Kenneth Burke

Three writings from Kenneth Burke due on March 27, 2017

"Introduction" to A Grammar of Motives (1945)
"Introduction" to A Rhetoric of Motives (1950)
“Terministic Screens” from Language as Symbolic Action (1966)

According to Wikipedia "As a literary theorist, Burke was best known for his analyses based on the nature of knowledge. Furthermore, he was on of the first individuals to stray away from more traditional rhetoric and view literature as 'symbolic action.' Burke was unorthodox, concerning himself not only with literary texts but with the elements of the text that interacted with the audience: social, historical, political background, author biography, etc. For his career, Burke has been praised by The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism as 'one of the most unorthodox and challenging, and theoretically sophisticated American-born literary critics of the twentieth century.'"

After reading the three articles above, I decided to make a slideshow for my class presentation on Burke. The author challenged my ability to understand. Most of those difficulties were due to the language used by Burke to describe his concepts. Knowing the key terms of each section before reading the articles became a necessity for continuing. So, I highlighted the key terms and researched essays available on JSTOR to arrive at a general understanding before completely reading all three papers.

A larger copy of my presentation is available here.

A Critique of Hugh Blair

Hugh Blair (1718-1800)

The fuzzy nature at the edge of beauty reflects the subjective as objective and evades capture by Blair.  The author's clarification amplifies elusiveness into ever greater references to that which cannot be named in terms other than itself. After reading his lecture I came away with the sense that the author knew nothing about what he called Taste. Taste to him is something common to all people. And, he knew that the ancient geniuses possessed good taste because their works are still appreciated. Despite the author's scant knowledge of his subject, he proved beyond any doubt and throughout his lecture that Taste equals Taste.

Hugh Blair's lecture on rhetoric and belle-lettres, well let me interject here, to set the tone of my analysis, with a quote from the renowned author of eloquence: "Asiatics at no time relished any thing but what was full of ornament, and splendid in a degree that we would denominate gawdy" (32). The author thus proclaims and condemns himself as being (to express such a human state as inoffensively as possible) full of crap; he so offends the sensibilities by his elitist opinions that one cannot consider his arguments valid. But let me not dissuade the reader from continuing and rather elucidate Blair's lecture on Taste by comparing it with a modern point of view.

Written during the Enlightenment, the author's essay relies on the biases of his audience and the acceptance of his style as a means to persuade. For the basis of his conclusion about the subject of Taste Blair calls on an analogy to the standards held by the Court: those of the "standard of good breeding; and the scripture, of theological truth" (36). Standards during the Enlightenment were a topic of discussion and a way of establishing oneself within the eyes of peers.  Of good breeding, Henry Fielding says "In short, by good-breeding ... I mean the art of pleasing, or contributing as much as possible to the ease and happiness of those with whom you converse" (Essay On Conversation). The tone of Blair's lecture is very much within the context of the Enlightenment, a time when "[u]pwardly mobile middle-class bourgeoisie increasingly tried to identify themselves with the elite through their adopted artistic preferences and their standards of behavior" (Wikipedia). His prose achieves the status of behavior expected during the Enlightenment. His words, despite the quantity of them, are pleasingly innocent of holding a unique opinion; he leaves little chance of ever being accused of saying anything of substance. His portrait bears the image of a man content to have simultaneously said everything and nothing. Blair fails to determine standards beyond the examples of "the Illiad of Homer, and the Aeneid of Virgil (43). More generally, he states that one with good Taste has the ability to discern beauties that have "the power to command lasting and general admiration" (43). The author claims that Taste is improved by science and philosophy but only addresses Taste through conjecture. He knows of Plato's Ideal Forms and yet fails to utilize the concept in a meaningful way. To me, the author's lecture shows how much he lacks the faculty of aesthetic perception.

The following quote from Blair, when compared to what is noted as meaning by Samuels and McGann in their essay "Deformance and  Information" helps to demonstrate one of the many false conclusions/assumptions made by Blair.

