My Discussion Flyer

As a matter of record I thought (with Prof. Gleason's insistence) that posting my discussion flyer from September 23rd might be of interest and use for your own "teaching practice" endeavors.

On Phaedrus

The editor’s introduction to Plato asserts that “Plato believes that transcendent truth exists and is accessible to human beings,” that it is “the philosopher’s task as aiding others …to bring forth those true ideas hidden in its secret places…. This process of inquiry takes place through verbal exchange, the definition of rhetoric’s proper province” (55). However, the author maintains that Plato’s rhetoric should be “discourse that is more analytic, objective, and dialectical” (56). What the author argues is that Plato’s Socrates seeks to respond “flexibly to kairos (time)…. Responsiveness impossible for a fixed, written text” (56). Although, in the very next thought, the author claims that to Plato the “relative merits of oral and written philosophy seem less clear” (56).

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that in the selection from Phaedrus it is affirmed that rhetoric, the oral tradition, is superior to that of writing. On the one hand the editor is stating, without equivocation, that Plato, through Socrates, is professing that written speeches, writing in general, is less able to support the understanding that is the basis of true knowledge than is the practice of rhetoric, discourse on an individual basis, leading to greater understanding and subsequently to a form of knowledge that grows and is not static, as is the written word.

Briefly, in Phaedrus, Socrates tells the allegorical Egyptian tale of King Thamus and Theuth who reveals to the king an invention that, “’will make the Egyptians wiser’” (140). The invention was letters. Of course, Plato’s Socrates slowly begins to render the judgment that the benefit of letters is greatly overestimated. He declares that reading (of writing) without a guide will fill the mind with facts without the ability to process and assimilate them as wisdom. It would be “the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom” (140). The problem, as described by Plato’s Socrates, is that written words can not respond to questions while dialectical conversation can. Written words ignore the unspoken aspects of body language, voice tone, etc., that constitute a major portion of communication. Plato contends that writing will only contribute to the dumbing down of one’s audience. One must adapt one’s discourse to “understand the nature of the soul, [and must] find out the class of speech adapted to each nature, and must arrange and adorn his discourse accordingly” (142). That would be the only way to “sway people’s minds.” Finally, Plato’s Socrates states that “the epithet ‘wise’ is too great and befits God alone; but the name ‘philosopher,’ that is, ‘lover of wisdom,’ …would be more fitting’ (142). Essentially, he who makes his arguments discursive is guaranteed to actually create a climate that will, in some small fashion, create an atmosphere for wisdom, asserting the moral imperative of the rhetorical tradition.

Questions:
1. Plato establishes a well-founded argument for rhetoric, the one-on-one discursive distribution of the perceived wisdom of the world. This contention is cited in Phaedrus in no uncertain terms. At the same time, Plato was a prolific writer who was able to leave shelves brimming with his works. If you concede his belief that wisdom must be seeded and nurtured by dialogue, how can one explain the dichotomy that is presented in the obvious contradiction that his prolific efforts in creating this legacy demonstrate?

2. To create a civilization, we learn and grow from our history and its imperatives. This experience is passed from generation to generation, creating a people’s journey, becoming their story, culture and ultimately their myth, the ineffable. That may be the function of rhetoric. This oral tradition, if shared one on one, becomes a discourse, a dialogue, with the recipient a willing collaborator in the exchange. One’s responsibility is to question in order to understand. Without the ability to question the rhetorician does the written supposition or premise remove growth in both intellect and wisdom?
Please accept my apologies for changing the questions, but after reviewing (with Prof. Gleason) the decision was there may have been too many questions offered to create a focused short discussion. Thanks.

Work Cited
“Plato” (55-56). and “Phaedrus” (140-143). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings
from Classical Rhetoric to the Present. Bizzell, Eds. Patricia and
Bruce Herzberg. Boston:Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Print.

