getting hyper

Friday, February 28, 2003

Here is a blogger on the rhetoric of the blog post.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 28, 2003

"I thought of something the other day. I started to wonder whether or not there was some sort of underlying meaning behind each of our screen names or handles. Take for instance, the getting hyper weblog we're keeping as a class. I've chosen to have my name as "Christopher" which sounds more intellectual and mature than "Chris". Even more obvious, Professor Deumer's title is "profdeumer", which seems to set his posts above all the rest." [from Christopher's blog]

Unintentional, but revelatory of the nature / rhetoric of naming, especially people. Having a title confers status. At least I typed it in lowercase! Maybe we should all take titles in the class. What title would you give yourself?
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 28, 2003

I was reading my psychology book this evening and was struck by maybe the funniest quote I had ever seen in a textbook. The section that this comes from is the section about language and how it is understood:
"Suppose, for example, that one sees a lion in the parlor and wants to tell a companion about this. It is not enough that both parties speak English. One has to estimate the listener's capacities, motivations, and relations to oneself in order to speak appropriately. If the companion is a sharpshooter with a revolver, one might say: Quick, shoot! There's a lion in the parlor!
But if the companion is an artist, one might say: Quick, draw! Lion of a gorgeous shade of ochre in the parlor!
To a biologist, one might say: Quick, look! Member of the genus Panthera in the parlor!
And to an enemy: Lovely morning, isn't it? See you later." (Gleitman, Basic Psychology)
It just stood out as something not typically found in a school textbook: humor. This reinforces my mindset that, even though it's not my best class, it's still one of the most interesting. Well, I guess it's time to do some more reading. Yay psych! [from Steve's blog]

We call the mechanics & techniques of making such decisions . . . Rhetoric. It's about human relationships, and the techniques can be used effectively, used ineffectively & misused. Why is this important in a "computer class"? Because the computer now mediates a great deal of human communication. See Jeff's blog for the 23rd.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 28, 2003

Thursday, February 27, 2003

Short sketches of various literary theories.
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 27, 2003

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

"This is how I see the analyzation of poetry. Poem analyzers take a poem and try to find something in it that isn't visible and that you can't grab a hold of. Then they discuss it or try to convince others that what they see is real. There is no real proof and and what one person says can be challenged by any other person looking at the poem. The meaning of a poem is very abstract and open to a lot of interpretation based on circumstancial evidence. This makes it hard to know if what is deteremined from the analyzation of a poem is aof any value." [from Ken's weblog]

This goes to the heart of interpretation. And I don't disagree, actually. But aren't most things in life this way? Aren't the domains where there is "proof" pretty limited? So the question becomes, How do we come up with better interpretations or things like God & poems & friendship & beauty & etc.?

posted by Joseph Duemer Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

To those of you complaining about dial-up, broadband, and cell phone charges, be thankful for what is available. Where my house is situated it is nearly impossible to get reception an a cell phone, and cable (consequently broad ban) is not available either. Though I must say; satellite TV beats cable anyday.
posted by Marianna Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Here's an emoticon just for you Prof. Duemer, which I found in my searches.
(Somehow Kyle already saw it yesterday in the 3 seconds between when it was posted and deleted because the link didn't work. I think he's stalking me).

posted by Dan Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Monday, February 24, 2003

At home I use free dialup. The service finances itself by placing an ad banner over the bottom quarter of the screen. When I want to download a program I go upstairs for a couple of hours. It's annoying but it's doable. My parents are seriously considering getting cable, but they're worried about how much it will cost.

We live in a gorgeous house, one-and-a-half acres in the city of Syracuse, which my parents bought by cutting coupons and going to the thrift store on a regular basis. We grow vegetables. When the car breaks my dad fixes it. We've found free pipe organs, free ping-pong tables, free china hutches, all kinds of free furniture. The kind of "who-cares-about-money" Americans you're talking about enjoy leaving defective furniture by the roadside. My family fixes it and lives in it. We go on vacation every year, two weeks to the Thousand Islands and one week somewhere else. We stay in the state parks, a lot of times on Grindstone Island. To me, paying for Internet is a ridiculous suggestion.

Since I consider it essential, I propose that the government finance broadband Internet access for Americans in low income brackets across the country.
posted by dave Monday, February 24, 2003

Power of the internet to impact even more people... Currently: "U.S. Department of Commerce data from 2001 indicated that 78.9 percent of people in families making $75,000 or more had Internet access, compared to 25 percent of people from households earning less than $15,000 a year." -- But maybe it wont be this way for long according to an article on cnn.com. I think this is a great idea... giving more and more people an opportunity to get on the net.
posted by Josh Monday, February 24, 2003

Information on rhetoric.

Information on propaganda.
posted by Joseph Duemer Monday, February 24, 2003

Sunday, February 23, 2003

Pete is a member of the Whig party.

