Reflection on my research paper

My paper is bulky. I would agree that I have probably overextended myself. The reason why it turned out to be so long is that I'm unused to having the liberty to do extensive research in a field of interest. I therefore took it to the absurd extreme, to counteract the ennui that is the result of compulsory schooling. At the same time, I have also betrayed a weakness. I'm of the opinion (or compulsion) that one is not living meaningfully unless one is constantly exploring one's limits. I have certainly done that, but it is questionable whether my piece is successful.

Organization is my most pressing concern. I have attempted to condense a lot of history and philosophical background, and I am not sure if I could have presented it in a more coherent fashion. Before I start analyzing sources, I do provide a few paragraphs of historical context that I allude to later in the text, but it is still not comprehensive. I found myself adding even more history, for example, in my discussion of Murray's text. Moreover, I think I could have done a better job of differentiating between Foucault and Szasz. This would have helped to justify my arrangement and the need to discuss two so-called representatives of the anti-psychiatry movement.

I also find the conclusion to be weak. It is long, rambling, and the very end seems to be a generic anti-climax. The time left for revision was meager because of how long I made my essay. If my paper suffers from that, I must admit my impracticality.

As always, verbosity is an issue. This time, though, I'm probably also guilty of mixing metaphors that may confuse my reader (see my discussion of Foucault, Baudrillard, and Heidegger). I'm not sure if I sufficiently explained the terminology I used, or what I could properly expect my audience (graduate students) to know.

This semester, I most enjoyed writing this paper. However, it is probably my weakest and least concise.

Towards a Holistic View of Psychiatry

Purpose Statement and Design Plan for Research Paper

My purpose is to synthesize multiple academic sources to establish a position on the validity of psychiatric practices and their value. I will consider the insights and limitations of both psychiatry and anti-psychiatry, and thus work towards a synthesis that would hypothetically improve the effectiveness of therapeutic practices. I want my readers to come away with the understanding that while psychiatry cannot be entirely immune to influences of power and social control, it can learn to be self-aware, and realize the necessity of an open dialogue between therapist and patient. I will advance the view that, in light of the individual's irreducibility to any one system of thought, a holistic treatment would employ different methods and practical models in accordance with the specific needs and personality of the patient. At this point in time, knowledge of the psyche is not comprehensive, but we can test and refine conceptualizations of the human subject in trying to formulate a practice that helps the mentally ill to lead meaningful, creative lives; though we may never attain absolute truth in this domain, one must still care for those whom society would otherwise marginalize or abandon. Some form of social reintegration is necessary; one understands it to be, not the end, but the starting point in formulating an individual meaning in life, which includes living in concordance with one's environment.

My audience consists of graduate students. They are well-read individuals with some background in philosophy and psychology. They are future psychologists or psychiatrists who may have not yet dealt with the fundamental presuppositions of their respective fields.

The context is the 21st century, which is arguably a late-modern, if not post-modern era; therefore, I must consider the relationship between power and truth and define the scope of my conclusions, that is, I must comment on the possibility of their universality.

I would like to establish a strong ethos by respecting the complexity of the issue and demonstrating a deep understanding of the texts that I use. My approach will be interdisciplinary and strive towards an exegesis that takes into account as many divergent perspectives as possible.

Based on my understanding of myself as a writer and the topic at hand, my pathos will be scant, for it is an appeal that is often irrelevant to the truth value of a claim. Emotion may or may not be apparent to the reader in the conclusion, in which I will illustrate the ultimate significance of the relationship between the Subject (therapist) and the Other (patient or client).

Logos shall be evident my appeals to criticality and holism. In essence, I will argue that one cannot reduce man to any one of his aspects. In many cases, such reductionism results in oversimplification. Thinkers resort to it because they are complacent and/or proud (e.g., if they are defending their theory). The whole of man's personality is greater than any one of its parts, and as this is the subject of the therapist's work, he must take this into consideration.

I selected my sources based on their credibility and their recognition by scholars. I tried to find authors who epitomized either conventional psychiatry or anti-psychiatry, or were often associated with one of the two.

