"An [un]organized attempt to discover ambiguity"

Actual representation of me studying rhetoric.

Phew. Here we go again.

Placing all the elements of rhetoric under one umbrella definition is comparably insufficient to suggesting the creator of the universe can be reduced to a singular being, a single name. 

The deeper I venture into the study of rhetoric, the more I see it as a “theory of everything” rather than a mere component of writing—which is very difficult for me to wrap my head around. I may be a little behind the others in my group in feeling as if I actually understand rhetoric.

Angeli's post displays the difficult multiplicity of rhetoric that Ramage is trying to unpack. He’s trying to get us to take the rhetorical turn not only in our writing, but also in our lives.

Ramage suggests that words are simply the tip of the rhetorical iceberg, in comparison to the meanings, connotations and intentionality that lies beneath.

Speaking of figures of speech, Kennedy had some interesting points about the “energy” that the reader associates with metaphors and tropes, and that the writer intentionally conveys this energy when they record their thoughts. Kennedy’s argument hinges on the idea that rhetoric is energy.

Not only does Kennedy suggest that this rhetorical energy transferred, but that it is what compels us to speak in the first place, and that the exigence we experience internally as humans led to the development of language, storytelling and expression.

As Kim mentioned, equating rhetoric to energy seems far too broad and impossible to grasp. However, unlike Kim, I believe that rhetoric is limited to humans and human creations and that a certain degree of intentionality must be present to make an object or action rhetorical. The act of rhetoric could certainly be defined as concentrating energy into characters (writing), speech or body language, which convey that energy to others.

Although I find his explanation of rhetoric in the animal kingdom compelling, I don’t necessarily agree that animals are rhetorical. Kennedy doesn’t leave much room for biological drive, and its here (in my opinion) that his argument verges on pseudoscience.

However, the first sentence of Kennedy’s piece is perhaps the single greatest phrase I have read about rhetoric: “After spending much of my professional life teaching rhetoric, I began to wonder what I was talking about.”

I feel the same way about my own study of rhetoric.

While both Kim and Angeli seem to have eloquent, intelligent and coherent ideas on the issue, all I have to offer in terms of rhetoric at present is a tangle of confused notions. Each semester of learning rhetoric seems like starting over and re-learning the term in context.

I’m (hopefully) getting there…