And just to add some color to the HP100 web log:
posted by Dan Sunday, February 23, 2003

Saturday, February 22, 2003

Keats was talking about desire & how beauty in this view must never be "ravished." That one can never actually possess the beloved because then the lovers would come crashing down into the temporal world. Personally, I prefer Marvell's picture of desire & beauty (see "To His Coy Mistress"). Keats view of art is that it must "stand the test of time" by standing outside of time.
posted by Joseph Duemer Saturday, February 22, 2003

War & the rhetoric of war.
posted by Joseph Duemer Saturday, February 22, 2003

Friday, February 21, 2003

Ah yes. Keats was referring to men "with prominant erections" engaging in various sexual acts in mixed groups, and the result "transcends the ages." (obv. sarcasm)

On a completely different note, O Canada is played at every hockey game. How many of you know the lyrics?
posted by dave Friday, February 21, 2003

Jeff, underlining seemed like the most obvious solution.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 21, 2003

This is what Keats was talking about in his poem. If you read the poem carefully you will understand what "unravished" means & etc.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 21, 2003

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Yes, we should always strive to see the good in things. My favourite poet, Li-Young Lee, agrees in this poem. If you want to read anything else of his work, IM me at ipenetrex and i'll lend u a book of his poems.

The Gift

To pull the metal splinter from my palm
my father recited a story in a low voice.
I watched his lovely face and not the blade.
Before the story ended, he'd removed
the iron sliver I thought I'd die from.

I can't remember the tale,
but hear his voice still, a well
of dark water, a prayer.
And I recall his hands,
two measures of tenderness
he laid against my face,
the flames of discipline
he raised above my head.

Had you entered that afternoon
you would have thought you saw a man
planting something in a boy's palm,
a silver tear, a tiny flame.
Had you followed that boy
you would have arrived here,
where I bend over my wife's right hand.

Look how I shave her thumbnail down
so carefully she feels no pain.
Watch as I lift the splinter out.
I was seven when my father
took my hand like this,
and I did not hold that shard
between my fingers and think,
Metal that will bury me,
christen it Little Assassin,
Ore Going Deep for My Heart.
And I did not lift up my wound and cry,
Death visited here!
I did what a child does
when he's given something to keep.
I kissed my father.

-- Li-Young Lee, ©1986. Reproduced from Rose without permission of BOA Editions, Ltd.

posted by dave Thursday, February 20, 2003

Apathy is easier than caring. According to this definition, you don't need to do anything to be apathetic. To care you need a cingulate. The cingulate is part of the brain. No brain = no caring. QED.

Honestly, we need a mandatory course on making friends here on campus. Maybe that would stop Cool Blue Jello incidents.
posted by dave Thursday, February 20, 2003

When Prof. Duemer writes about "embodying beauty and truth," he links it to a poem about a Greek jar. I'm not sure exactly what he means by this, but let it be known: Grecian urns are not my standard for beauty, nor are they (I hope) that of anyone else in the Honours Program. Heck, of anyone else in the world. Can you imagine someone lusting after ceramic? Ohhh, Renee, your eyes are like glazing; your hips like pottery! Also Mr. Duemer's urn somehow "transcends time," making it the most powerful jar I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.
I know we all like to romanticize, but let's not go overboard.

Here's another ode ... one at least as powerful ...
posted by dave Thursday, February 20, 2003

You might also want to take a look at the little Literary Theory book by Culler that at least some of you have. Ch 2 in particular.
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 20, 2003

Norm posts some thoughts on the nature of literature & hypertext. Norm makes a case for a fairly traditional view of literature--that it embodies beauty & truth & that it transcends time. This is a respectable & socially sanctioned view, but are there other possibilities? [from Dr. Mary Klages, Associate Professor, English Department, University of Colorado, Boulder]

And here is some more from Prof. J.L. Lemke.
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 20, 2003

Interested in anchient greece, and some of the early philosopher's or rhetoric? If no......igore this link. If yes, click here for a few pictures of the ruins of Plato's academy in anchient greece. Sometimes it seems as though plato, socrates, aristotle and other great greeks are just faint shadows of the past, almost as tranlucent as their theories have become melted into modern literature and thought. It's kinda nice to see tangible evidence of their existance, beyond what is found in there writtings.
posted by Marianna Thursday, February 20, 2003

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

what is it??... you couldn't find a book wide enough for this one...
posted by dave Wednesday, February 19, 2003

i

think that

i

will take

FULL
advantage of the FactThatI

don't need to pay for paper

when publishing on the

internet.
posted by dave Wednesday, February 19, 2003

If you are interested in some info on the theory of rhetoric here is a pretty good site I've come across in working on the class project:
The Rhetoric Forest. Also, if you read my personal web log, don't think I'm suicidal, I was just in a really really bad mood when I wrote my last entry.
posted by Marianna Wednesday, February 19, 2003

This is a very fine resource on propaganda. Many of your projects touch on political speech & this should be very useful.
posted by Joseph Duemer Wednesday, February 19, 2003

An interesting article which shows how weblogs might be able to track new "trends" in society (and politics I suppose). We have already discussed similar issues in class such as blogdex, but as far as I know that only shows most popular topics whereas this shows the most popular words or phrases?
posted by Josh Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

I'M MAD. Some girl was having a seizure in Ro-Bro ten minutes ago; I think she was choking on her food. In any event, they had to call in the stretchers. Now in a NORMAL place that would be reason for concern. People would form a crowd around her with worried looks. Think of what your parents would do... But in this goddamned campus, nobody cared. Nobody bothered to form a circle around her because nobody cared. It was business as usual and conversations didn't even include the girl who was passed out on the floor. In one nameless person's words, "she was blocking the cool blue jello." And so I'm angry. Angry at the overwhelming lack of human compassion in that cafeteria. EMPATHY people. EMPATHY begins with you. If you want people to worry about your pathetic lives, you've got to worry about other people. Since there wasn't one worried look in that cafeteria I know that I'm not yelling at anyone innocent.