I will discuss separately two thinkers whose arguments are often cited to bolster the anti-psychiatry movement. First, I will discuss Thomas Szasz, and then the authors who deal more or less directly with the issues he raises, and then, I will examine Foucault and the writers who address concerns relevant to him. In this way, I will consider libertarian (Szasz) and postmodern (Foucault) critiques of psychiatry.

The medium is a formal academic paper in MLA.

To test my composition, I will participate in in-class review sessions.

Reflections on my synthesis paper

My synthesis paper was rather successful. I did an effective job of synthesizing sources, though, as always, my diction was not appropriate for the audience in consideration. I did not bother to change my design plan to reflect this, because it would have been entirely ex post facto, and not to mention, arbitrary. College freshman were the only audience that thought I was worth addressing in this discussion. At least, that was the easiest route to take.

I must also admit that this was my least favorite assignment so far. I was rather bored writing it, and the reader may or may notice this.

In regards to the conclusion, I'm not sure it represents what I truly think about the topic. I ended on an optimistic note, but Huws' analysis disturbed me profoundly. I'm an introverted type, and I can't stand the bourgeois obsession with efficiency that characterizes our age.  I think about Joseph Campbell sitting in a log cabin, in complete seclusion, reading for 9 hours a day, and am filled with envy.

Unfortunately, I don't think I properly addressed the complexity of Huws' and Sennett's arguments in my response to them.

In addition, I find my third main point was the weakest (though typically it should be strongest), as it was something that I had already alluded to at different points of the paper. I'm not sure if this is simply a matter of overlapping topics, or if I was being redundant.

Parts of this reflection would be superfluous if I had one of my former English teachers review my paper and give me comments. The problem is, is that I hate asking favors from them, because I know they are all very busy people. I'd also have to have a working draft complete much sooner in order to give them enough time to do so.

One thing I realized after writing this paper, is how much I appreciate being able to choose the topic of my essays. In this aspect, college is far superior to high school.

The Precarious World of Work in the Twenty-first Century

Design Plan for Synthesis Paper

My purpose is to draw upon multiple academic sources in creating a picture of work in the 21st century. This will enable me, then, to give advice to college students about the type of skills that they (and I) should be developing in order to be able to find favorable employment in the future. I shall argue that they need to be aware of the type of work that they are seeking (whether or not it is personal or impersonal, fixed or footloose, anchored or no) and the degree of education it requires; their ability to identify with a higher purpose in all of their work; and their capacity for creative thinking and self-reliance within their field of choice. In turn, possessing these characteristics will lead to the most stable and lucrative employment. With this in mind, students can take advantage of the opportunities of college life, take many different courses, develop critical thinking skills, and a keen entrepreneurial spirit. This, I hope, would allow them to achieve not only financial success but also an indelible purpose in life.

My audience consists of college students who may not know what awaits them after graduation. They may lack direction, and be unaware of the extreme competitiveness that characterizes the global economy.

The context is the 21st century, a time during which pundits have noted a lack of political participation and awareness among young people. It is possible that this is true to some extent in regards to economics. Perhaps those who come from working class families simply have the impression that they should become some type of engineer or software programmer, without realizing that they will have to consider other factors than whether their job is in a burgeoning field. Certainly, their parents will most likely not have the advice that young people need in order to thrive. Society is rapidly transforming in accordance with technological changes, and one cannot rely upon past generations. One needs the most current knowledge possible.

In my paper, I will mainly use ethos and logos. Since this is an academic paper, I must cite appropriate sources to corroborate my claims. Likewise, appeals to reason must serve to persuade my readers to take the proper course of action now while they do not have to worry about competing for jobs. My pathos will be admonitory. I will warn students of the consequences they will face if they cannot or refuse to adapt. There are also times where I will write in an urgent tone, such as when I discuss the new market's effects on personal identity and the moral upbringing of future generations.

As far as selection, my professor provided me with all of my sources. The only choice I had to make was which sources I wanted to use to support each claim. I based this on the nuances of each source's argument and what they revealed about the complexities of the 21st century economy; moreover, there were some instances where the memorability of a quote was decisive.

The medium is a formal academic paper written in MLA format.

