THON and its perfect context

     The IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon, commonly known as THON, took place last weekend at the Bryce Jordan Center. This largest student-run philanthropy has the meaningful purpose of raising money to combat pediatric cancer. 

      For forty six hours, dancers cannot sit and sleep- they need to be constantly active for almost two days. To encourage and reassure the dancers, more than 3,000 organizations stand with them and cheer until they almost lose their voices. There are so much at this center-- not just the people, but action and emotion.

      Although its long, tiring and definitely puts much pressure on our legs and our muscles begin to weaken as minutes go by, we stand. We cheer, scream and clap for those dancers who have sacrificed the most essential thing, rest, for children and their families who suffer from cancer.

      As I enjoyed the music and magnitude to be a Penn State student working with others towards a common cause, one event that caught my attention and impressed me the most was the family hour. During this time, families whom have either gained hope from THON or lost their child and wants to spread awareness are free to talk to the students as we cheer and support each other until the last forty sixth hour.

      In school, we are taught to be objective. We are guided by our English teachers to argue from a third person narrative as it is a taboo to put “I” in your sentences. But at THON, the emotions and revelations that were aroused from speakers such as the father of Felicia Rupp didn't need objectivity-- his real life experience and motivation to spread awareness of pediatric cancer couldn't make his argument more valid and reliable.

      Approximately 30,000 Penn State students as the audience, Bryce Jordan Center suddenly turned silent as the father of Felicia Rupp spoke. “I want you [Penn State students] to dance-- I want you to THON. I want you to do this because I don't want you to ever have your child die in your arms.”

With sniffs and quiet sobs around me, I couldn't help myself to cover the streaming tears down my face.

      We walk through life everyday not hearing these heartrending stories. This is why most people are unaware of the extent to how much pediatric cancer changes lives of the victims and their family and friends. THON couldn't have possibly been a better context for these stories to be told—it is the greatest kairotic moment to appreciate those who have survived and recognize those who have not.

Aristotle's Wisdom

      As one of the most influential Greek philosopher, Aristotle's teachings are prevalent when discussing rhetoric. Out of many of his diverse and intriguing teachings, one ideology that stuck out to me the most is that emotional intensity alters in accordance with the spatial and temporal proximity of the people or situations that arouse them.

      The textbook gave an interesting example of how, if the person who dented the car is still in the lot when its owner arrives there, the owner would focus his/her anger more intensely on the person than if he can be only diffusely angry in general with people who dent cars. Aristotle argues than if the person who dented the car happens to be someone known to the owner of the dented car, the owner's emotional response will be intensified. In other words, when the person with whom someone becomes angry is close, either physically or relationally, anger will be felt more intensely.

      According to the textbook's explanation, I can understand why having to personally know the person who deliberately harmed the owner's car will arouse more anger. This is because usually the people that we have personal relations with gains our trust and respect. However, when that person loses their reliance and deference as a friend or even an acquaintance, our faith in that person diminishes almost instantly and ultimately arouses anger in us.

      In a situation where the person intentionally sought out to hurt the other person, I comprehend their angry and upset emotional response. However, I believe that this is not the case for all situations where knowing the person will only arouse more anger.

      My family and friends are all well aware of how clumsy I am. I drop my phone roughly about five times a day and slip on the snow more than I really should. Thus, it's normal for me to knock over things- unfortunately, not all of what gets crashed doesn't belong to me. I would casually walk in and my bag would knock over one of my roommate's vases. With a sudden crash, I would stall and my roommate would assure me that all is fine and that it's just a vase. She knows me and she trusts me that I didn't do it on purpose.

      However, it's a totally different situation if a stranger who is looking for someone on the hallway crashes into our door and knocks down her mirror. The stranger would immediately apologize and even if she verbalizes that the person is forgiven, her facial expression would convey her annoyance. After the stranger's leave, she would rant about how careless some people are and of course, I couldn't say anything because...I'm that person.

      Therefore, I agree to Aristotle's argument to only a certain extent. Just because you know a person physically or relationally doesn't mean that their wrongs will arouse more anger than someone who is not known or never there. It might actually save you from situations if you do know that person as you earned their trust and respect.

Invented Ethos & cyber communication

     Cyber instruments such as email and texting are mainstream method of communication in our lives today. More often, people are prone to use email or text to communicate as they are more convenient and provides constant contact with everyone.

    As emailing and texting becomes more prevalent, the way we talk in person or on phones are perfectly emulated in cyber communication. In other words, we write as if we are talking in real life. However, the only difference is, we don't need to interfere completely with the recipient's activities. We have the favor of multi-tasking when we cyber communicate.

   Although cyber communication is expedient and requires no sweat, message senders must taken into consideration who they are talking to. If we email or text our friends and family members, we can write as if we are casually talking but that shouldn't be the case for writing to those who we do not know us or stands as a higher authority.

   Today in class we learned that the email etiquette should always include subject, greeting and correct grammar, punctuation and spelling. Our instructor also recommended that we respond back even if it's just a “thank you- I got it successfully.”

   I totally agree- sometimes we get too caught up in conveniently and rapidly emailing and texting that we forget to capitalize certain words or make spelling mistakes that convey informality and clumsiness. Those small yet apparent mistakes invent our ethos as a writer, and ultimately as a person.

   This tip of writing emails that invents positive ethos comes in handy especially when contacting professors in college who does not know you personally due to large class size.

   For next time...I will proof read once more before I hit that “send” button as I surely want my invented ethos to position me in a positive light.

Kairos and Public's Attention

After discussing in class the captivating notion of Kairos that refers to the right rhetorical moment or an advantageous time, it got me to really think of kairotic moments.

As noted in the textbook, “considering the interests at stake in an issue can help a rhetor decide the most advantageous way to frame an argument for a particular audience at a particular time.” This means that certain events or circumstances that relate to the argument may be beneficial in arousing interest from the public. Thus, consideration of the values and interests in circulation around an issue can help rhetors to generate arguments.

A frightening event such as the shooting at Virginia Tech University offered a kairotic moment. As nearly thirty people were murdered by Cho Seung-Hui before he ended his own life, people who heard and witnessed the heartrending experience of calling and receiving eccentric ring tones from phones attached to dead and wounded bodies. The grief must have been unbearable. However, ironically, the parents were told that it was not the right moment to question how the shooting had occurred.

It's engrossing and unfortunate that the aftermath of something horrendous as the shooting at Virginia Tech University is the “wrong” time to talk about security and ultimately, gun control. Although people talked about the shooting, conversations were more focused on the treatment of mental illness in universities, violence in the media and in popular culture, copy cat killings, alienation of immigration students and simply the question of evil.

It could be that gun control and changes in security policies do not draw immediate attention from the public as not enough events occurred between massacres to make weapons of mass killing harder to obtain. This may convey that reducing the number of guns will neither relieve mentally sick people to stop themselves from killing.

However, it certainly aroused attention from the public on how to act as comprehensively and cautiously as possible in order to prevent the next massacre instead of punishing the latest crime. Although a large part of me feel as though the families who have suffered the loss of loved ones were receiving unfair treatment as question on how a student with history of mental illness could obtain a gun lacked public attention, I understand why conversations devoted to the future of safety in America became the dominant kairotic issue as it concerned everyone and held the possibility of preventing the next crime and eventually save sacred lives.

Thus, kairotic moments, as heartwarming or heartrending it may be, will either receive much or minimal attention from the public depending on the audiences' values and interests.