Fuckin' rhetoric. Making me think and shit.
But, really.
These texts were a little difficult for me to wade through. This week, my mind is elsewhere, so I'll use that excuse, but after several reads, I began to make connections. Lucky for me, I was fortunate enough to spend way too many hours learning about Philosophy in Austria from two old, gnarly professors. It was there that I learned of Zeno's paradox concerning the arrow. (The arrow in flight is actually motionless, because at any given moment, it is occupying a space its own size that allows it to be considered at rest, even if at the end of those points it makes a line.) When Graves begins to discuss "the notion that light could be both a wave and a particle," (106) I immediately thought of good 'ole Dr. Zecha trying to illustrate Zeno's paradox in broken German/English -- Gerglish, if you will.
In this way, rhetoric (at least as I understood Graves to say) is "both/and". It is a way (mode?) for writers to present new ideas for some, but/and a combination of all things that actually makes the new idea. It is both a wave and a particle. It is the motionless arrow in motion. (Can we please, please, find an excuse to watch Robin Hood? The Disney version? Or the one with dudes in tights? Any of them, really.)
As Graves quotes Stephen Hawking saying,
"A theory is a good theory if it is an elegant model, if it describes a wide class of observations, and if it predicts the results of new observations. Beyond that, it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory."
That dude really knows what he is talking about.
I feel this way about a lot of the theories we read in classes, especially ones that have to do with Philosophy. For me, so much of these observations and conclusions based on them are reliant on the fact that the information provided is truth. However, they are merely theories, dude! It's all relative! It is dependent on your personal self -- your history and experiences, your kairos, your everything-that-you-bring-to-the-table-you-are-reading-at.
Fisher brought to mind another part of this idea of relativity for me --
Fisher quotes Heidegger observing,
"We are a conversation...conversation and its unity support our existence."
But, what happens if the conversation isn't unified? What if we disagree? What if we don't always believe these theories that are shown to us?
If we turn to look at this Narrative Paradigm, if we agree with this theory that humans are indeed storytellers (I agree -- look at our oratory history, blah, blah, blah). Then Fisher must show us an elegant model (I think he tried?), a wide class of observations (HA! Very wide.) and it should predict the results of new observations. Fisher ends it for us with the idea of a quest -- that our narrative is not yet finished. That we are out searching for it -- and if we aren't out there, that we should be soon.
So, go find your story, you lazy son-or-daughter-of-a-homo-narrans.
I'm going to finish trying to make sense of these articles.
Kelsey,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to say that your comments on my posts are always kicking ass! Seriously. So far, every time I think I have said everything I want or need to say on a text, you question my thoughts and make me re-evaluate why I was going with those trains of thought. So thank you!
Second, I totally agree that we should find some weird and amazing reason to watch the Robin Hood since Disney always has the answer.
I like that you take a side on Fisher's piece. While I am more keen to sit on the fence on this one, I think you make a good point about how we are in fact storytellers. I also like the way you connect the different readings together. It brings about a new way of looking at the texts for me, and I enjoy the challenge that your posts present to me.