I will present my claims in the following order: first, I will stress the importance of education in securing a higher-end job, and the specific type of job that prospective employees should be seeking; second, in analyzing the nature of the new capitalism, I will show that having a vocation is just as important as ever; and finally, I will emphasize the need for college students to hold themselves accountable for their work and learn to be innovators.

Testing will occur in peer-review sessions. The option of having a teacher look over it is also available to me.

Work

When I think about the concept of 'work,' I evoke numerous associations: work as drudgery, opposed to leisure; work as a necessity, an inevitable consequence of one's being immersed in the world of process or prakriti (all things are moved to action by natural and karmic laws); and work as vocation, as those activities that give one's life an individual meaning and purpose. The authors whose writings appear in The Changing Landscape of Work in the Twenty-first Century  explicitly mention two of these; therefore, I would agree with Ciulla when she writes that "[t]here may be no one particular feature present in everything we call work, but rather many characteristics that overlap and intersect." Most people, when asked to ponder this topic, will provide many similar answers. Their definitions are not necessarily contradictory, but complement each other, and reflect the variegated experiences of work that human beings share.

Reflections On My Visual Analysis

I feel rather confident about the success of my piece. I have done a thorough job of analyzing the posters; admittedly, I probably could have pared down my paper more than I did. It is a part of my neurosis that I must include every thought that occurs to me. 

Indeed, I deplore that I had to leave out supplementary material. I would have liked to outline America's history of oppression towards minorities. This would have strengthened my argument by further illustrating the mechanisms of control that were reflected in the posters. 

Whenever I reflect on my writing, I am concerned that I am verbose in places, or have wrongly presumed the reader's knowledge in a certain area. This holds true for this paper.

It is possible that I could have enhanced my paper by doing more research on each image (for example, for "I Married a Communist," I could have watched the movie or at least read a synopsis). 

If I had more space, I would have done more to engage myself in academic discourse on the topic. I only briefly touched on an alternate view that is not so much a scholarly interpretation as it is a public prejudice. 

I think what I struggle with most in this and other papers is audience. Before taking this class, I have never had to consider audience. I think I have this difficulty because I am someone who always by default used an advanced vocabulary (that is only because most of the books I read are of that ilk, and I have learned to write mostly through emulation), to the point where it has become an incorrigible habit. I suppose this isn't that significant an issue within the context of academia, but still, I ought to become more flexible as writer. 

Visual Rhetorical Analysis

Design Plan for Visual Analysis

My purpose is to highlight the reactionary sentiment that dominated American Anti-Communist propaganda during the 1950's. By analyzing four posters, and emphasizing the role of minorities in each, I will prove that the Red Scare was only partly concerned with the spread of a repressive ideology throughout Europe and Asia: in large part, it was also a mechanism of perpetuating social imparity within the US. In this light, I will also undertake an exposé of the collective psyche at this time, which presents itself as a classic example of the phenomenon of psychic projection, insofar as it is evident that America projected its shadow (its own oppressiveness) onto the Soviet government. Consequently, I wish for my audience to gain a critical perspective on US culture and politics. This way, they will be able to assume a more active, thoughtful role in the political process.

My audience consists of young voters in high school or college, whose political opinions have still not ossified, and who have at least some background in United States history. They may be those who are apathetic, or they could be blindly patriotic. In either case, I will motivate them to reconsider their views. By emphasizing the social consequences of something even so remote to them as Soviet expansion during the mid-twentieth century, I will evince the urgency of their political participation. I shall also make clear that pride in one’s country is not necessarily pernicious, but that jingoism is. Democracy depends on an informed, decisive electorate.

The context is approximately half a century removed from the posters’ inception.  It is likely that the audience may only have a limited understanding of the Red Scare, of which only their grandparents probably have any immediate recollection. It will be necessary, then, that I provide a brief historical account. In addition, I realize that I am writing in a time characterized by some as one of increasing political polarization. This could have an undue influence on the audience’s reception of my piece, as their perception of what they believe to be my ideology will determine whether they thoughtfully consider my argument.   I may have to address this issue, or at least make clear my intentions (which are partly to demonstrate that governments, just like people, are imperfect, and possess a “shadow” side).

As always, I would like to establish an authoritative ethos with my audience. I shall try to find reliable sources to corroborate my claims (much of what I know about US History I learned last year in my AP US History Course; unfortunately, I no longer have access to the textbook).