Taste [--aesthetic appreciation--] therefore admits of latitude and diversity of objects, in sufficient consistency with goodness or justness of Taste . . . I must observe farther, that this admissible diversity of Tastes can only have place where the objects of Taste are different. Where it is with respect to the same object that men disagree, when one condemns that as ugly, which another admires as highly beautiful; then it is no longer diversity, but direct opposition of Taste that takes place; and therefore one must be right, and another wrong, unless that absurd paradox were allowed to hold, that all Tastes are equally good and true. (35)

To clarify my criticism of Blair, I'll attempt to address the issue of the paradox where men disagree about whether or not the same object is beautiful or ugly. The author states that "one must be right and the other wrong" (35). According to the authors, Samuels and McGann "meaning is more a dynamic exchange than a discoverable content, and that exchange is best revealed as a play of differences" (4). Could it not be that one person's Taste prefers to focus on discoverable content, and the other person's Taste prefers to focus on the play of differences within that same object; and yet another person's Taste claim that a beautiful aesthetic perception exists in the interplay between discoverable content and the play of differences?

As an example of critics, persons with an acclaimed sensitivity to the nuances of aesthetic appreciation, and how their opinions of a single work may differ, I offer the fact that the movie Blade Runner discontinued playing at theaters after only one week but is now continuously playing in a theater somewhere over thirty years later. At the time of its release according to Rutger Hauer half of the critics loved it and the other half hated it, and no critics were between those opinions. Another example of divided opinions held by critics is in reference to the Rondanini Pietà sculpture by Michaelangelo which is a block of granite that the artist practiced on until his death. Some critics believe it is a masterpiece and other critics believe it to be a block of practice granite that is comprised of multiple unfinished attempts. More typically than not, it is a sure sign that a work of art is a masterpiece when critics are polarized in their criticisms. This shows that not only are Blair's assumptions wrong but he holds the opinion that Tastes of aesthetic value have something to do with the words "good and true." The author's rhetoric aims at eloquence but misses the mark due the superficiality of Hugh Blair's Taste.

Locke, Vico and Hume in Rhetoric and Composition.

March 3, 2017. This weeks reading's most important revelation comes from the concept of the sign and the signifier. Had I only depended upon my beginning critical theory class or Google I would have not known that the idea of a sign/signifier pair does not come from Ferdinand de Saussure. According to Wikipedia, the "concept of signs has been around for a long time, having been studied by many philosophers who include Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and others from the medieval period such as William of Ockham." John Locke and later, David Hume use the idea of the sign/signifier pair in the assigned readings without giving credit to the ancients. I've noticed such unacknowledged credit to original authors among most of the great thinkers, from Matthew Arnold to Carl Jung. It is the great deception of those whose work provides a basis for the clearing in the forest of social stability that we are taught what the laws of ethos are and only later learn how those laws are used in the court of life. The right to claim the great ideas of the past seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as that claim is sublimated into a greater contemporary awareness. What truth has the power to stand unchanged against reality? At least with well-founded rhetoric, one may find themselves as a great crusader who sheds light into the darkness of reality. What then when technology provides alternatives to unassailable reality? Shall rhetoric be the way, the truth, and the light?

John Locke (1632-1704)

I'll begin this week's posting by looking at John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Locke describes words and their scope of usage in a logical and easy to follow manner until Chapter 5, and he even asks his readers to participate in thought experiments. One point of interest to me about Locke's style of writing is his use of lists. I would like to know what the term is for the ordered listing of things such as reasons listed as first, secondly and so on. Locke's parents were Puritans, and I encountered many lists during my undergraduate readings in Early American Literature class. The listing style makes things very clear, and I seldom encounter it in contemporary literature.

Locke applies a pragmatic instructional approach to explaining how words enable communication as well as how they aid in the mind's process of understanding. The essay makes clear to the reader that the thing (the signifier) and the concept (the sign) are not the same. Locke builds on this fact to explain the ideas of mixed modes, substances, relations, and abstract and concrete terms. He is an empiricist and believes the human mind to be without pre-existing ideas at birth. Similarly, the essay assumes a reader may have no knowledge of his essay's subject. His style progressively sequences conclusions which become premises for further conclusions as a means to build ever increasing insight into the subject of how human understanding results in knowledge.

Since sections are left out of the essay that I am reading, I did not know if it was Locke or the omissions by the editor that caused me to have a muddled impression of what mixed modes are. I ran a search for "the mixed modes of Locke" on Google and read through Sparknotes's summary and the analysis of Locke's ideas. Afterward, I easily read through the rest of the essay. Sparknotes on Locke

I looked at some entries in Google Books, and the authors seemed unsure about what exactly Locke meant by the more nuanced meanings of his terms. Different authors understood the "idea of substance" somewhat differently, and so I let the less academic Sparknotes suffice for my reading.

