make it especially useful for invention:

The Webclipper: which allows you to store. pdfs, websites, emails, and videos from the web in your personal database

Evernote Clearly: a feature that is attached to my Google Chrome bar which will turn any article/blog/post into a plain, readable copy free from the distractions of the rest of the website, and which can be quickly "clipped" to a specific notebook.

Whenever I need to invent, whether it be for a class paper, a blog, or for a lesson plan (which is very often), I turn to my ever-growing compilation of notes on Evernote (pun sort of intended). The abundance and variety of collected articles, blogs, thoughts, reflections, agendas, quotes, and one sentence-notes fairly represents everything that I once thought of at some point.  Interestingly, Evernote supports my invention process by sustaining the other canon of rhetoric for me: memory.

Let me provide one recent example of how Evernote is helpful to my invention process. I was unable to sleep a few nights ago because I had some ideas for a poem, so I grabbed my phone and wrote down a few lines.  Two days later, during a lunch break, I returned to the poem on my work-computer added to the poem within the same note.  The next day, during a very boring staff meeting, I penned a few more lines on a sticky-note, which I took a picture of with my phone and imported into the same note where my previous poetry was located.  

I am interested in further looking into how Evernote might initiate or guide my invention process, but for now, I recommend it for its ability to facilitate those processes remarkably well.

[jdcorlew]

Topoi's Place in Pedagogy

In his chapter "Inventing Scenes" DeWitt assigns his students the task of creating a "documentary website".  Honestly, I sympathize a little with his students in that DeWitt's assignment seems both very interesting and rather daunting/confusing in what he is actually looking for.  With this in mind, DeWitt seems to try to anchor the actual "content" of the site in a "place" where students are comfortable, can acquire vast arrays of data, and productively create their project: the local.  Each assignment, according to DeWitt, needed to highlight a topic of interest that is located within the local.  This assignment is strikingly similar to Delagrange's Praxis assignment in Wunderkammer, Cornell and the Visual Canon of Arrangement.  She had students "investigate their own environment" in order to  "collect, arrange, and manipulate evidence to gain multiple perspectives on a single building in their post-industrial downtown area; and they use this evidence to compose nuanced proposals for the use of urban space" ("The Assignment").  In both classes, then, we can see the importance of place to the invention process for the students.

In pages 66-68 of Rhetoric Reclaimed, Atwill introduces the concept of topos/topoi, quoting Cicero's summation of it as "the seat of an argument" (67).  Atwill further describes topos/topoi as a less of a "destination" or the "thing" wherein knowledge or inventive spark dwells, but the "sign" of it, the flattened grass led behind by quarry that leads a hunter onward (to borrow venatic analogy from Thomas Wilson and Carolyn Miller).  In both both assignments by Delagrange and DeWitt, we see that students are not encouraged or lauded for merely using the place as the focal point of their assignment, but to use the concrete "place" from which to invent deeper, more pressing arguments: arguments about "reform vs. punishment" in DeGrange's case were brought about by a study of a local prison, while discussions about the nostalgic being swept away by the new surrounded a project in DeWitt's class that looked at the history of local drive-in theaters. 

Topoi's place in pedagogy, therefore, seems to be as a way to help students invent from a relatively stable location.  It is both a starting place and a trail to follow; a trail that might take them to any manner of invention/prey one they choose to follow it.

[jdcorlew]

Megan and Joshua's Chapter 4 Summary

4: Prometheus and the Boundaries of Art (101-119)

Goal of the chapter: “In this chapter I explore the role of techne in authorizing specific models of social, political, and economic order” (103).

Hesiod's Prometheus Narratives

Prometheus is a work of cosmogonic myth which attempts to account for the "establishment of  of the present order" in addition to the creation of the world; i.e., how and why people are the way they are. (103)

Prometheus = "forethinker", alluding to Prometheus' ability to outwit and gain leverage over Zeus and other gods. (103)

Prometheus and arts are always viewed as "double-edged", as "tricks" used to counteract and gain some of the powers of the gods and nature (104).

Similararly, Prometheus' stolen gift to humans - fire - serves as a double-edged gift, bringing the power of the gods as well as the curse of hard work and destruction.