Though I often consider myself as apolitical, I may employ a patriotic pathos. I will make an appeal to nationalist sentiment by asserting that a true nationalist who is concerned about the integrity of American government would not blindly believe in its absolute goodness. Rather, they would view representative democracy as the best possible form of government that nevertheless depends on a plurality of interests (to obviate the oppression of a minority by a majority, or vice versa) and a system of checks and balances.

Nonetheless, logos will be the most prominent appeal in my paper. I will focus on the posters’ visual composition (which includes typeface, vectors of attention, saturation, and hue), text (the meaning of the text and its use of ethos, pathos, logos) and the interface between text and image, as well as intertextuality (the way that all three posters interact to manifest a paternalistic attitude towards minorities). I will moreover present an alternative point of view that suggests that at least one of the US government’s presumptions concerning Stalin’s regime were unfounded; ergo, the Red Scare was, to some extent, a disproportionate and even a mendacious response to Soviet expansion.

In the posters themselves, I shall discuss pathos, ethos, and logos: how they use garish colors, sans serif typefaces, and peremptory statements to capture attention and evoke fear (pathos); how they make ethos a matter of patriotism by ways of a dichotomy (“us vs. them”), accentuated in their contrasting depictions of each party and jingoistic declarations; how they utilize a downward vector of attention to imply social entropy; and the logical fallacies present in the text (such as hasty conclusion) (logos).

The selection of posters was based on their implicit views of minorities (as weak, inferior, easily corruptible, naïve, innocent).

The medium is a formal academic paper written in MLA format that will include three photographs (reproductions of the posters).

Concerning arrangement—I will first present the posters whose central figure is a woman, and then juxtapose these with a third poster that, prima facie, does not appear to be related (an African American appears who does not seem to be an important character, but still reinforces the leitmotif of the first two posters). I am still considering what I shall use for the fourth image. One poster I am considering employs an image of a young girl to demonstrate the US government’s pure intentions in giving aid to European countries during the Soviet blockade. In retrospect, I would present this image first in order to establish a contrast with the nefarious purposes apparent in the other three posters.

To test my composition, I shall participate in peer review in class. I may also have one or more of my current or former instructors review it. 

My Reading Experiences

Nowadays, I read in the short intervals between work, school, and sleep. I read in my school's library, as I wait for after-school tutoring. I read late at night, when I am content with the day's work and crave a little free inquiry. I read when I have finished an assignment in class that others are still working on. I read even though I know I will suffer certain consequences, for example, loss of sleep and less time spent on homework assignments. 

I read because I am curious. I read because I am of the opinion that, in order to live life to the fullest, one must think critically. One must read others' viewpoints. One must gain knowledge in a variety of topics, and learn to see from a myriad of perspectives. I read a combination of religious texts, academic prose, and sublime poetry. Thus, I am a spiritual reader, a professional reader, a hedonistic reader. Of course, I am forced to read for my classes, which I do enjoy, but not nearly to the same extent as I do when I am allowed to choose the text. 

From my reading experience, I derive a sense of purpose and identity, that of a reader and an intellectual. 

Design Plan for Photo Essay (Revised)

I have two main goals for this project: to become more versatile as a communicator by learning to incorporate images into a text (something with which I have little experience), and to create a piece which will inspire my audience to think critically about the commonplace. Specifically, I will introduce to the audience the idea that truth is invariably constructed to some extent via signs, whether they be linguistic or pictorial, and that even through such seemingly transparent media as photography and film, one could only hope to possess a partial representation and not a neutral record of reality. My intentions are ultimately rooted in Socrates's dictum that "the unexamined life is not worth living." I hope that others may not be dismayed, but fascinated by the perplexity of the world, so that they realize the uniqueness of human life and the necessity of exercising their rational faculties.

Part of my audience is comprised of my classmates and professor. The larger audience I hope to reach consists of high-school and college-age students whose epistemic attitudes have deviated little from the "commonsense" view of reality (that there is one truth independent of the subject and faithfully conveyed by signs). This group will most likely include those with no background in philosophy or semiotics, and who are not familiar with academic parlance. Despite this, they are insatiably curious about their surroundings and willing to examine themselves and their beliefs.

