Bonus Exercise

» Optional Exercise (bonus points)

Par­a­digm Rhetoric — An­other World­view

  • 5 points; 500 words (min/max) + me­dia (1 in­stance min­i­mum) 
  • Post on your blog or in D2L (by 29-Apr)

» Prompt:

    Dis­cuss a “world­view” that we have not cov­ered this term
      pos­si­ble selec­tions in­clude (among oth­ers):
      pro­fes­sional / “pro­duc­tiv­ity”; busi­ness / global eco­nom­ics (post-industrial multi­na­tional cor­po­rate cap­i­tal­ism); other polit­i­cal ide­olo­gies
      spir­i­tu­al­ity (not be­lief dis­cussed in unit 1, your video; nor “reli­gion” gen­er­ally)
      na­ture, ecol­ogy, sex­u­al­ity, biol­ogy, ani­mal stud­ies (not discipline/information fo­cus of your project 2)
      arti­sanal cul­ture; cre­ativ­ity, per­for­mance, role-playing / game
      posthu­man­ism / “tran­shu­man­ism,” hybrid­ity, “tech­no­log­i­cal sin­gu­lar­ity
      Nootrop­ics, al­tered states, Panpsy­chism
      non-Western or “alter­na­tive” phi­los­o­phy, move­ments, prac­tices, be­liefs (e.g. astrol­ogy, I Ching/divination, Shaman­ism, mythol­ogy, oc­cult)
       
  • Use our key top­ics to dis­cuss this world­view in terms of “par­a­digm rhetoric:”
    what counts as Knowl­edge, and what form(s) does it take?
    how is Knowl­edge com­mu­ni­cated? (for­mally & infor­mally? indi­vid­u­ally & col­lec­tively?)
    what is a visible/recognizable or promi­nent Insti­tu­tion?
    what is ex­cluded, omit­ted, left out? (delib­er­ately or in­ci­den­tally)
    how is Expe­ri­ence viewed and re­garded? (what “counts as” Expe­ri­ence? or what how is Expe­ri­enced under­stood, rep­re­sented, ex­pressed…?) how is Iden­tity expe­ri­enced and per­formed?
     
    impor­tant: describ­ing thought­fully in these terms should gen­er­ate in­sights by prac­tic­ing our ad­vanced under­stand­ing and per­spec­tive — avoid­ing crit­i­cism, com­men­tary, com­par­i­son, judg­ment, opin­ion, “per­sonal feel­ings about,” etc.
    (Any re­sponses of this lat­ter sort will not earn credit, as this is not an editorial/commentary exer­cise; rather, demon­strate your prac­ticed abil­ity to rec­og­nize and artic­u­late con­ven­tions of a world­view and how it works as a par­a­digm rhetor­i­cally and philo­soph­i­cally.)
     
  • As brief con­clu­sion, 1. use your in­sights to name this par­a­digm in brief ti­tle
    (hint: use noun form, by adding “-ism,” “-iza­tion,” “-ity”)
    In­clude one me­dia in­stance (any form, found/created) that con­veys the “mood of thought” of this ti­tle.

    2. Briefly note (2 sen­tences) your in­sights result­ing from this exer­cise, us­ing the per­spec­tive of “par­a­digm rhetoric” (our method of study) &mdash any new ideas, real­iza­tions, recon­sid­er­a­tion, etc.
    While not re­quired, you might posi­tion (not nec­es­sar­ily comparison/contrast) in rela­tion to par­a­digms — Be­lief, Information/Argument, Expe­ri­ence — that we’ve stud­ied; or, to your prior knowl­edge (other courses, texts, me­dia, etc.)
    Alter­na­tively, you might also dis­cuss con­sid­er­ing Elec­tracy: as it is be­ing in­vented, per­haps syn­cretic of Oral­ity & Lit­er­acy, what in/of the par­a­digm you’ve dis­cussed could be rel­e­vant or valu­able to in­clude in this new appa­ra­tus? (espe­cially con­cern­ing iden­tity expe­ri­ence and expres­sion, recall­ing our con­sid­er­a­tions of af­fect and aes­thet­ics…)