Learn to love. Please.
posted by dave Tuesday, February 18, 2003

I always kinda thought that Superman got his power by virtue of his alienhood, but that's OK.

Information content < 0
posted by dave Tuesday, February 18, 2003

French humour is simply different than English humour. It has little to do with the language barrier; it has more to do with the type of humour that evolved in the culture. It's true that humour loses something in translation, but this is something different: it's different before translation.

Some things translate very well cross-culture, however. For instance, Bushisms. Yes, the whole world thinks pretty much the same of Dubya.

In Marianna's words, "Imagine attempting to discuss deep religious ideas, and to share experiences without a common language." I love experiences like that: no language in common, yet communication always happens. My grandparents are always having houseguests from Germany over. I can hardly speak any German at all, and yet the language barrier is never a problem. We always manage to talk to one another, share experiences, enjoy a lazy night together. Any German that I know comes from these nights.

If you want to practice listening to French, set your radio to about FM-99. A couple of minutes a day when your radio alarm goes off in the morning will keep your French sharp for the rest of your life.

Montreal is a beautiful city and you're really lucky to have a retreat like this available.
posted by dave Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Monday, February 17, 2003

I thought it might be interesting to reflect on the topic of language itself. This past weekend I was in Montreal of the Taize experience. This was a special kind of prayer involving son, group sharing, mass and an array of other reflections. I went with the Newman center, and we were all hosted by students fro McGill University. While all of our host were english speaking, most of the services, and sharing was in French. Now, I did take three years of French in jr/sr high, but my last class was when I was a sophomore. Thus throughout the experience I was constantly recalling or wishing I could recall what random words. The most difficult part of the experience was during the group sharing. I was randomly placed in a group with all french speakers. Imagine attempting to discuss deep religious ideas, and to share experiences without a common language. Fortunately one member in the group could speak a english quite well as a second language and translated for me. Still, words could not be translated with the same emphasis or amusing nature as desired. Also, when the priests spoke to the French crowds, laughter was quite common. Unfortunately the English translations lost such zest. Ultimately, the weekend solidified the idea that language is among the most integral parts of our interaction with others, and our innate social nature.

posted by Marianna Monday, February 17, 2003

Sunday, February 16, 2003

Dan, have you considered doing a study of the rhetoric of emoticons?
posted by Joseph Duemer Sunday, February 16, 2003

WHOA!!!!!

I just found new ANIMATED emoticons!!!!!
My life is now complete.
Here are just a few examples:

And MANY MANY more!!!!! Muhahahahahahahaha.

PS: This was what I was talking about Prof. Duemer.
posted by Dan Sunday, February 16, 2003

Saturday, February 15, 2003

It would be interesting if some of you chose two or three blogs to follow for several weeks, keeping track of the way they work. Use weblogs.com to look at a whole range of recently updated weblogs. Or use Blogdex to see how webs of blogs are linked.
posted by Joseph Duemer Saturday, February 15, 2003

Somebody hasnt seen Austin Powers: Goldmemeber. :-)
There are only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
-Nigel Powers

Any, I haven't been doing to well at getting my point across, so I'm going to say it as simply as I possibly can, then get the heck out of here for a while.
1. No war without international support.
2. Finish war on al Quaeda, they are the bigger threat.
3. Remove Sadaam Hussein. You cannot tell me that this would be oppressive manuever by the US. If Bush were to overthrow Iraq's government, he would be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
4. I hate religious fanatics, in that they try to force their views on other people, because their God is the "right" God.

IThere, I think I'm out of this conversation for now, it's taking too much time from my Counterstrike games.

posted by Dan Saturday, February 15, 2003

Friday, February 14, 2003

Two things:

a.) I agree with Pete. We are one of the most intollerant nations ever. I won't restate what Pete has already said, but look at the racism in our country. Let's forget about the traditional racism issues (against african americans, jews, etc) and take a look at how much people in our nation hate Arabs right now. I have had people tell me that they wish every one of them was dead. I then told them what they could do with their statement, and if they wanted to help in the fight against those "horrible people" that they could start by offing me.

b.) Valentine's Day, although capitalized on quite a bit, is a very enjoyable holiday in my opinion. I like getting cards from my relatives and getting sweets from my mother even when I don't have a significant other to share the day with. The statement made earlier seemed mildly bitter. I probably wouldn't comment on the matter, but I just got through with watching one of the Valentine's Day specials of Iron Chef.. yummy.
posted by Anonymous Friday, February 14, 2003

To everyone who would like to convince everyone else that they should switch political parties - including myself:

We need to remember three things...