My classmates are going to receive my text in an environment which may not be ideal for stimulating intellectual discussion. It is towards the end of their school day and after lunch, meaning that they are apt to feel lethargic and unreceptive to ideas which fail to provoke their interest. Simultaneously, my colleagues are a part of the more general audience to which I alluded, who are at a time in their lives when they are establishing new identities in the world. They are searching for themselves and are becoming more and more independent of their nuclear families; therefore, some may reconsider the dominant Weltanschauung. My piece will be an appeal to those seeking alternatives, and an insinuation to those who have never seriously contemplated their most basic assumptions about life.

In this project, I will be using a combination of text and images to achieve my purpose. For my pictures, I will use natural objects which are easily accessible, such as fruit, so that I may denaturalize them (illustrating the artificiality of their representation, and/or the relative arbitrariness of their categorization), thus jarring my audience and evoking thought. I will accomplish this by incorporating different icons of the same apple and angling the headers in the slide show to resemble a stem of an apple (the body of text lying underneath), and also by using the "organic" theme in Microsoft Powerpoint. I have also thought about the potential uses of light and shadow. The “natural light of reason” is an allusion to Descartes that I could use to demonstrate the necessarily perspectival element of knowledge (the “light,” after all, belongs to an individualized consciousness in a particular locale). Darkness naturally lends itself as a symbol of ignorance and of the unconscious (those seemingly uncontrollable elements which seep into one’s communication).

I hope to establish an ethos that is authoritative yet relatable; that is, I would like to exhibit my knowledge without coming across as pedantic. I must try to raise serious academic questions in a lighter, more playful manner through images that will be intriguing but not frustratingly difficult (for I do not have the space to explain all the minutiae, as much as I would like to). I will achieve this by including cultural alusions which will indicate my frame of reference, establishing my credibility with those who have the proper background, while also limiting my use of jargon so as not to alienate those who are new to the topic. Accordingly, in regard to typeface, I will select a font which is neither too ornate nor too dull, but elegant and at least semi-formal.

I would like my pathos to be bizarre and disorienting, to challenge any complacency. I will use a recurring image of an apple, whose position will vary according to the placement of other elements within the slide. For example, if the apple occurs in a second picture, it will be absent from its customary position on top of the bible found at the top left corner of the page. This will create the impression that one has reached into the text (so to speak) to grasp the object and move it across the plane of the text. This obvious absurdity demonstrates that the pictures used are not reality itself, but belong to a sphere of its own which can be manipulated according to one's purposes. I will also do a tribute to Magritte's "The Treachery of Signs," by writing captions which are plainly descriptive yet contradictory (see "The Text) as well as subtly inserting the famous image into one of my photographs. However, this might be off-putting unless there is some levity. Humor will be used to bring philosophy down from the infamous “ivory tower;” for the audience, unfamiliar with the terminology, would not yet be able to participate in or critique that type of discourse. Therefore, in the conclusion, I will utilize the extensive metaphor of light in a simplistic manner which will refer to a quotidian experience (turning on a light) so as to provide a contrast to the mostly abstract arguments of my essay.

My logos will follow this pattern: in the beginning, I will emphasize divergent perspectives; at the end, in order to refute the idea that the only possible conclusion is relativism, I will suggest the complementarity of differing viewpoints by photographing multiple "lights" or perspectives (hence perspectivism). Thus, I could properly denounce dogmatism by refuting both extreme fundamentalism as well as skepticism, while simultaneously providing an array of perspectives and insights that the audience could examine themselves. A second strategy I will use will involve the use of a secondary language—French—to challenge the idea that there is a 1:1 correspondence between words and objects (words possess different values in different languages). A third approach I have utilized is to invert the visual hierarchy endemic to the West by presenting text and images in order from right to left. (In "Mediation," for example, the vector of attention follows from right to left to indicate that the portrayed gesture is retroactive [one is reflecting on the original conditions requisite for the incipience of language and thought].)