Admittedly, I could have spent weeks examining the details of the essay and still would have felt I missed a few things. But, that is what makes the essay so interesting. It brings to mind many concepts such that the reader gets a sense of dimensionality as if there were a three-dimensional or perhaps fractal hierarchy of signs in the space of contemplation. I wondered at one point if I could take the idea of the sign and make a circular argument that led entirely through his species and generas back to the original idea of the sign to show that the function of the sign performed identically at all levels; to come back to the reason that Baudrillard stated that the simulacrum is true in his book Simulacra and Simulation.

Giambattista Vico (1668-1774)

From On the Study and Methods of Our Time

Vico during his argument attempts to show that "rhetoric provides a superior philosophy of knowledge" (862). I chose to look for the components of the Aristotlean canon of invention in Vico's essay and their subcomponents as well as make reference to Cicero's rhetorical method. My reason for making such a layman's analysis is to provide me with knowledge that I can use later in a rhetorical multimedia presentation. To recap the five cannons of rhetoric are invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. According to Professor Andrew R. Cline Ph.D. invention is "[t]o discover the available means of persuasion.

To begin with we might ask, what is the exigency of the essay? So, what has happened or failed to happen to prompt Vico to write the essay? The editor in the introduction to Vico's article states that "he was regarded as a reactionary because of his opposition to Descartes" and that "Vico was [the] appointed professor of rhetoric at the University of Naples in 1699 and served until 1741 . . . [he] hoped--though in vain--to be appointed to the much more prestigious chair of civil law" (862). From these statements then it is easy to conclude that Vico had a vested interest in rebuffing the status quo by way of using rhetoric to make a "[m]odern philosophical critique . . . [:] the common instrument of all our sciences and arts" (866). On the other hand, his insight as a rhetorician may qualify him more than others to genuinely propose "a curriculum that concludes with the study of eloquence, a study which he sees as interdisciplinary and (in modern terms) meta-theatrical, a way to link the other disciplines and bring them to bear on public issues" (863). His essay argues for a more balanced educational system. If academia "accepts Cartesianism, it will [according to the editor] unduly privilege natural science and mathematics while devaluing other kinds of knowledge, and it will do so to the detriment of society, which will eventually lack leaders educated in public affairs" (863).

Whatever Vico's motive for writing the essay, whether personal or altruistic or both, it refutes the pressures on academic curriculum presented by Francis Bacon in his treatise "Of the Dignity and Advancement of Learning" (865). Vico disclaims Bacon because of his failure to resolve cultural gaps within "Dignity and Advancement" (865). And, he aligns Bacon with "the potentates of mighty empires"--elitists (865). Although such anti-Bacon sentiment may appear offensive to some, it provides Vico with the ability to set the stage in a short proomium which he concludes in the following paragraphic axiom: "No doubt all that man is given to know is, like man himself, limited and imperfect. Therefore, if we compare our times with those of the Ancients--if we weigh, on both sides, that advantages and deficiencies of learning--our achievements and those of Antiquity would, by and large, balance" (865). After explicating a few of the differences of Modern and Ancient cultures he states that "[t]he foregoing provides the theme of the present discourse: Which method is finer and better, ours or the Ancients?

Thus, the theme of Vico's invention stage is to find a better solution than Bacon's through the analysis of the pros and cons of modern and ancient learning systems. This is what is called stasis theory within Aristotle's invention canon, and it is attributed to Cicero's work in his book Di oratore in which "inventio is dialogic and must be pursued pro and con" (Thomas O. Sloane, "Reinventing Inventio" 461). The comparison and contrast of the Modern methods with the Ancient's methods are what Vico uses to create "true or seemingly true arguments for the sake of making [his] case appear probable" (Slone 462).

David Hume (1711-1776)

On the Four Essays by David Hume, "A Standard of Taste"
"A thousand men may have a thousand different opinions about some one thing; but just exactly one of the opinions is true, and the only difficulty is to find out which one that is. As against that, a thousand different sentiments aroused by some object are all right, because no sentiment represents what is really in the object, and so no sentiment runs any risk of being false. A sentiment does mark a certain conformity or relation between the object and the organs or facilities of the mind; but there is no chance of error there, because if that conformity didn't exist the sentiment wouldn't exist either." -- David Hume. To which Baudrillard might add, "the simulacrum is true."

