What if we think of rhetoric (argument) as of or for relations?
Some thoughts on relationality by Erin Moure to think about as you analyze websites:
What are the forces that link us? …that make us persons and not simply organisms? What compels us and holds us?
Yet I think that the relation between these forces and the body, any one body — the body writing these words for you to read, for example –is necessarily narrative. And this relation stands, necessarily, in a world where the borders of individual identity are more and more blurred, refractory. The skins is not even a container for a serum body; we leak so variously. We leave remnants of DNA everywhere, remnants that are part of our individuality. Other questions arise. What does it mean for bodies when we work with a computer and no longer see our interlocutors? What do avatars means and why does emotion accrue there, too? Are these distances from the human really distances? Or is distance an inevitable effect of bodily incarnation, part of that incarnation or corporeality, and thus a fact of any text as well? Are corporeal distances knitted together by some kind of narration? Does narration make us tenable as organisms in the face of incredible leakages, of prosthetic and avataric reaches?
Our brains map perceptual and autonomous nervous information in sheets of neurons that lie against each other in the cortex. These layered and overlapping neuronal maps have been well studied in the case of sight. To see what we see, we use dynamic brain processes and structures for movement, for edge, for colour, for shape, sound, etc., but nowhere in the brain is a picture assembled. What I see out in front of me is not mirrored exactly “like this” anywhere in the brain. Rather, it is an active process, not a representation; a process, not an image; a narration, not a sequence of stills. No wonder we can say we are shimmers, coalescences, coalitional, relational: we have several kinds of inner narration going on constantly in the brain.