Methodology for the Prologue

I wanted to breifly describe my methods for linking pages in the Prologue. At first, it was my intention to create a "serious" hypertext--my first few links were to academic sources for biographies and definitions. For instance, my first two links were for "Locke" and "Hume." Relying on all mighty Google, picked the top response for each phrase. Nothing too surprising.

I started having "fun" when I Googled "empirical fathers." Don't know why I did it--just wanted to see what would "pop" up. The top hit, the article on "Empirical Studies on Lesbian and Gay Parenting," surprised, amused, and thereby inspired me. I think my recent playing around with KB's "lingual dogs of meaning" lately and looking for ways to bring them into my 106 classroom led me to start experimenting on myself. I wanted to see what stray meanings Google would chase down--so I Googled a number of phrases verbatum and selected a link from among the first page of hits. Sometimes I choose an image if none of the web hits captured my attention. Not too scientific.

Nor did I determine every link this way. Some links and searches were more strategic than others. I suppose my over all intention was to represent a complex network of cultural and subjective streams of consciousness: serious, comic, academic, popular, tragic, defiant, sincere, and of course, dramatic. Maybe.

The only things I created specifically for the page is the link for "climax" (didn't want to Google search that on a school computer in a graduate lab) and for the "usual French suspects." The latter phrase I think I first heard in a seminar with Arkady Plotnitsky, so I give him credit for the "joke."

Finally, I am not sure why I choose to hide the links, I suppose I wanted to maintain some kind of subterfuge. I attempted subtly changing the color of the links, but concluded that I liked the spontaneity they engendered when completely "hidden."

Methodology for the "Conversation"

This project turned out to be far more difficult than I anticipated. To create a meaningful (and, yes, I think their conversation is more than mere banter) dialogue out of only direct quotes proved to be quite a challenge. Although I had to use some material out of context, I did my best to respect each philosopher's philosophy; although Burke comes out on top, I believe each speaker "accurately" represents their line of thinking. Furthermore, at the end of the piece, the speakers are comically rendered equal--each a voice drowned out by each other and the music of my time.

My prologue refered to DJ Spooky; I would like to pull out one passage from his work Rythym Science that captures my feelings on selection and decontextualiztion:

All inclusive data networks transform individual creation into a kit of interchangeable parts, Lego building blocks of consciousness in a world that moves under the sign of continuous transformation and atomized perspectives. The machinery of culture acts out in the theater of the mind—how we navigate through the abstract systems we use to maintain meaning. As we say in the DJ world, it's all in the mix. For the most part, creativity rests in how you recontextualize the previous expression of others, a place where there is no such thing as "an immaculate perception." (33)

To sum it up in a sentence: Burke, whether he liked it or not, recognized the necessity of recontextualization; Locke and Hume denied this necessity. The latter's works push for an objective hermeneutic and stable epistemology that is not to be found in the writings of the former. (Oh, so I used two sentences...so I had to supplement...)

Credits and Contact

If you happened to stumble upon this and want to send me some feedback, then feel free to email me. I am a third year Ph.D student in Purdue University's Rhetoric and Composition program. Just click here for more info on me, Marc C. Santos.

My thanks to Pat Sullivan for allowing me to work on a "different" kind of project. My thanks to Karl Stolley for his CSS tutorials and stress-relieving tips on audio-streaming in Flash. Also, thanks to two emerging Burke scholars, Ryan P. Weber (Mr. Locke) and Nathanial Rivers (Mr. Hume), for their talented contributions and commentary. I think Nathaniel might have put it best- Burke's "zings" in my piece emphatically settle the matter of whether Burke could ever be called a Modernist--despite his occasional longing for transcendence, most of the stuff that Burke says would drive any logically-positivistic driven philosopher crazy.

And ya gotta love that!