The myth: Prometheus tries to fool Zeus the first time by getting him to eat bones covered by a layer of the best steak.  Zeus isn't fooled and as punishment, decides to withhold fire from mortals.  The second time, Prometheus steals the fire from behind Zeus and gives it to men.  Zeus' curse on man is that they should fully know fire's destructive capabilities and receive "women"; but more specifically, a  woman: Pandora.  Pandora is not quite a woman, however, but an artifice, fashioned to appear like a women while holding within her "a panoply of arts - sewing, goldsmithing, and even rhetoric"or, as Zeus describes it, "sheer guile not to be withstood by men"/"a deceitful nature."(105-106)

The myth "illustrates the power of art to disrupt nature's boundaries. (105)

Pandora represents many contradictory ideas: she is a product of a god's art, but gives birth to mankind and the "art" of childbearing; she is the reason for countless plagues while being the eternal sustainer of hope.

The implied moral of the story: "human intelligence will never overcome the will of the gods."  Yet, Prometheus is meant to be viewed as some human-friendly tragic hero.

Prometheus inadvertently curses humans by being the reason for their eternal conflict with nature, but also blesses them by providing the gift - fire - by which man will fight the conflict. (107)

Techne and the Standardization of Value (107 - 111)

The Hesiodic myth challenged the normative understanding of where power/value lied, by imparting on men the ability to move across previously rigid social/cultural class lines.  This was significantly aided by standardized currency, which put an emphasis on an individual's competency, not their familial connections (because the "currency" of the the time was ornate, luxurious items that many of the underprivileged did not have access to).  For example, while power and wealth used to rest in the those born to nobility, once a "normal" man gained access to technai, he could become competent in a speciality which allowed him to accrue his own wealth/advantage (107-111).

Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound

“The character of Prometheus and foresight are at issue here primarily for the ways they constrain and reshape techne” (118).

Aeschylus’ depiction of the Prometheus myth demonstrates “generic and historical differences” from Hesiod’s Prometheus narratives. It offers a contrast in Prometheus’ characterization and the understanding and use of foresight (the meaning of Prometheus’ name):

Hesiod depicts Prometheus as a cunning trickster while Aeschylus portrays him as a tragic hero

Hesiodic foresight “enables intervention” while Aeschylean foresight is actually “foreknowledge that knows the future” (113).

In Hesiod’s Prometheus narratives, Prometheus uses his foresight to trick Zeus and steal his fire, while in Aeschylus’ play, Prometheus suffers in the aftermath, trapped by Zeus’s agents, Power and Force, and bound by Hephaestus’ art (handicraft) “in such a way as to annul the power of ‘inventing a way out’” (113).  Prometheus’ response to this capture reveals the difference between Hesiodic foresight and Aeschylean foreknowledge: He knows the future, but cannot change it, because it is a “necessary” future, or fate (114). Therefore, if fate is set and nothing can change it, Aeschylean foreknowledge raises important questions about the existence and function of persuasion and will (118).

In comparison, “the  sense of foresight in Hesiod’s narratives is a critical dimension of techne. Here, foresight is not knowledge of a future that cannot be changed; neither is it a static representation of ‘fate’ that holds by necessity. Instead, Hesiodic foresight is that complex, temporal dimension of art, identified with kairos, that allows for an intervention that disturbs the present and creates the future” (119).

Later in Aeschylus’ play, Prometheus shares his foreknowledge with Io, Zeus’ lover that he transformed into a cow to protect her from Hera, but Hera was not deceived and sent a gadfly to continually chase her, causing her to wander “aimlessly, without a pattern”, resulting in “confusion and disorientation” (117). He tells her that she will be reunited with Zeus, and one of her descendants will free Prometheus and become Zeus’ downfall (116). Using this foreknowledge, he creates a sort of “map” for her to help direct her aimless wandering by explaining that there is an end in sight, and providing “landmarks, names of countries, and descriptions of different peoples. These signs create a ‘way out’ of, at least, Io’s frenzies and disordered state of mind. To some extent, this ‘map’ transforms her wandering into a guided journey” (117). Atwill claims that “by the standards of art discussed thus far, this ‘map’ may be the tragedy’s best illustration of techne” (116-7).

Aeschylus’ Prometheus and the distribution of the arts (115):

Art of medicine

Art of divination (reading/knowing the future)

Art of the smiths (materials such as “bronze, iron, silver, and gold”, Hephaestus’ art)

Fine arts - art of numbers and art of “the combining of letters”

The art of politics is missing

Atwill notes that critics believe “Aescylus’s version of the dispensation of the arts is a response to a series of ‘needs’ or practical exigencies” (115). While several critics have posed different interpretations of the meaning of this, hers is “that the play marks a significant step in an evolving rationalist perspective that replaces the powers of the gods with human agency” (115), which contrasts with the implied moral of Hesiod’s Prometheus narratives.