Hume distinguishes between sentiment and philosophy and argues that aesthetic appreciation may be cultivated through practice. He claims his essay is a "means to mingle some light of the understanding [of the sentiment of beauty] with the feelings of sentiment" (11). Hume, unlike Vico, begins his essay's invention stage by pointing out that all people have prejudices of taste. He uses stasis theory to discover what the basis for disagreement is. The author presents his rhetoric through comparisons of opposites: applaud/blame; virtues/vices. He conjectures that the "unanimity [the consensus of what is virtuous versus what is vice] is usually credited to the influence of plain reason, which in all these cases maintains similar sentiments in all men, and prevents the controversies to which the abstract sciences are so much exposed" (7-8). He goes on to say that "the harmony of morals can be explained as arising from the very nature of language" (8). The general precepts of virtue versus particular pictures of how people behave allow the author to refute the reasonable position that since individuals have different tastes, philosophically, it is impossible for there ever to be a standard of taste" (8).

Hume's argument depends on his awareness of what the linguist Saussure describes as a sign/signifier pair where the sign is the perception of the object, the concept, and the signifier is the real object. Since all people across all history recognize that something, in general, is beautiful, Hume argues that this fact means for all practical purposes that beauty exists objectively. And further, that the art critic may tune their subjective tastes, their sensibilities, through practice and experience such that the objective signified elements within the details of a work of art might be classified as having a particular aesthetic value.

What Are The Philosophical Principals Required by Cicero?

According to Moses Hadas, the editor, and author of the “Introduction” to “The Basic Works of Cicero,” Cicero’s argument attempts to give oratory the same educational basis as science by way of “universal education for the the orator” (171). He makes his case by telling a story of two brothers: Crassus, who wants to raise oratory to the status of science, and “Antonius who denies it” (171). The editor states that the persuasive eloquence of Cicero “lulls the reader into obliviousness of [the] essential weakness in the argument:” the argument doesn’t “set up a philosophical principle” required to connect oratory with science (172). On the Orator from which this excerpt is taken is a book addressed to Cicero's brother Quintus and has the form of an epistolary.

I wanted to see if Cicero considered both science and oratory as being arts. If so then at least in name some philosophical principle connected the two disciplines. Cicero states his argument about his brother believing that oratory should "be kept quite distinct from the higher learning, and made to rest on a certain combination of natural gifts and training" whereas he believes "that eloquence is inseparable from all the accomplishments of the profoundest erudition" (174). We can see from his use of the word “higher” that oratory is subordinate to science and that utilitarianism must have been the driving force behind education. He goes on to question "why it is that other men have won distinction in all the other arts than in oratory." So, Cicero conflates science with "arts" and not the other way around and further states that "you [Quintus] will find that in any given branch of art." For me, the question becomes one of translation since I doubt Cicero could be so blatant as to conflate science with art and expect his audience not to perceive it as a trick. Such an action would seem to invalidate to some extent the editor's opinion that the author's eloquence "lulls the reader into obliviousness." And, especially so because the conflation takes place immediately after Cicero's claim.

If utilitarianism is the driving force behind education then how does Cicero’s argument fail to “set up a philosophical principle” between science and oration? The basis for the equal education of both orator and engineer to me seems to be that societies as systems would have to depend on both the skills of the orator as much as or more than that of the engineer, the military leader or those in the sciences. Does Cicero argue that point? Cicero begins persuasion by noting the rarity of excellent orators and idealizes their qualities when he questions “[w]hat again, is so royal an exercise of liberality and munificence as to bring help to the distressed, to raise the afflicted, to protect the rights of our fellow-citizens, to free them from danger, and save them from exile?” (182). He goes on to imply that orators give the citizens “a weapon with which [they] can secure [their] attack enemies of the state” and avenge themselves when provoked. To me then he builds the connection between the sciences and oratory by setting up the two as being equally indispensable for a society to function. Whether or not this may be considered a philosophical principle required, according to the editor, to connect oratory to science, I do not know and do not have the philosophical credibility to make such a claim.

