tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15270008.post114921799717975341..comments2024-02-26T15:42:28.778-08:00Comments on Composite: thoughts on poetics & tech: thinking out loudUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15270008.post-1149284908074360562006-06-02T14:48:00.000-07:002006-06-02T14:48:00.000-07:00so true... ommmmm off to yoga... glad you're posti...so true... ommmmm off to yoga... glad you're posting again, Liz!C.M. Mayohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652658684711290919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15270008.post-1149252245563902562006-06-02T05:44:00.000-07:002006-06-02T05:44:00.000-07:00i wonder if these are modern conventions of conver...i wonder if these are modern conventions of conversation that are informed by exposure to formal "Debate" in high school. you must take a position & consistently & formally defend it thru-out the conversation.<BR/><BR/>in writing, i wonder again, what written forms does this relate to? it feels very hard, and of a particular time period -- say, victorian up to postmodern. but would it be different if we looked at scholarly conversations in letters from the 17th-18th century? were those treated more as conversations, since there was less exposure to printed / pubished arguments? ... it seems that, as printing got started, and more people began using the tools for different types of communication, that rigid distinctions began to come up: objectivity, opinion, etc. did those distinctions exist in such rigid forms BEFORE printing presses? <BR/><BR/>would be interesting to compare a) literatures & modes of discourse & expectations of objectivity/opinion/etc. in different cultures when new communications technologies hit (printing press, very static; phones, very conversational; internet, hybrid); and b) same across different subjects, e.g., scientific writing; political writing; etc.laura quilterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10381260620328688152noreply@blogger.com