Thoughts on: The Foundations of Liberty…oops, Literacy
Are we free, as the Blakes, quoting Sella, imply to enter this new “alternative to Babel” (74)? One would surmise we are. And, what are we confronted with? Well, we can “skim and choose what material we wish to retain from the available print [because] such activity is impossible with oral language” (74). How much time is there in a day? How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin? You cannot quantify the number of books, articles, items, blogs and general information or misinformation one must slog through to find that “material we wish to retain.” In concordance, the Blakes offer “the storage system may be a victim of its own success” (74). That is, to say the least, an understatement. The alternative is, on this holiest of days in the Jewish calendar, to atone. As opposed to atoning for not remembering our past by storing virtually nothing, we must now atone for thinking it possible to store everything that has ever been thought, much less written. Daunting is the prospect, an understatement that leads one to despair. Does this desperation allow one to wrestle the facts to the ground? Such grappling needs a referee. Is anyone qualified? The Blakes write, “only with writing can we retain the information that forms the basis of all [political bureaucracies]” (75). How much do we need? Do we need more or is it more that any group of individuals can presume to absorb. Think of “mark-ups” on the Senate health reform bill. There are over five hundred on more than one thousand pages of proposed legislation that no one effectively understands, probably including the originators and drafters of the bill. So much for literacy.

Notes on Pattison: Wordless in a Windy World_Thoughts on Being Unable to Communicate
I would have to agree with Bruno Bettelheim that the Wild Boy of Aveyron may indeed have been autistic in some measure. Of course, without any personal scientific basis or exposure to the facts of the case I can only rely on what is written and what is written is that part of wisdom that I and many others must assimilate. The scenarios of too many motion pictures form the outline of my picture of the Wild Boy. Is that an accepted different definition of literacy? I’m not sure I know. What I know is what I feel. What I feel is an extension and a permutation of what I have learned. How can fact be determined by an unspoken value or moral sense that gives us our personal sense direction? This is a circumstance of which I’m unsure. Pattison mentions the case of Helen Keller, but if the screenplay for "The Miracle Worker" is in some fashion a “true” story, based on fact (as they love to say in the closing credits), Ms. Keller had words (at least “water”) before she became deaf and blind. If, in the case of the Wild Boy in 1800, there had been devoted teachers with the skill and training in 1888 of Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller’s teacher, perhaps there might have been a different outcome for the Wild Boy. Strangely enough, Anne Sullivan used a medieval sign language alphabet system signed into Keller's palm that had been developed by Spanish monks. Anne Sullivan became a life-long companion of Helen Keller. That may have been too much devotion for the discoverers of the Wild Boy. My overall contention may be that with enough devotion and training of his “teachers” the Wild Boy may surely have been able to learn and perhaps become “literate.”

Not having completed the reading assignment for Monday as yet, I was both impressed with and questioning of Walter J. Ong in "Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought." Never having thought about writing as a technology, it was as though a lamp had been illuminated in a dark room but, as with any idea, there are conundrums that arose out of Ong's theory; items that, if not innocently overlooked, were intentionally disregarded to make his argument. Ong maintains that “articulated truth has no permanence” (20) and that, “the oral sensibility is out to hold things together, to make and retain agglomerates, not to analyse” (20). Unfortunately, in the next sentence, Ong backtracks to state that, “all thought is to some degree analytic” (20), further stating that “the oral world is basically conservative.” I know he goes on to say that exploratory thinking is “relatively rare” (20), but he gives little or no credence to the attempts to hold together memories and thoughts which appeared in cuneiform, hieroglyphics or, much earlier, in cave paintings. How about the records of ritual masks and totems as forms of memory aids or history? Humans have always striven to maintain a history of their struggle and triumphs, even in the most pre-historic times. Yes, the alphabet was a mighty improvement, as was the wheel over logs, the gasoline engine over steam, the atom over coal, and any other improvement that the human mind has made over what has gone before. There was always something that went before which opened the door a crack into the future. Ong too quickly dismisses everything that pre-dated the alphabet. I believe it’s a fascinating theory but not a stand alone.