I am probably going to offend a lot of my classmates on Monday. While the goal isn’t to do that, I must admit if it’s going to happen, in some ways I’m probably going to enjoy the challenge and push back within the discussion. Truth be told, I’m a little intimidated by it.
I used to be a very black and white thinker growing up, my was was the right way, and nobody was going to talk me out of anything or change my opinion unless I wanted it to be changed. Doing things my way have gotten me out of some very stupid situations in my life… and probably gotten me into most of them admittedly. I’d say, the change in my perspective came from reading in my early adulthood, but maybe it was just the realization that in thinking that my way was always right and other ways were always wrong I was unhappy? Now, when I look at a situation, I try to see it through as many lenses as possible, regardless of the source.
Peter Elbow’s piece this week focuses on negotiating mentalities for analyzing writing, but to me it’s touches on so much more than that, as he references works, individuals, and debates dating back centuries. Today, I can safely say I am an And/Both person. Which means I can also see the merits of the Either/Or mentality as well as the merits of compromise. I don’t want to spoil to much about what I am going to have everyone do in class, because it would ruin some of the fun and deep thinking on the human condition is something I very much enjoy, and this piece to me is very just as much about the ways in which we think as it is the ways we examine writing.
My discussion lead paper is here. Have at it if you want: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CvI2Q1iUILI1AG7LdOlNp5_d8qpU4Yhb2sk4MJ53OUU/edit?usp=sharing