I will have a title slide, a beginning slide which will contain the narrative, and a concluding slide to summarize the purpose of the essay and to discuss future possibilities in connection with the discourse. Because I’m trying to introduce a different perspective, I might do well in the body of my essay to juxtapose two pictures on some slides. I could present one ordinary image, and then a second which undermines its “ordinariness.” Still, I will want some (purposeful) variation. A group of three photos could be used to both introduce the notion of negative differentiation and suggest the limitations of dualism (Truth, especially God, must transcend opposites, which are inextricable from the phenomenal flux and necessarily interdependent, whereas Truth/God must be supra-historical and independent). In a similar vein, I will divide the essay itself into three parts. Yet another alternative would be to use one frame which contains multiple images, to express the self-referentiality of signs (apparent in the irreducibility of linguistic signs to images and vice versa).

Testing will occur between my classmates and me. I will moreover receive feedback when my professor grades the assignment, and when (and if) I receive comments on my blog post. This will help show if my conclusions coherently follow the narrative produced by the images, or if I need to elaborate on certain points; if my piece is leading others to reflect or is simply confusing them.

The Treachery of Signs (La Trahison des signes)

Every college student knows from their rhetoric professor that "everything is an argument," but what is the long, circumambulatory trail of premises that leads to this axiom? What are its socio-political and philosophical consequences?

Often ignored is the fact that language, just like photography, paintings, and television, is a medium, which indelibly filters the content that one tries to express. Usually, one thinks of a sign system (e.g. a language) as describing all of the objects that one observes in the world--but how is it that an object of experience in one language is not present in another? Does the Transcendental Signified, the pure experience of the world and its phenomena which precedes signs, actually exist? Or is reality a product of language? Consequently, different cultures (and subcultures) would experience different realities. Their respective codes would necessarily contain an intersubjective element: disallowing Nature to present herself as she is in her self, prior to man's projections, a language already possesses inherent value judgments common to its users. These determinations constitute a narrative, viz., a series of metaphors often employed in the myths and fabula of a culture, which claim to reflect absolute truth.

As a result of the mystification of language ostensible in religious texts (note the prominence of the Word) and reinforced by literature (observe the Platonism of the Romantics), members of a culture unwittingly commit themselves to a Weltanschauung, a specific manner of relating themselves to the world, which is treated as natural, objective, and absolute.

In the beginning--the Subject awakens. He is Abraham, father of all nations, whose descendants possess an irrevocable title to the Promised Land. He is a conquistador, first set foot upon the shore, who arrogates to himself this New World, which really is not new at all. He brooks, to some extent, the destruction of heathens at Sodom and Gomorrah, and the transfiguration of Lot's wife. He instigates the innumerable pogroms of natives. Caught in Maya, Man invents the simulacrum to conceal his suffering and delusion, the meaninglessness and absurdity of the life to which he cleaves. He coerces the Other/Object to compensate for his own epistemological uncertainty, frailty, and isolation. His is an uneasy hegemony, with a dilapidated foundation ready to topple the entire structure.







Reflections

The largest obstacle to writing this piece was, ironically, language itself. Usually, the type of language one uses is determined by the audience. But even prior to a consideration of audience, the concern is raised that normal, everyday language is inadequate to capture higher philosophical truths. Thus, it becomes a question of whether one ought to write in a more sophisticated, technical prose, or a more poetic, versatile lyricism. Unable to give a satisfactory response to this question, the reader will find that the former style is predominant in my writing, but with elements of the latter present in the symbolism I used.

Immediately, the medium has already limited my potential audience (assuming that blogs aren't quite so common), and it is here that my writing suffered from my lack of familiarity with the medium. I have but a vague idea of the type of person who (voluntarily) uses blogs, and an even more confused understanding of the expectations of what should comprise a blog post (I imagine that my formality is out of place). Perhaps, given the above considerations, my topic was not suited to this mode of communication, in which case, my essay is merely a product of the obstinate desire to discuss whatever I please, regardless of whether or not it is practicable. My original design plan is wanting in many other respects, as well (lacking reference to the actual design), because I wrote it before I could begin work on the photo essay. I am one who must write in order to see the patterns of organization latent in my thought processes.