I liked Cicero’s statement that oratory is “the profession of eloquence.” And, I kind of get the idea that Cicero did not have as much regard for the utilization of the skills of the orator by society as much as he appreciated the beauty that he perceived during oration. So, I guess you could say Cicero in a way subordinated the sciences to the importance of the liberal arts. In this way, which I cannot easily describe other than from the sense that I got while reading, Cicero failed to "set up [the] philosophical principle” required to connect oratory with science.

Thoughts On Socrates' Condemnation of Rhetoric In "What Socrates Said" by Jacobs

Appendix I. B. “Socrates’ Critique of Sophistic Rhetoric, ” denotes the dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates up to the point when Polus stands in and asks Socrates whether or not Socrates considers rhetoric an art. Kennedy introduces section I. B. suggesting that Socrates is in search of understanding and conviction. And, he states that “[t]he question of the subject of rhetoric and the morality of the orator are important issues for Aristotle as well [as for Socrates]” (256). In the text of I. B. Socrates agrees with Gorgias as to the nature of rhetoric and the premise that if a person (a rhetor) “knows what is good he will do it.” As a reader, I expected that Socrates would respond to Polus’ question stating that rhetoric is an art and then give the reasons for it being so.

I was surprised at Socrates’ response in “What Socrates said: And Why Gorgias and Polus Did Not Respond: A Reading of Socrates’ in which Bernard E. Jacob presents an argument about Socrates’ statement “that rhetoric . . . is a defective art and no more than base sucking up or flattery” (77). Jacob claims that it is possible to read Socrates’ statement with less absolute condemnation if it is read within the “dramatic context in which it appears”. Apparently, Socrates has the motive to win “new students” from his audience, and the affect of Socrates about rhetoric plays into achieving that goal. Political positioning by Socrates begins in Jacobs’ essay when Polus stands in for Gorgias.  It became easy to make a connection between wrestling, boxing, and rhetoric and get a sense of the dynamic of Greek dialogue. But, Socrates’ statement refutes Gorgias’ claim that rhetoric is an art. What I found hard to reconcile is that if Socrates believed that “if a person knows what is good he will do it,” then how can he say as a moral orator “rhetoric . . . is a defective art and no more than base sucking up or flattery.” His statement is an insult to Gorgias and Polus and seems to contradict his dialogue with Gorgias in which he agreed that "the rhetorician is incapable of using rhetoric immorally and of wanting to do wrong.

Socrates' claim that Rhetoric is not an art indirectly categorizes Gorgias and Polus as not being artists and that in turn implies that Polus lacks experience. So, how can Socrates as a rhetor be moral when he is insulting the persons he is in dialogue with by using a “shock” effect to gain students for his school? The movement of Socrates’ words seems to condemn not only rhetoric but everything around him including himself. According to Jacob, Socrates explains that rhetoric does not have the quality of a self-conscious art because “it cannot assign causes” (80). Jacob then implies that the relevance of the meaning within Socrates’ condemnation of rhetoric is constrained by temporality and suggests that if some “theoretical part . . . would explicate the nature of its [rhetoric’s] routines” then the “art of rhetoric” will emerge (80). Aristotle provides the missing elements of that which are “plausible in a particular case” such that rhetoric may be classified as an art rather than an “undefined ‘device for persuasion’” as Socrates claimed. So, the temporal constraint of meaning at the time of Socrates’ condemnation is lifted by Aristotle. The “theoretical parts” to which Jacob refers to are defined in On Rhetoric.

These have been some thoughts and a summation of what I read by Jacob. I find the history of rhetoric through Socratic dialogue and the work of Aristotle to enhance my understanding of rhetoric. It shows the pre-existing needs of rhetoric during the time of Socrates that were later fulfilled by Aristotle. As Jacob writes, "If one is to preserve one's own identity in using persuasive speech, one needs some further aid than can be given by a rhetoric that is not anchored in a larger understanding of politics and language" (93). After reading Jacob's essay, I appreciated that Socrates condemned only a type of rhetoric. I had some problem trying to think about what Jacob meant by politics and if I thought of politics as political positioning it seemed to help.