1.) Political parties suck. They seem to be nothing more than vehicles for the vying for power by people who couldn't care less about anything but our money. Look at the issues? I wonder when the big shots sit in a room together and carve up the pie. There is no ultimate underlying moral code for action. We are, however, stuck with them, because no one, myself included, is motivated or strong enough to right the system.
2.) We know nothing, nothing, about the world and its events save what the media feed us. We are addicted to it, and we dictate what it gives us. The media is a business. Businesses make money. Does truth retain itself if it is told in a certain way? Does it really matter, though, that things get elaborated on just a little if it will make more money, thus employing more people and prolonging the life of the system as a whole? How white does a lie have to be to be really white?
3.) The people who we put in office (we did, at least, agree to that system we know through our Constitution) are privilege to more informational sources than we are. Whether we like them or not (and if we do not, there are certain acceptable ways of doing something about it) they are in office until their term is up, and are in a much better position to make decisions than we who watch T.V.

I often think, when I look back on our conversations, that we lack any true wisdom or insight whatsoever, and that these passioned arguments are "a chasing after the wind." I think that, for some of us at least, our true object in argument is to establish ourselves in the eyes of our peers as possesing authority through superior intelligence and intellect. It might prove wiser and wiser both to show our widom by the arguments we abstain from and evaluate others by such. This post, then, is hypocricy.
posted by Norm Friday, February 14, 2003

Um.... happy Valentine's Day?
posted by dave Friday, February 14, 2003

Ok, let's get something straight here:

North Korea = Nuclear Capability = Long Range Missle Which Can Hit West Coast = Threat To Continental US

Iraq = Very Questionable Nuclear Capability = Very Limited Delivery Capability = No Threat To Continental US

As to bio/chemical weapons, terrorists pose much larger threat than the Iraqi military, in that they can obtain said agents, and are crazy enough to use them. Not to mention that they can infiltrate our country easier.

So why is our first, most urgent, most vital, concern to create an Iraq shaped parking lot? With the use of our own nuclear weapons just thrown in for kicks?
posted by Dan Friday, February 14, 2003

Thursday, February 13, 2003

I read literature. I know that increasingly people don't, but I always have and always will. I'm really concerned about how few people read today. This pretty much proves that yes, reading is dead.

This doesn't mean that we should forget about reading, however. The fewer people who read for reading's sake, the more responsibility we have to make up for their loss. We need to read Bible verses at Reading's funeral....

...

Robert Dana probably has the same interpretation of his "I'm Lucky" (sorry, I can't find the poem online!) as we do: confused and open-minded. I'm convinced that he came up with the two last lines first, then invented the rest of it as filler. He wants to play with our minds; that's his only intention of writing it. I wrote a bunch of poems for the literary magazine back home so I know mind games when I see them!

Cat's Cradle, which we discussed in class, is one of the best books on earth, and if anyone wants to read my copy she's more than welcome :)
posted by dave Thursday, February 13, 2003

For me, this is depressing. How about for you? The question is not rhetorical. Are literary texts dead & the rhetoric(s) of literature outdated?
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 13, 2003

Ah, the wonders of technology!
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 13, 2003

Along completely different lines, there seems to be an interesting voice speaking in this weblog.
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 13, 2003

If your eyes are better than mine, check out the fine print at Hope's weblog. There was also a particularly trenchant comment appended to the post.
posted by Joseph Duemer Thursday, February 13, 2003

Osama bin Who?

We should address the bigger threat before any talk of attacking Iraq is even thought of. In my view, Bush is using a new war with a stationary target (which he can win) to cover up a war with a far more mobile and dangerous target (which he has not made any progress on). Yes, I completely agree that Sadaam Hussein is a threat and needs to be removed as his country's leader, but lets do it with worldwide support shall we? If Bush acts alone, it will weaken the UN beyond measure, and that could be very, very dangerous. And while we're at it, let’s remove economic sanctions, because it sure seems to me that Hussein isn't getting any thinner, but his people sure as hell are.

BTW, I'm allowed to talk like this. I'm Republican. ;-P

posted by Dan Thursday, February 13, 2003

I'm sorry, but I don't trust the government. In our current situation, even some of the most dedicated Republicans that I know agree with me that Dubya just seems to be determined to get us into a war. I'd say more but I'm sick of arguing about this, because I know that no matter what I say, it won't help anything.
posted by Anonymous Thursday, February 13, 2003

Chris, ideally you make a valid argument. But now I ask, does the government define policing the same way you do? Why should our definitions be different from theirs? I agree with you though, that it is a matter of trusting the government. I just feel that sometimes the government can be very money-driven and if they had the opportunity to pick up some oil while they were policing, they would not mind to. As you can see, I only the trust the government enough to feel safe in the country, anything additional they might advertise I shy away from. That's just me I guess.
posted by Anonymous Thursday, February 13, 2003

Monday, February 10, 2003

Is it just me, or does it seem like the second session is a lot more "on topic" than the first session. I have been reading a lot about how the discussion has been going off on huge tangents, but I have thought the discussion has been quite focused... Maybe it is just the nature of the two groups that meet. Or maybe it is just my perception of what I think is "on topic." Either way, I think that HP101 has a very broad "possible topic range" since computers have to deal with...well...just about everything these days. Interesting.
posted by Josh Monday, February 10, 2003