Based on my peers' reception (which was meager but still telling), I conjecture that the audience will be intrigued but mostly perplexed by my composition. Their understanding would be enhanced if I were to explain the philosophical foundation (the "metanarratives," underlying assumptions and unqualified premises) of my writing as well as the cultural and literary sources to which I allude. All I can say in this regard is that in the one case, the text would swell to absurd proportions, and in the other, I would be deprived of the conveniences of indirect communication (e.g. the ability to communicate multiple meanings at once). In the end, I suppose, I was driven by a creative impulse, fatigue, and ennui, commingled with an altruistic concern that others might be living their lives without being confused in the least.


Citations:

Chapman, Sean M. Knolwedge (Le Savoir). 2014. Joliet.

Chapman, Sean M. Mediation (La Mediation). 2014. Joliet.

Chapman, Sean M. The Origin of Thought (L'Origine de la Pensee). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Knolwedge Emptiness (Le Vide). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Three Wise Men (Les Rois Mages). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Meaning (Le Sens). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Marginalization (La Marginalisation). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Man (L'Homme). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. "La femme est la femme d'un homme...". 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. The Text (Le Texte). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. On flane dans le Sens. 2014. Joliet.
Derrida, Jacques. De la grammatologie. 1967. Editions de Minuit. Paris, France.
Chapman, Sean M. Le Paradis perdu (Paradise Lost). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. (Ri-en). 2014. Joliet.
Chapman, Sean M. Perspectives/Les points de vue. 2014. Joliet.

.

A Nebulous Design

In this project, I will be using a combination of text and images to achieve my purpose. For my pictures, I have considered using natural objects which are easily accessible, such as fruit, so that I may denaturalize them (illustrating the artificiality of their representation, and/or the relative arbitrariness of their categorization), thus jarring my audience and evoking thought. I have also thought about the potential uses of light and shadow. The “natural light of reason” is an allusion to Descartes that I could use to demonstrate the necessarily perspectival element of knowledge (the “light,” after all, belongs to an individualized consciousness in a particular locale). Darkness naturally lends itself as a symbol of ignorance and of the unconscious (those seemingly uncontrollable elements which seep into one’s communication). Focusing on photography, I will, in at least one instance, use both my laptop’s webcam and a camera to capture the same shot in order to isolate the influence of the medium.

I hope to establish an ethos that is authoritative yet relatable; that is, I would like to exhibit my knowledge without coming across as pedantic. I must try to raise serious academic questions in a lighter, more playful manner through images that will be intriguing but not frustratingly difficult (for I do not have the space to explain all the minutiae, as much as I would like to). Accordingly, In regard to typeface, I will select a font which is neither too ornate nor too dull, but elegant and at least semi-formal.

I would like my pathos to be bizarre and disorienting, to challenge any complacency. I might do a tribute to Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images.” However, this might be off-putting unless there is some levity. Humor could be used to bring philosophy down from the infamous “ivory tower;” for the audience, unfamiliar with the jargon, would not yet be able to participate in or critique that type of discourse.

My logos will follow this pattern: in the beginning, I will emphasize divergent perspectives; at the end, in order to refute the idea that the only possible conclusion is relativism, I will suggest the complementarity of differing viewpoints (hence perspectivism). Thus, I could properly denounce dogmatism by refuting both extreme fundamentalism as well as skepticism, while simultaneously providing an array of perspectives and insights that the audience could examine themselves. A second possible strategy I may use will involve the use of a secondary language—French—to challenge the idea that there is a 1:1 correspondence between words and objects (words possess different values in different languages). A third approach I’m considering would be to invert the visual hierarchy endemic to the West by presenting text and images in order from right to left, bottom to top.

I will have a title slide, a beginning slide which will contain the narrative, and a more extensive concluding slide to summarize. Because I’m trying to introduce a different perspective, I might do well (in the body of my essay) to juxtapose two pictures on some slides. I could present one ordinary image, and then a second which undermines its “ordinariness.” Still, I will want some (purposeful) variation. A group of three photos could be used to both introduce the notion of negative differentiation and suggest the limitations of dualism (Truth, especially God, must transcend opposites, which are inextricable from the phenomenal flux and necessarily interdependent, whereas Truth/God must be supra-historical and independent). Yet another alternative would be to use one frame which contains multiple images, to express the self-referentiality of signs (apparent in the irreducibility of linguistic signs to images and vice versa).

