November 13th 2008 Class Stuff

Discussion Questions:

Four passages from Ellen:
1) What are the effects on these passages on you as a reader.

Different voices.
Different expectations.
Different points of view.

How does Ellen get to picture who these people are?

Huzzah for Class on November 6th, 2008.

Remember, remember, the 5th of November, the gunpowder treason and plot... I can think of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.

Yea, it's a day late, but hey, we gotta have fun in PWE class right?

Moving on... Seen and Nick...

Research Question: What does the graffiti arists' composing process look like?

Step #1: Create your thesis (how would you answer that question in one sentence)

The joint work which we see between Seen and Nick is not a collaboration, but an example of mentoring and apprenticeship, therefore the process is one that is a binary of control and servitude/mentorship.

Step #2: Locate a moment, regather the data/evidence, and then describe what happened in thick detail.

Immediately, just as the creation process is beginning, there is discussion between Seen and Nick concerning the the image and where/how it will be created. Nick asserts his opinion, but Seen dismisses it out of hand, relegating Nick to a completely subordinate role. Nick accepts this role, and it guides the rest of the creation process, creating the mentor/student relationship that drives the roles of both men from beginning to end.

Step #3: Interpret the data, make sense of it for readers-- what do you want us to notice?

Given all the rhetoric and the roles each man accepts, this scene is not at all a collaboration, and is much more of a servant/master relationship. Throughout the scene, Seen never touches a spray can himself, leaving all the work to Nick despite the fact that he is in total creative control. In order to understand or interpret anything about this "collaboration" one must first understand through what sort of lens to interpret the information. In this case, one must first understand that Seen is in complete control of Nick beginning to end, and that Nick is little more than a voiceless robot obeying orders.

Step #4: Is there material in here that confirms/supports our own interpretation of data? Is there something that denies it? -- Identifying "testimony" that confirms our analysis

In many instances, such as when coloring, positioning, and even the overall choice of what to draw, are discussed between Nick and Seen, Seen simply dictates what will happen, using phrases like "trust me" and "listen to me." In the few instances when Nick attempts to interject his own opinion, it is treated as background noise and the final decision ALWAYS comes down to Seen-- there is not a single case in the video of Nick suggesting something that comes to fruition, Seen ALWAYS does what he intended to do anyways, no matter what Nick has to say about it.

Step #5: Anableat.

In his 1988 analysis of graffiti writers, Richard Lachmannn reaches a similar conclusion about the mentoring/apprenticeship relationship.

Step #6: Yea, Erin is right. Sometimes all a man has is Anableat, and that has to be enough.
Review the description and analysis, and loop back to create a topic sentence that signals to the readers the direction which you're going to go. This topic sentence should be deliver ibe if your major supporting reason underpinning the thesis.

11/6/08 - The Senses

Stated bluntly, evidence based upon sensory stimuli is always suspect. The human nervous system is a fickle thing that has many sorting mechanisms and triggers (such as, for instance, the body's natural sorting mechanism for pain-- if one were to fall and break their leg, as excruciating as the pain may, it would immediately disappear if one were then, say, shot in the pelvis), and almost all recorded stimuli must first go through a number of processes before being recorded in the brain. Each of these processes is completely at the mercy of factors such as health, state of mind, internal and external temperature, et cetera, so far as the way they sort information gathered by the senses. The ancients were quite correct in being skeptical about sensory evidence.

Direct data, such the increase or decrease of gross domestic product in correlation with the implementation of various systems of taxation, is an example of data that is truly empirical, in that they stretch over a wide period of time and are subject to few, if any, subjective influences. Given that there is a vary limited scope of networks of interpretation through which this data must pass, one can take arguments using such data (so long as the arguments themselves are as objective as possible) as arguments founded on adequate criteria.

The majority of arguments I make-- we'll stick with arguments for Libertarianism as the aura of political discourse has only slight abated... and I'm still bitter-- are founded upon historical and philosophical criteria. The former is subjective by nature but, by and large when examined for trends of time, while the other has about as much tangibility as a dirty limerick. In the case of historical premises, this data (especially data pertaining to effects upon citizenry and economic production as the result of implemented socio political agendas) is, for the most part, consistent enough to be regarded as relevant. Philosophical arguments, however, are in their very nature utterly subject, meaning the use of philosophy as ARGUMENT are as futile as attempting to nail a cloud to a tree. Their strength, however, comes in their ability to appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos all at once, and to evoke the emotional side of a reader or listener with arguments that are ostensibly based upon logic.