Ramage/Kennedy response to Ashton

Like you Ashton, I am finding my preconceived notions about rhetoric to be overly simplified. Coming into studying rhetoric, I didn't think much more of the subject than a way to label all forms of communication. It isn't a subject I've ever dived into, and I'm finding I know both more and less about it than I thought I did. The subject seems more complex, while somehow remaining as simple as I thought it was. Considering that Kennedy opens his essay with "After spending much of my professional life teaching rhetoric, I began to wonder what I was talking about" I suppose I shouldn't be too concerned about the seemingly miniscule knowledge I have on the subject. If he can teach the subject for years and still claim to have such a small grasp on his expertise, I think we'll be alright. While I'm sure we'll learn a lot in the duration of this course, I expect we may leave the course with a more muddled understanding of what rhetoric is than what we had previously, but that's just based on how I've experienced the course so far. One of the things that struck me about Kennedy's paper, was the argument of Rhetoric as an energy and his concept of Rhetoric being prior to speech. I find myself in another juxtaposition with that statement. My initial thought is that we all use energy to create rhetoric, not a form of rhetoric in itself. What I mean is that the energy is not rhetoric until it is used to make it. What complicates this for me is that we are all creating rhetoric all the time, regardless if we are saying or gesturing or emoting anything at all. At the very least, if we were to remain silent, still, and expressionless,we are at the very least communicating our lack of will to communicate. Or maybe we aren't. Perhaps it's an assumed rhetoric, an invented rhetoric created in others minds that is based on what our non-rhetorical/lifeless body is doing. So it seems that while I don't accept the idea that rhetoric is an energy contained inside us before it is expelled, I cannot reject it either. After all don't most of us strive to think about what we say before we say it? And I know I'm not alone in saying that i have had many of conversations contained entirely in my head, conversations that had no audience except myself. Is this the energy that Kennedy speaks of? I'm not producing speech, at least not with others. I'm simply talking to myself or projected versions of people with whom I expect to communicate with in the future. But is that Rhetoric or just insanity? Argh! It's only been two class periods and my own thoughts and ideas on the subject are muddled completely! While I've about reached my word limit as it is, I do need to comment on Ramage a bit. While so far I've found much of his user's "guide" to be a serious of witty ramblings that wind me in endless and unpredictable turns, I cannot lie that he has offered valid points to think about. Again, like Ashton, I was also interested in his idea of rhetoric as an "art of proving opposites". But it also seems to me that perhaps he was trying to claim that good rhetoric is the art of proving opposites. Sure, it's a great strategy for building an argument, but whether or not proving an opposite is achieved, rhetoric is rhetoric. So in order to buy into his argument, I would first have to modify his statement to good rhetoric is can be an art of proving opposites. But that sort of deflates and simplifies his concept into the obvious, so I don't see it doing much good. Perhaps I'll try rereading his strange comparison to rhetoric and slow cooked food and see if that gets me anywhere. Then again if I wanted to know the differences between fast food and a diner I might just go try visiting some. I'm off to Perkins. (if you can't tell, I think Ramage is kinda full of shit so far). -Jared