Testing will occur between my classmates and me. This will help show if my conclusions coherently follow the narrative produced by the images, or if I need to elaborate on certain points; if my piece is leading others to reflect or is simply confusing them. 

Statement of Purpose for the Photo Essay

I have two main goals for this project: to become more versatile as a communicator by learning to incorporate images into a text (something with which I have little experience), and to create a piece which will inspire my audience to think critically about the commonplace. Specifically, I will introduce to the audience the idea that truth is invariably constructed to some extent via signs, whether they be linguistic or pictorial, and that even through such seemingly transparent media as photography and film, one could only hope to possess a partial representation and not a neutral record of reality. My intentions are ultimately rooted in Socrates's dictum that "the unexamined life is not worth living." I hope that others may not be dismayed, but fascinated by the perplexity of the world, so that they realize the uniqueness of human life and the necessity of exercising their rational faculties. 

Part of my audience is comprised of my classmates and professor. The larger audience I hope to reach consists of high-school and college-age students whose epistemic attitudes have deviated little from the "commonsense" view of reality (that there is one truth independent of the subject and faithfully conveyed by signs). This group will most likely include those with no background in philosophy or semiotics, and who are not familiar with academic parlance. Despite this, they are insatiably curious about their surroundings and willing to examine themselves and their beliefs. 

My classmates are going to receive my text in an environment which may not be ideal for stimulating intellectual discussion. It is towards the end of their school day and after lunch, meaning that they are apt to feel lethargic and unreceptive to ideas which fail to provoke their interest. Simultaneously, my colleagues are a part of the more general audience I alluded to, who are at a time in their lives when they are establishing new identities in the world. They are searching for themselves and are becoming more and more independent of their nuclear families; therefore, some may reconsider the dominant Weltanschauung. My piece will be an appeal to those seeking alternatives, and an insinuation to those who have never seriously contemplated their most basic assumptions about life.

Research Focus

This semester I would like to explore questions pertaining to philosophy and psychology. In particular, I am very much interested in identity, both in the ways that people identify themselves and how this affects their perceptions of reality, as well as the ontological question of what it means to be.

Naturally, this entails an inquiry into the nature of representation, and hence, a foray into a tangential field: linguistics.

Communicative Responsibility

I find it difficult to answer the question, “What are our responsibilities to each other when we blog?” Perhaps it is because I am unused to the medium. Certainly, one would bear some of the same responsibilities inherent in any discourse, for example, the duty to exhibit sensitivity to issues of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and culture. That in itself is a question open to debate (that of political correctness), but it is not unreasonable to expect some degree of decency and awareness when one engages in communication with others.

It also occurs to me that one could argue for an obligation to speak the truth, or at the very least, to be sincere. However, one would have to define sincerity. In order for one to discern the sincerity of another, one would have to demonstrate that a text possesses verisimilitude of some sort. Obstructing this goal is language’s vagueness and tendency to deconstruct. There is no transcendental signified. Signifiers only refer to other signifiers in an infinite regress. The import of any text that one may create is often involuntarily influenced by such factors as the limitations of the medium, the historico-cultural connotations of words, conventional usage, obscurity, and subjectivity.

Moreover, there is the question of whether or not one can ever give an accurate representation of oneself. Frequently, one unconsciously creates and assumes roles which vary according to the situation and audience. But is one’s identity only constituted by these roles? Beyond them, what is there? What am I, if I am not just a brother, son, grandson, godson, nephew, student, employee, colleague, friend, associate, and potentially a whole slew of other identifications—if all of these are mere corruptible façades, masks which one dons for some time, before having to relinquish them to time and decay? One could contend à la Baudrillard that these roles serve as simulacra which conceal the emptiness of identity as is commonly conceived.

Thus, one invariably projects a persona—a fixed, partial conception of oneself, conditioned by factors which may or may not be controllable—out into the world. To venture an answer to the prenominate question: one of the only obligations that one must strive to fulfill in life and in communication is to express the universal (the verities of the human condition) within the confinements and vagaries of the particular (i.e. the particular medium or media that one is using as well as one’s discrete perspective, cultural milieu, historicity, etc. ).