Some of you math-types should check this out. More. And yet more.
posted by Joseph Duemer Monday, February 10, 2003

I agree with Christa in that Americans downplay events that happen worldwide. Truthfully, it disgusts me. I myself am somewhat of an isolationist, although I do believe we should always be watching. To clarify that point, I am an isolationist as far as the government is concerned: I don't think we should start wars unless we are attacked directly by another nation (WWII's Pearl Harbor), or take it upon ourselves to be the "watchdogs," however, as a member of Amnesty International, I do believe that we should be aware of the injustices that go on in the world, and not only be thankful for the degree of safety that we ourselves do have, but speak out against these injustices through letters and protest. I must comment that Americans try not to see anything in the world that upsets them. This is not limited to the poverty and death overseas: there are many injustices that go on in our own country that people don't want to hear about. There are many things that I could list, but I'd like to try not to start a giant weblog argument. If you'd like to make yourselves more aware, check out these websites: Amnesty International, Kensington Welfare Rights Union
posted by Anonymous Monday, February 10, 2003

Sunday, February 09, 2003

Golublog: February 2003 Archives Semiotic Technology: Non-cerebral media (see also text-artifact) which contain information (see text) and which can be be used to transport this information across space and through time (see chronotope, Bakhtin, Mikhael). Typically the medium is non-human, although tattoos, chipping, and coding information in spare DNA chains technically count. Human semiotic technologies began with inorganic geologic material (clay, stone) but quickly adopted processed animal and vegetable remains (vellum, paper). Popular media have shifted back to the inorganic (silicon, copper) ever since humans developed packet technology in which the physical, transport, and content levels were logically abstract (see digital). Previous to this the physical form of the packet bore a literally physical resemblance (see: iconicity, Peirce, Charles Saunders) to the sign-system whose signals it was supposed to contain (see meatworld, picture, alphabet). Semiotic technologies are key to more people pooling resources in new ways (see civilization) as well as to increasing the velocity and amount of pornography circulating through any system of communication (see: dolphinsex.org, faster horses).
posted by Joseph Duemer Sunday, February 09, 2003

KRT Wire | 01/22/2003 | Julia Keller: Is PowerPoint the devil? The rhetoric of PP & the rhetoric of hypertext?
posted by Joseph Duemer Sunday, February 09, 2003

Tragedy, one view.
posted by Joseph Duemer Sunday, February 09, 2003

What do you make of this technology? Another example. And another. Is this more than a trick? Anything to do with intertextuality?

Haiku generated randomly? Is randomly the right word?
posted by Joseph Duemer Sunday, February 09, 2003

Saturday, February 08, 2003

Only in an honors class would someone complain about going off topic in class discussion...

Truthfully, since this class is so open-ended in nature, I think that the discussions that we have are more than appropriate. Our discussions tend to be somewhat random, but if you take a look at the articles in our books (more so Holeton than Lanham), some of those are a little random too. Everything is related in some nature, but they're not your traditional text books. In the same way, HP101 is not your traditional computer course. I disagree with Dave that HP101 isn't about computers. It is. It's just not a course that teaches us how to do things on computers. It's called "computers as an intellectual tool," and all in all, that's sorta what we discuss. It makes us look at the computer and the internet in different ways. It makes us use previous knowledge and experiences. I enjoy this class a lot more than I did HP100, because in HP100 we were given busy work, which I thought was a waste of time. So what we learned how to make webpages. That's the only thing I did get out of that class, and we had to teach ourselves. I think Marianna might be forgetting that we are not in an English course (no offense to her at all). We will not get multiple choice tests on the books. We are not there to disect the author's meaning. We are there simply to discuss. I think minds like ours deserve a little open ended discussion once in a while. I think of it as somewhat of an indulgence. The reason I like the honors program is because I can talk to people on my intellectual level about things that my other friends would call me a nerd for even thinking about (again, nerd pride ;-)). There's nothing wrong with a little debate. Anyone can discuss a book, but it takes something more to make real world connections to the material and be able to debate on related topics. And debate is an application of rhetoric, isn't it?
posted by Anonymous Saturday, February 08, 2003

Friday, February 07, 2003

A computer course! LOL! I haven't yet figured out exactly what HP101 is about yet, but it isn't about computers. We talk a lot about rhetoric, also, though I don't think it's a rhetoric course either.

The subject of computer rhetoric is really very simple to discuss: "Computers change the way we write to be more self-reflective, often less well-thought out, and more dynamic; they also increase the number of new ideas that enter our lives." The course in a sentence.
A computer course! LOL! I haven't yet figured out exactly what HP101 is about yet, but it isn't about computers. We talk a lot about rhetoric, also, though I don't think it's a rhetoric course either.

The subject of computer rhetoric is really very simple to discuss: "Computers change the way we write to be more self-reflective, often less well-thought out, and more dynamic; they also increase the number of new ideas that enter our lives." The course in a sentence.

