Confucius: http://www.iep.utm.edu/confuciu/
The Analects of Confucius: http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html#div-2
1. Presentations
2. Talk about strategies for researching your paper ideas.
See subject list of databases on library site: http://guides.lib.montana.edu/databases, make sure to check this online database in Rhetoric and Writing: http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php, google scholar; consider a range of key words
3. Small groups and discussion questions on Liu (Loo) and Lyons
Lyon states that "China's philosophical concern with process, cycle, and movement over Being, creation, and permanence is more congenial with rhetoric, but our prior understandings of what is rhetoric may focus us on the wrong aspects of Chinese culture and filter out what is significant" (133). In the articles we read for last class, (Mao and Wang) the concept of multiple definitions came up. If different people are studying the same concept (i.e. rhetoric) but under the veil of albeit slightly different definitions of what rhetoric really is, their research is bound to turn up a myriad of different ideas. Could multiple definitions of rhetoric lead scholars to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of rhetoric? Or is that problematic right from the get go? (Emma)
Lyon states, "While an audience is implied in remonstration, there is no defined relationship," (140) and Liu adopts Han Feizi's thought that "the emphasis on the rhetor's need to adapt to the audience" is not that simple. Instead, it encompasses the duty to accurately capture deep-lying motives. Further, and the point of emphasis, is on the statement that "what the audience professes to believe…does not often constitute a reliable basis for designing persuasive efforts" (149). So, what is the role of audience in Chinese rhetoric? Does the audience influence the writer/speaker? If so, how? (Sarah)
“In ancient China, there was virtually no systematic grammar, linguistics, rhetoric, poetics, or literary theory as Westerners after Plato conceive of them” (132). We view these things through a lens of what we know and what we’ve learned, and the assumption is made that if it does not fit the rules that we’re aware of, then it does not qualify. In what ways might we overcome this perception and learn how to recognize that which we are unfamiliar with? Is it beneficial for us to do so, and how does this impact our reading of Chinese rhetoric? (Brittany)
Early on in this article, Lyon addresses the positive sides of silence in discussion. “Silence is more that absence or quiet; it is constitutive part of interactions, communication, and even making fulfillment, knowledge, choice, and commitment. Silence can indicate questions, promises, denial, warning, threats, insult, requests, command, deference, and intimacy” (137). Since it is not the same in western rhetoric, what, if any, is the value of applying it to rhetoric amongst westerners? If the members of the discussion do not understand the variable meanings of silence, would it not be better to refrain from doing so? And if that is that case, would that not mean that each cultures rhetoric is only effective in regards to that culture? (Kyle)