[jdcorlew]

Discussion Question

In these four different takes on invention, I found Miller's to be the most intriguing and plausible theory.  Her argument that invention might be best understood as  a "hunt" within a vaguely defined area/place where both specific and unexpected quarry (quarry=novelty) can be captured seems to provide a nice mix of the other views on invention and coincide well with LeFevre's understanding of how invention is achieved (i.e., not completely the inspirational act of the inventor, but yet initiated by him).  However, as I was pulling this concept apart, I got to wondering about pedagogy, leading to my discussion question:

How might Miller's venatic understanding of invention play out in pedagogy?  What specific practices meant to teach or foster invention would arise out of this perspective of the act?

[jc-the-inventor]

"To train rhetoricians as theorists is much like attempting to train basketball coaches not to pay attention to the game as it is actually played but to prepare them to produce treatises on the theory of the jump shot."

-Michael Leff 208

So is Leff’s point then that the only way to know is to...

[jdcorlew]

I think a key phrase in Leff's statement is "pay attention."  Leff, it seems, would argue that a "doer" doesn't necessarily make for a better teacher, but that a good teacher would be one who pays attention to the real, practical outworkings of rhetoric/invention rather than one who merely theorizes about in a study.  All this would keep in line with his bent towards rhetoric and invention being about accomplishing action/goals.

To reuse his analogy, while Michael Jordan may not make for the best coach in basketball because he was the best player of the game, he would most likely prove a superior coach to one who read, studied, or talked basketball without actually paying attention to the played-out game.

[jdcorlew]

Before too long I discovered that I had sent myself on a fool’s errand. In the first place, ‘‘topical invention’’ proved to be an ambiguous and multi-faceted concept.

- Michael Leff.  Yeah, Leff.  We know.

[jdcorlew]

A New Assignment

Dr. Pigg dropped the ball on this week's digital commonplace assignment.  It obviously should have been to figure out how many times McKeon uses the word "commonplace" in his article.  Since it is Saturday morning, and I have started it off by reading McKeon instead of enjoying the beautiful weather outside, I suggest a new game for myself for all my fellow classmates to help pass the time if they, like me, are also not enjoying the beautiful weather outside but are reluctant to begin the act of "thinking" this weekend just yet.  Behold:

The Digital Commonplace Book "Commonplace of Commonplace" Game

Goal: Figure out how many uses of commonplace take place in McKeon's "Creativity of Commonplace".

1 pt = every time McKeon uses the word "commonplace"

3pts = triple bonus for every time he layers the use of "commonplace" on top of another use of "commonplace" 

For example, the winning line in the article (unless I'm proven wrong) has to be this one from page 208:

"If the adepts of commonplaces have used different commonplaces, what is the commonplace of commonplaces,and how are commonplaces used to depart from the commonplace?"

Point total: 7pts (four uses of "commonplace", one use of the "commonplace of commonplaces")

Okay, now back to actually thinking about this stuff intelligently...

[jdcorlew]

Socrates: Suppose, further, that in sober earnest I, having persuaded you of this, went and composed a speech in honour of an ass, whom I entitled a horse beginning: 'A noble animal and a most useful possession, especially in war, and you may get on his back and fight, and he will carry baggage or anything." Phaedrus: How ridiculous!

Is this an example of Prosopopoeia? (personification) "a speech in character?"

#phaedrushunt

[jdcorlew]

"For a man must have intelligence of universals, and be able to proceed from the many particulars of sense to one conception of reason; this is the recollection of those things which our soul once saw while following God [...]"

Socrates, Phaedrus.  Invention as recollection.

[jdcorlew]

But of the heaven which is above the heavens, which earthly poet ever did or ever will sing worthily? - Socrates, Phaedrus

[jdcorlew]

"I might tell of many other noble deeds which have sprung from inspired madness."

Socrates, Phaedruss

[jdcorlew]

"The moral for inventors: Plant yourself in a tall forest if you hope to have ideas for stature."

Karen Burke LeFevre, Invention as a Social Act, pg. 125

[jdcorlew]

Social Invention's Foil

Platonic Invention's Strengths:

Understood invention to be an integral part of the composing process

"Influenced writers positively by encouraging reflection and reassuring them that they do have important resources within."  [i.e., is good for our self-esteem].

Platonic Invention's Limitations:

Everything.  But specifically:

Focuses on the single individual inventor at the expense of looking at the surrounding socio-cultural context

Understands invention to be a linear, one-way system.  Like an acorn.

The inventor is hyper-individualized, or "atomistic", transcendent and "abstract" from social reality

Forgets that oftentimes there is more than one cook in the kitchen; invention is often collaborative

"I have, in effect, shown what a social perspective is not." - Karen Burke LeFevre