I think that HP101 is really about the same old subject that humanities courses have always been about: People. People are incedibly complex in our interactions. Though we are mere watery chemical sacs, we have transformed our ecosystem physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. We create worlds where there were none, or at the very least we believe this is so. One aspect of the world we make is the dynamic language we use. The Internet is one example of what our language has become.
In a course that is about people, we should feel free to say whatever comes to mind. After all, every member of the class is a person and merits study.
I think that HP101 is really about the same old subject that humanities courses have always been about: People. People are incedibly complex in our interactions. Though we are mere watery chemical sacs, we have transformed our ecosystem physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. We create worlds where there were none, or at the very least we believe this is so. One aspect of the world we make is the dynamic language we use. The Internet is one example of what our language has become.
In a course that is about people, we should feel free to say whatever comes to mind. After all, every member of the class is a person and merits study.
posted by dave Friday, February 07, 2003

All said is true. Indeed Proff. I wasn't really thinking along the lines of rhetoric. I guess it's just that the real purpose of hp101 is so open, while I'm attempting to label it as strictly a computer course. Thus I guess a variety of topics all intertwined do indeed connect media, rhetoric and the nature of language into the nature of the course.
posted by Marianna Friday, February 07, 2003

Marianna, sometimes classes do go off the track & your caution is well-taken; however, I would rather err on the side of too much freedom to discuss rather than too little. It is a rhetorical / pedagogical decision I make consciously. And in fact, I don't think the Columbia discussion was entirely unrelated to our concern with rhetoric. One might even try applying Burke's pentad to a rhetorical analysis of the coverage of the event & the language we use to describe it.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 07, 2003

Yesterdays' class was interesting, but sorry to say highly unrelated to the nature of goals of the course. Think about it, we began by discussing The Electronic Word but eventually digressed into an argument about.... what was it about?..........?...........................Oh yes, should those who died on the Columbia be considered heroes. This makes me recall religion class at my high school. Yes I did go to a private, catholic high school, an yes, to the sour part of my recollection, I did have to take four years of religion class. Freshman and Sophomore years were actually useful, as they were based in dissection of the bible, understanding historical roots of Christianity, and linking Jewish heritage to Christian practices. However, Junior and Senior year was a nightmare. The woman who taught these classes claimed we were learning about the nature of faith, by reading our text, but unfortunately we always deviated from the topics under discussion and ended up arguing in a friendly matter over an array of topics--just as HP101 has become. I am not attempting to degrade any who took part in yesterdays' discussions, or to express my disapproval of the discussion based structure of the course. Participation and all is grand. I just think we need to focus more on topics the course is supposed to cover and not let discussions enter into the realms of personal ethics.
posted by Marianna Friday, February 07, 2003

Check out these remarks from Bogdenblog. Seems like a simple complaint, but has big implications for web rhetoric.
posted by Joseph Duemer Friday, February 07, 2003

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Other areas of interest related to Justin's post of "Grid" are:
Seti@Home
Folding Project
Distributed.net
posted by Josh Wednesday, February 05, 2003

i'll be truly Clarksonian. "rpi sucks."
....i would watch a show called "calc IX: the next dimension." something tells me that it would be a cult classic.
posted by dave Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Maybe we all just need a little soma holiday?
posted by Josh Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Chris: "Ripper" made me sick to my stomach too. It's amazing that people can be so cruel.
Pugby: I gave each chapter an equal opportunity, so I know that chapters 2 and 4 really are infinitely more interesting than 1 and 3. If you try to read 3 again you will be at least as bored as the first time you read it. This is because in Chapter 4, Lanham had something to say.
Liberal Arts vs. Technical Education: I would be less happy if people had never created light bulbs, transistors, music, or poetry. Society needs all of its muses to be fully functional. We need people from Potsdam and Geneseo just as much as we do from Clarkson and MIT.
People who think that one aspect of society is somehow better than another are simply wrong. Worse, they are discriminating: acting superior to another group of people simply because they are different. This is no different than discriminating on any other basis, such as sex, race, or creed.
posted by dave Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Sharon, a technical education is a fine thing; a technical education without a core of understanding of the liberal arts will make you a fine functionary of the corporate state. Is that what you aspire to? Remember Brave New World? Note to everyone: I have immense respect for all of you, which is why I will sometimes challenge you, even if it means hitting a nerve or suggesting that your received opinions might require some examination. Danielle was expressing a certain self-satisfaction with a narrow view of a technical education, so I posted a slightly barbed response. Please note that I rejected her apology as unnecessary--because smart people can argue about ideas without taking personal offense. At least that's the ideal. I feel more free to be incendiary in the Honors Program than generally, but I am pretty much the same sort of teacher (though a bit gentler) in my non-honors classes. I don't pretend to know everything, but I do know why I'm at Clarkson & that is to provide that essential core of human learning to the next generation's technical workers. By doing this, I hope to provide students the intellectual resources to control to the extent it's ever possible their own careers & lives. Finally, Sharon, you should note that you have dismissed the sort of education I pursued while valorizing the sort you are pursuing; why does this have to be an either/or proposition? And how do you suppose that makes me feel? Final reminder: I love what I do & I hope that all of you will be as fortunate as I am in your careers. The above remarks are not "personal" in these sense of being a self-defensive "attack" against the class in general or anyone in the class; but they are personal in the sense that I feel them deeply.
posted by Joseph Duemer Tuesday, February 04, 2003

In my opinion today's discussion was incredibly engaging. Resposibility apparently floods both ways, between the reader, the writer, with each attempting to create something, while at the same time expecting something from participants. This leads me to question whether or not this applies to any work of art. Can an observer of a painting owe the painter something? Must a painter follow some sort of rubric in her or his work?

