SA #3 "The Future of Reading"

I chose "The Future of Reading" by Jonah Lehrer on his blog "The Frontal Cortex" on Wired.com. The text raises the argument of whether the fact that reading is becoming easier and simpler due to technological advancement necessarily is a positive phenomenon for human intelligence. His blog post can be justified as acting scientific using the ideas of Fahnestock and Secor of stases. Stases have higher and lower levels, but they can both be used effectively in order to establish a stance, message, and to raise an argument.

Fahenstock and Secor suggest that "all arguments begins in agreement, in shared assumption of value, the literary canon offers such a value and even a general exigence for continuing argument." (Fahenstock, Sector 435) Using this method, Lehrer first states the pre-existing argument in order to bring the audience into the topic on which he is going to talk about. In the first four paragraphs, he shares his passion for books with the audience while defending the technological advancement which has been shifting the culture of books to digital. In other words, he has unconditional love for books but cannot deny the rapidly increasing convenience being created by moving the act of reading into to digital medium. Technological advancement has been the most significant achievement of mankind in our recent history, therefore it would sound rather foolish to completely deny its progress. However there are things that people worry and criticize about our progress in technology as well.

Lehrer really states his position in the fifth paragraph for the first time. He does "have a nagging problem" with reading sentences on a screen (Lehrer). It worries him that everything in reading becoming easier will eventually diminish people's understanding for perception. This is his value, and the message in this argument. He then defines the concept of reading from a neurological perspective to defend his point.

The general questions that constitute the concept of stases are facts, definitions, causes, values, and proposals. The arrangement of these components is important. Lehrer shuffles the order of these questions in an interesting way. His order goes from value, definition, value, then to proposal. He defines the act of reading by saying that ventral route and dorsal stream in brain are the two pathways for making sense of words. Ventral route is used to grasp readings semantically described as simple digital readings, while dorsal stream is used to pay conscious attention to a sentence, for more complex and difficult readings that shapes perception and intelligence. He could have engaged the audience into creating value that digitization of books is not such a good idea just by this brain anatomical definition of reading. The audience also could have made assumptions that Lehrer is opposed to digital books, since "we often read arguments in the lower stases by pushing at their implications for action." (Fahnestock, Sector 431) However, he puts the definition in between the two paragraphs stating his value.

There is certainly a reason for his decision to have done so. It is simply because Wired.com has a huge variety of audience. He wanted to make clear points to guide the audience to their assumptions as close as possible to what he really wants to address. Some people could have had different assumptions than what he has originally intended. It is impossible to entirely control and expect the outcome of a text, but he wanted to have as much control as possible. He allows his audience to progressively shape their values as they read. The audience can have opinions about the topic after he mentions his value initially. Then after the anatomical definition of reading, the audience is opened up with another choice to form their opinion, and the same for the next paragraph. Therefore, the audience goes through stages on which they are more and more engaging into the argument. As Fahnestock and Sector says, "what we are really after is what it takes to convince an audience to endow the stasis and hence the topic of an argument with significance." (Fahenstock and Sector 433)

He then politely proposes his idea to "include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult." (Lehrer) This proposal is within his stases of value. The potential downgrading of minds and intelligence that digital books pose is mentioned as he finishes up the blog.

The bonus point and the bonus bonus point stood out regardless of their names. The implication almost seemed as they were not some extra thoughts at the end of a blog. Both paragraphs are his personal experience that backs up his point that digital books pose danger in lowering intelligence. Intriguingly, he makes his claims in a very open, friendly manner. He defends digital books as he cannot refuse to acknowledge their convenience. The reason for this is to make not only his value, but the argument itself significant, and also appreciate the forward steps in technology that mankind has been taking. He reminds his audience of the importance of reading as well as technological advancements, as Fahnestock and Sector suggests that "there is value in reminding an audience of its values." (Fahnestock and Sector 441)

SA #2 on "Letter to President Clinton in Iraq"

This entry looks at the letter which was published by the Project for the New American Century. The letter warns that current American policy toward Iraq is failing and urgent actions are required to avoid a soon to come devastation. It was signed by influential political figures such as Elliot Abrams who is a lawyer and a political analyst, and Richard L. Armitage who later served as the U.S Deputy Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005. The chief aim of this letter is to persuade President Clinton and his surroundings that may influence him on making decisions to address the committed plan for the U.S to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

The PNAC's mission statement, the final goal is to promote American global leadership. The means to obtain global leadership is diverse, but by looking at the immediate historical context, this particular letter was written for a reason. Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime and the debate of their possession of weapons of mass destruction were the most controversial and hottest topic which also was a danger and a concern to the world at that time. Therefore encouraging the U.S to take charge and coming up with drastic and determined actions to disarm Hussein seemed to be the most effective approach to promote American global leadership. In other words, the principal aim of this text is to convince Clinton, the individual with the most decision making powers to address and act toward a strategy that will remove Saddam's regime solely by the American power.

Kinneavy's principal of division was introduced in 1969. With the rapid technological advancements, mediums which written texts are presented have changed and increased in number. Internet is the biggest example. This letter's most essential and main targeted audience is the President of the U.S. This text seems to belong to the Decoder genre in Kinneavy's divisions, because it is trying to achieve a specific reaction from the audience, Clinton in this particular text. The encoder, the members of the PNAC are attempting to direct Clinton to lead the U.S by itself in solving the problem in Iraq, as the important step toward American global leadership. This would be the case if it was really a letter that only President Clinton was the reader. However, the fact that it is posted on a website open to everyone in the entire world with the most basic internet connection must indicate that the authors constructed the audience to assume that this letter was written for the President of America. There is information about the situation that anybody can read and obtain, which may influence them with their opinions about the matter as well. Hence the text fits within the decoder aspect of Kinneavy's division, but because the audience is too diverse, the authors cannot possibly expect and attempt to achieve certain reactions from all of them. There lies the limitation to this concept. This letter carries such different messages for politicians, for American citizens, and the members of the UN.