I found Kent’s discussion regarding the “discourse community” very interesting. This really draws on our collective assumption that what we are saying or writing is being communicated to the reader or the user. Within the field of technical or professional writing, we have to be able to know or guess our reader/user’s “code” in order to produce the text in a way that they can process. This also ties into what Kent is saying where without deeper thought about this, we assume our intentions of what we are conveying are the most important part of the discourse production. However, if our “code” of writing and producing text does not align with the user/reader, they won’t be able to understand even our intentions. (Kent, 26-7)

On Heidegger’s concept of Vorhabe, it ties back into the idea that writing and composition is difficult to teach through books and through the classroom setting. This is because as you are trying to learn these concepts within the classroom you are having to use the skills you already possess. Within this essay he uses a quote from Hubert Dreyfus which explains that one must get practice in order to obtain these skills. They cannot be learned through textbooks (Kent, 30) This makes a connection with the “What’s Practical about Technical Writing”. The debate was around whether to make technical writing something that is taught in a more utility based or practical way or to teach writing in a more humanistic way. I would say that this argument sides with the practical and utilitarian perspective in that in order to learn to communicate within the proper codes and languages of those you are writing and communicating with, you must work through those problems directly with experience instead of trying to develop the skills of technical communication through self-rumination. (Miller)

I agree with this in that, as a new Rhetoric and Composition teacher, I feel that I am not capable of teaching writing. I can give my students the general information and tools they need to complete some sort of writing “process,” however I cannot, myself, make their writing better. They come into these classes with a level of reading and writing expertise. This connects in with their “code” and what they will be able to understand and how they will be able to adapt and shift their reading and writing concepts in order to try and improve their discourse with me and with the class.

Another quote from Kent which I found very intriguing is this, which questions all thought and private discourse. I am very drawn to this idea that even within ourselves we have to shift our thoughts, our codes, and re-evaluate resolutions which occurred within our own minds in order to continually understand everything. Deep.

“Because the sign is iterable, because it cannot be linked precisely with its effect in the world, the hermeneutic strategy we employ to produce our private discourse will never link up precisely with the hermeneutic strategy we will employ at some future time in order to interpret our private language code.” (Kent, 32)

Works Cited

Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42.

Miller, Carolyn. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. 61-70. Print.