Another note, to those of you whom mentioned frustration in arguing with someone who will not bend. My best example would be the right to life argument, and the standing of the Catholic Church. After attending a Catholic high school, and getting an F on a paper for stating that I felt euthanasia was okay in certain circumstances (the paper was supposed to be opinion based) I've learned that argument is not always just an interesting focus of conversation. In fact, I would almost go so far as to say that only certain people are actually capable of arguing. It seems as though there are the compliant, the disinterested, firm and irrepressible, and a minority group of those able to truly argue. Either that or each individual exist in each of these states at various times, and wavers between them. Okay, maybe I need to study Rhetoric, this all really doesn't make sense. Or am I just in an inarguable mood?
posted by Marianna Tuesday, February 04, 2003

I was just wondering if anyone else in my section is staying here for break (I doubt it, but it's worth asking). I had some ideas for the upcoming project and I figured I'd probably start it then. Soooo, if any of you are staying and would be interested, let me know. My email is petkodl@clarkson.edu. See y'all on Thursday.
posted by Anonymous Tuesday, February 04, 2003

What do you guys make of this, from another weblog I like called This Public Address.
posted by Joseph Duemer Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Well, here goes my first attempt at writing to this Blog, and I find that I will not actually be writing anything. Instead, I post a link to my blog. What I am trying to do applies to my own thread as well, so rather than writing it twice (or as Lanham would say - using the ability of the electronic word to be maniplulated), I'll mainulate it in a different way by keeping my thread linear and adding a link from here to it. Please bear with my sorry lack of skill.

A Little Insight?
posted by Norm Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Josh mentioned the MEA's: possibly the most fiendish invention ever devised by the government to plague the Maine school system. I had to take them three times over the course of my school career, and felt that they were completely useless every single time. Considering no one has heard of them outside of the state of Maine, and that the aspiration of most Maine high school students is to get out of Maine as quickly as possible, what good could these "tests" possibly be? One question I was asked on a writing section consisted of the directions to the peak of Mt. Katahdin. The response was to write the directions to get back down again. Another time I was to take on the persona of "Diane," the mother of "Ashley," a pregnant teenager. What do you say to Ashley? Having such extensive experience in these matters as a worldly fifteen-year-old my response was of course in the finest motherly taste imaginable.

These sorts of tests, I feel, are not a valuable addition to the liberal arts education of any student save perhaps those still working on the skills of holding and using a pen. However, I do believe that at least a grounding in the arts is a valuable and important part of any student's, indeed, any person's, upbringing and education. It allows us to grasp the less technological side of culture and offers a rich variety of viewpoints and opinions on issues that have arisen in history and will arise again. As history repeats itself, one of the best chances we have of not making the same mistakes again is to know that they have happened before and to take a look at how they were dealt with in the past. Much can be learned from the examples given in history books and classic literature. Granted, much of the "canon" is as dry and easy to incorporate as week-old bread, but that is not a reason to discount the entirety of the genre as impossible. Even if the text itself is valueless in terms of moral or social lessons, an appreciation of prose or poetry, different styles of writing, even a striking passage of description can still make a book worthwhile. But I'm biased.
posted by Hope Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Danielle: don't apologize--think ahead from where you are! Think beyond your immediate circle of experience.
posted by Joseph Duemer Tuesday, February 04, 2003

Monday, February 03, 2003

I'm sorry Professor Duemer!
posted by Anonymous Monday, February 03, 2003

Rhetoric!!! Do I win a prize???

I don't feel as strongly against the tests as some of my classmates, but they do not accomplish what they are supposed to. These tests (especially those which test writing) are formula tests. They encourage no creativity. All of the critical lenses can be answered using the same books year, after year, after year. I once had to write a paper on the steps of planting a garden. Do these formula tests actually promote a higher level of thinking? I don't believe so. But what they do do is force high school students to maybe pick up a book, and try their pen at the page. And that can't be all bad can it?

Posted by Dan Marker, Capt. Obvious.

posted by Dan Monday, February 03, 2003

What a bunch of anti-intellectuals you guys are! I got a liberal arts education & I'm being paid pretty good money to teach you about computers.
posted by Joseph Duemer Monday, February 03, 2003

Has it occurred to any of you who have been writing about the Regents & standardized testing to ask just exactly what the writing sections are supposed to teach you? Or evaluate whether you have learned. Hint: it begins with R. And think about it carefully--the tests enforce (& I use that word intentionally) a particular, impoverished kind of writing. What kind of writing do the tests enforce?
posted by Joseph Duemer Monday, February 03, 2003

