Foucault presentation thoughts...

I primarily focused on Foucault and postmodernism for my portion
of the presentation, I thought the class could discuss:

Foucault's hypothesis that: "...in every society the production of discourse
is at once controlled, selected, organized, and redistributed by a
certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and
dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its
ponderous, formidable materiality." (and in particular his statements
that sexuality and politics are the primary areas in which discourse
is controlled) (1461)

Principles of exclusion:
Prohibition (forbidden speech)
Division and Rejection (madness)
Opposition Between True and False (Will to truth)

His connection to earlier texts:

"Since the Greeks 'true' discourse is no longer the discourse that
answers to the demands of desire, or the discourse which exercises
power, what is at stake in the will to truth, in the will to utter
this 'true' discourse, if not desire and power? 'True' discourse,
freed from desire and power by the necessity of its form, cannot
recognize the will to truth which pervades it; and the will to truth,
having imposed itself on us for a very long time, is such that the
truth it wants cannot fail to mask it."

Additionally, I found a Derrida quote where he talks about the
importance of the author to the text, which echoes Foucault's statements
on page 1465.

More Grammar....

It's interesting to see in Connor's article more of what we've been
talking about regarding issues of grammar.

I wish I could go back in time to pinpoint at what moments and with what
teachers I learned how to write, how to spell, how to write coherently
and how to write with ideas. I know that I had a decent education and
had different kinds of English teachers working on different things each
year, grammar and idea-wise. But I have trouble pinpointing which helped.

I think, as we talked about last class, it's truly reading that helps
you get a better understanding of grammar that helps a writer develop
their own Grammar for writing. I know in my writing I use commas in
certain ways that professors have circled for being "incorrect." And, as
Maggie said above, should that impact the quality of the paper?

I think, ultimately, a student who has a propensity toward being a good
writer--due to whatever teachers have done to help them in the
past--will develop their own Grammar with which to write, piecing their
Grammar together from all of their experiences.

I, for one, like knowing the rules so that I can break them. Sometimes
fragments are simply necessary.

Mike Rose rules....

I want to smack at least half of the 130 teachers at the high school I
work at in the face with this essay.

Given education's movement away from skilled employment education (in NY
it was called BOCES--I have no idea what trade education at the high
school level was called in California) I simply don't understand how
they can fail half of their students in every class. The current
education system is doing a number of things to children who simply will
never go to college who do not want to.

I know we started having this discussion the other day, but I think it's
worth discussing further. I think it's unfair that our school are
raising legions of students who are woefully unprepared for life because
we're pushing them all toward college. Some students aren't good at
school, but might be good at other skilled professions. That's where the
true failure in Education exists today, I feel, that we don't give
enough realistic job training in schools. Sure, some kids might be able
to change brakes, but can they weld? (etc.)

Additionally, I loved Grimke's letters for the same reason others above
stated. It's nice to read rhetoric of passion, rhetoric of the
oppressed, rather than rhetoric of intellectual privilege.

Relating Campbell to the Sublime...

I find it interesting that George asked us to relate the readings
specifically to our discussion we’re formulating for our paper, as I
specifically engineered my own reading this week to see what would help
me in my paper on Sonic Youth and a contemporary understanding of “The
Sublime.”

In Campbell’s “The Philosophy of Rhetoric,” he quite melodramatically
describes the sublime as “great and noble images” that “distend the
imagination with some vast conception and quite ravish the soul.” I
don’t know if it’s my postmodern upbringing, but I’m too cynical to
believe that there is any form or art (or oratory—as he’s discussing
here) in existence that can ravish my soul. Instead, contemporary art,
in order for it to be considered “sublime” in my eyes must raise
challenge flags to accepted truths about art. The questions an artist
raises through their art in turn “ravish” my soul, making me contemplate
accepted ideas, “truths” and discourse. This does, in Campbell’s terms,
rouse passion in a way—but not through aesthetic beauty. (Question: Is
there a way in which contemporary artists achieve the sublime in the
traditional sense today? Did past artists?)

Blair, in “Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres,” discusses taste in
a manner that made me contemplate my own discussions with friends. In my
spare time I’m a music critic, and since most of my friends know this
about me, they constantly try to engage me in discussions about music.
This puts me in an incredibly awkward position, because they tell me
about bands they like, (typically popular fare, such as Linkin Park, The
Killers and American Idol winners), and I cannot engage them in the kind
of dialogue they want. They’ve never heard of the bands I appreciate and
study, nor are they familiar with the history of pop music. For them,
music is a casual pastime, and for me it’s more of a form of study.
Blair, in Lecture II, gives me a little bit more license to not view
myself as simply an elitist bastard who can’t speak with the common
people about music. He helped me realize that there are levels of taste
that can be cultivated over time.

I just wish other people could see that and not just think I’m a music
snob. I’m not. I just know more of the history of musical movements,
understand contexts and like better music than they do.

Just kidding about that last part. Or am I?

Lost...

I thought it'd be fun to try to relate Locke's essay to the character
named after him on "Lost," but I had a ridiculous day at work, which
ended with another teacher's student telling me to "Shut the fuck up"
because I asked him to take out his ear phones.

Such a special child.

However, I was intrigued by Locke's assertions RE: words, meanings,
signification, etc. and how they relate to Postmodern theories of
language. However, he discusses the "essence" of a thing, which points
to Plato's idea of Truth, which in turn the postmodernists tend to
quash. However, the roots have been planted (probably in earlier
readings, but this is the first reading that stood out to me.

I'd like to discuss in class is final paragraph, in which he discusses
the (ab)use of figurative language and allusions in Rhetoric, arguing
that they exist for "pleasure and delight" but not rhetorical purposes.
I tend to disagree...but then again, I'm a lit major.

And finally, I'd like to discuss this quote... "Eloquence, like the fair
sex, has too prevailing beauties in it to suffer itself ever to be
spoken against. And it is in vain to find fault with those arts of
deceiving, wherein men find pleasure to be deceived."