Aristotle Book Two Applied to a Hypothetical Essay

During our last class, Professor Pandey mentioned that we should make a connection to something that excites us emotionally and connect that subject matter to the text. As apparent from my excitement over two predominant and differing means of receiving newsworthy information today and because of my background in independent media I choose to relate Aristotle's Theory of Civic Discourse to my claim (within a hypothetical essay): if old media and new media delivery systems can be shown to be equivalent to two different forms of rhetorical appeal, then at least in part, the current polarization of civic discourse (what the right believes versus what the left believes)  is determined by the means of information delivery. And further, that growth of the old media or new media, therefore, determines which side’s views appear to be growing and to be true.

I write this post based mostly on the second half of the book according to the current assignment even though the application of the whole book applies to my hypothetical essay. So, this post is sort of an outline of points within Aristotle's rhetorical methods that applies to my imagined essay on old and new media. I will start my argument with the prooimion (introduction) with the work experience of the rhetor (assumed to be myself). This is contrary to Aristotle who recommends the epilogue which suggests that the speaker be made to appear as "a good man in terms of the issues" (249). The qualifications provide credibility of what the rhetor says since, in this case, my professional experience qualifies me to make my claim. The second part of the essay which follows will include the components of rhetoric from “Book Two” and will not be concerned with the style of the paper or speech as discussed in “Book Three.”

   In “Book Two” Aristotle defines and elaborates on the “adaptation of the speech to the character of the audience [and] . . . logical techniques, including paradigms, enthymemes, and topics” (111). Aristotle concludes the chapter with “the discussion of rhetorical invention or thought” (111). As the author (George A. Kennedy) states, chapters in “Book Two” are “the earliest systematic discussion of human psychology” (113). Although Aristotle’s book is written for a human rhetor to deliver the argument as a speech to an audience for the purpose of persuading them one way or another, his discussion of human psychology may be used to guide me in writing an essay that is meant to be read rather than spoken. A few differences must be addressed such as the fact that my essay is for a world audience on the Internet; the specific types of audiences and their psychologies addressed by Aristotle are not directly applicable to my written argument. Nonetheless, I will mention a few instances where the psychological elements of the audience seem to apply.

Aristotle says that it is necessary for the speaker to “seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way and in addition if they, too, happen to be disposed in a certain way [favorably or unfavorably to him}” (112). In the case of my essay’s claim and how that might relate to my audience, I assume the following. My audience is the world since this Internet blog will hopefully contain the hypothetical essay at some point in the future. Based on my Facebook friends and their posts during the 2016 election, my audience is made up of mostly progressives that would be insulted by my claim since it refutes the left’s assignment of “Fake News” to new media. So, I as the speaker need to overcome the current bias of my audience somehow. According to Aristotle, I need to go beyond the technical/logical explications behind my claim and appeal to the public's sensitivities to three things: “practical wisdom [phronesis] and virtue [arete] and goodwill [eunoia]” (112). If my essay can appear to have all these qualities, then it will persuade even progressives to accept my argument. Additionally, if I can show myself, as the author of the essay, to be like my “hearers [readers of my paper] in interests and desires," then my paper’s argument will be accepted (115).

Aristotle explains how important a friendly speaker is to the audience. Friendliness is entirely applicable to my Facebook friends who will undoubtedly read my essay. I choose to refrain from using Aristotle’s use of anger to persuade my audience since they are angry enough and most likely in any case be driven by anger should it be aroused to believe their current bias against my claim of “Fake News” being old media. My appeal to my audience must not appear to belittle because if they are belittled it may be the last straw, and their anger  (118-119) may drive them back to their fixed position on “Fake News.” Especially so in the case of my Facebook friends for Aristotle goes on to say “[they become angry] at friends more than those who are not friends; for they think it is more appropriate for them to be well treated by them than not” (119). My essay then should not have a tone of insensitivity towards progressive’s beliefs because it would be a sign of belittling and that would arouse them to anger. I, therefore, would perhaps tie the technical data that is the basis for my claim back to some progressive institutions such as colleges and nonprofits. And my paper (hypothetical paper) should show the author as a person that works to get by; a person who “lives by their own efforts” (125).  In these ways, I (as rhetor) may appear friendlier and less belittling than appearing as a tech guru whose word challenges the current beliefs of my audience.

Notes: I’m ending this week’s post here because it is getting long and I’m not sure if I handled it correctly. I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat, and I do not believe in the present form of government.