Some call it "academic rigor," others call it "standards," I like to call it "a lot of time spent on fruitless goals." What exactly is "it"? What everyone has been talking about recently... The NY Regents is one example, the MEA (Maine Educational Assessment test) another. What are the test goals? To make sure kids know the right stuff before they graduate. Looks great on paper... making sure all students in your state graduate knowing certain basic concepts in a well rounded subject area... but in practice, is all the effort spent on programs like these really worth it? Do kids really know all the stuff that the exams are testing for? Or is this just a lot of money and time being spent on something that politicians want? I sat on the school board as a student representative for my school district in Maine for 2 years and I often heard board members raise concerns for academic rigor in the classroom. I think it is every school's goal to challenge each one of its students individually, working out a program for learning for each student, but this is impossible with often-stretched resources of many school districts. To test that every student is getting the education they need, states are implementing standardized testing systems so that every student that graduates is "certified to know" certain material...but is that what is really happening? In Maine the Maine State Learning Results need to be in place by 2007 I think it is... when that happens every student needs to show ample "proficiency" in certain subject areas (who picks what is important and not? politicians of course) or they will not graduate until they can show proficiency. Sounds good. But, what if for some reason a lot of students don't pass? What are schools that already have a problem with increasing enrollment going to do with students that aren't graduating? Are the numbers of students that pass going to be modified so this problem doesn’t occur? Doesn't that defeat the system?

I don’t know what the solution is for all of this, but I don't think standardized tests are a good solution in our society (unless we completely restructured our primary and secondary education system). That said, I think it is important to keep an eye on what our schools are teaching and that we are "connecting" with each student's individual learning needs. With all the money spent on making, administering, and implementing a standardized testing system I think states could do a lot more in the areas of showing students more individual attention. Individual Learning Plans anyone?

posted by Josh Monday, February 03, 2003

I wonder if anyone would be interested in responding to this argument & the one above it, concerning rhetoric. Agree, disagree, modify, elaborate, etc. Naturally, I have my own ideas, but will keep them to myself for the moment since I think that Isaac speaks for (at least) a significant number of people in the class.
posted by Joseph Duemer Monday, February 03, 2003

Sunday, February 02, 2003

I thought the Regents English Exam was pretty humourous. When the Board of Regents "raised the standards," they decided to scale the scores so that everyone became "average." Now nobody can possibly fail; it's just unless a person is completely illiterate. A very small percentage of the rubric is an "A" or an "F"; nearly 60% is a "C".

The handful of multiple choice questions still left on the test are straight reading-comprehension questions. They test at the third-grade level. As for the essays, those take six hours, spread out over two sessions.
The essays are supposed to be as boring as possible. Style earns no points. I remember arguing politics that I didn't believe in for several pages because the test instructed me to do so. This is the type of standards the Board of Regents imposes.

This is off the topic, perhaps, but I wrote three essays about Communism for standardized tests. I wrote a global perspective on Communism in a Global Studies Regents, then one on Eisenhower's foreign policy about Communism on an AP exam, then an essay about American reactions to Communism on the American History Regents. Everyone in my AP History class wrote three essays about Communism for exams.

BTW the state finally figured out how to raise the standards on the Physics exam. Suddenly there was a massive public outburst over the low grades, and the standards for 2003 will probably be right where they were before ....
posted by dave Sunday, February 02, 2003

Well I'm not from NYS, and from what I hear about the NY Regents, I'm just glad that I never had to take them. My school district was one of the "model" school districts in PA because we had what was called the New Standards program. The idea of the program was to make subjects more well-rounded (if that makes sense) by for example, requiring you to write in math, rather than to just do problems, and explain what you did and why. I had math projects and math writing assignments. The area that it affected the most, though, was the english department. We were required to read a certain number of books per year (25 I believe) and fill out all this paperwork on them. This became more of a hassle to students than anything else, and kids easily found loopholes to the system because any reading assignment over 100 pages (including text books) could be counted as a "book." My point is, no matter what you do, when you require kids to read, they don't want to. You have to make them want to read. When I was a kid my library had a summer reading program where you'd fill out a list of books you read and have your mom sign it; then they'd give you little prizes for every so many. That made me want to read; the challenge is finding something that can motivate your average middle and high schooler. Another thing that happened with New Standards that I didn't like is that you could redo almost anything if you didn't "meet the standards;" this happened most often with research papers and essays, and I never thought it was fair that I got an A after writing something once, and some of my classmates got As after getting a second go at it and a weeks extension. To me that just devalues an A.
posted by Anonymous Sunday, February 02, 2003

Saturday, February 01, 2003

Here's what I found the crux of chapter 4 to be:
"Codex books limit the wisdom of the Great Books to the Students who are Great Readers." (105)
Doesn't this both make sense, and send shivers? After all, I think that requiring strong reading skills is essential, yet so is the ability to expand the ideas contained in the classics to a greater variety of individuals. Ultimately, I feel that successful education must force individuals to rise up to certain standards, rather that bring the standards down to them. That's the very problem with NYS Regents. At first they were a great idea: set a high standard for all students desiring a college education. Yet, in an attempt to improve the overall educational system, those standards were applied to everyone. In theory this should have prompted and increase in instruction, prompting the development of a greater school system. Instead, efforts to improve education failed miserably as the Board of Regents slowly began to lower the difficulty of test so that more individuals could pass. What good does this do? In my opinion, it goes beyond doing no good, and enters the realm of determination.
posted by Marianna Saturday, February 01, 2003

Anybody else notice the lack of shower heads?
Looks like a rush on the IRC.
:-)
posted by Dan Saturday, February 01, 2003