Chapter 2 of the text discusses the idea of Techne and Kairo using Greek mythology as a base for presenting the two concepts. The term techne doesn't seem to be specifically designated to be known ass art, but the term seem to waver around many different understandings, as shown in the text. The author emphasize that Techne is "associated with deception" or cunning, than she jumps to another meaning saying that techne is "set of rules, system or method of making or doing". The last implication of techne that she stated is" craft or trade that can generate economic capital".
The next topic she discusses is Kairo, which she stated as time. By combining time and art there can be "profit", to simply this she stated the qoute "time is money". Learn how to take the opportune timing and "art" then profit can be made. In relation with kairo, techne is never absolute or specifically define, because time changes and thus so will the techne. My opinion of her reason for writing this book, is to present the ideas that there are various ways the literate and contextual world represents arts and craft. She also present the concept that "art" is more rhetoric than many may think, but also impliment the idea that through the strives to find true art, there could be a possiblity to go away from rhetoric and become more philosophical.

terms- cunning, profit and capital, deception and philosophy, the many meanings of techne, 
through tthe various definitions and attempts of explaining techne, she present teh idea of cunning and these terms, but I could hardly come to the conclusion that techne is define as art. but, by accepting that techne does mean art, then these terms would become understandable.
The first reading and this reading are glued together through the idea of rhetoric, but that seems to be about it. Hauser sticks to the literal meaning of rhetoric, meaning the way people communicate(social and written), but this reading touches more on the idea of art and crafts.

The paragraph that interest me the most is on page 55, when she inserted the quotes from Georgia. The paragraph still discusses the many differnt meaning of techne, and how to the banausic class, techne is a mean of measuring economic and social status(discourse). Then she leaps to plato idea of techne(professional knowledge). My interests arises twoards the end of the paragraph as the idea of philosophying leaped into the context of techne. How do do we know whether we are philosophying or using rhetoric without crossing the line between the two, meaning philosophying and staying within the rhetoric limits? is there a limit to rhetoric?

this is it

reading 1

The reading is very academic and informative. It's meant to inform readers of the authors ideas toward rhetoric and the history of rhetoric. The chapter discusses the concept of rhetoric in two ways, one being social practice and the other being rhetorical thinking. This  chapter deals alot with the history of rhectoic and many different historical supporters of the topic. The chapter also set the base for understanding the authors concept of rhetoric and emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in social life. Towards the end of the chapter the author begins to touch base on how rhetoric will change in relations to the audience. This chapter fits with other chapters because it is the base of the infrastructure of rhetoric. Without this chapter many readers will probably be lost when reading further into the text.

The most important idea of the chapter is to understand that rhetoric is more than just academic and it is present in every decision made involving understanding between groups and as an example made in the text between government and the citizens. Through all my experience, I came to understand rhetoric as critical thinking, similar to what the text emphazise. The concept of understnading both side of the arguement and taking into account the pros and cons and the crediblity of the sources. The text was understandable to me because, all my professors discussed the topic in similar if not exactly the same as the text did. While realated rhetoric to craft, its very difficult for me to see a connection beside the example where dance and "art" was discussed,, though it didn't spark any true knowledge about craft. 

First Experience

1. Do you read any blogs? Why or why not? 
-I read a few blogs before, basically to find information about things and also to see reviews of certain things I;m thinking about purchasing.

2. Was setting up your blog easy? Why or why not?
-it was easy to set up, but ass i type this I have no idea whats going to happen after I press add> I guess we'll find out after I press add(Hopefully it goes well).I didnt try anything else besides posting this up, but I will check out the features during my free time.

3. Why did you choose the template you did? Did you make any changes to the template? Why or why not? Is there anything you’d like to change but aren’t sure how?
-I just log on and just started posting. I don't know why I choose this template. probably because it said simple under it. If you don't know anything always stick to simple, but I might change it in the future if I find a better one or find this one too dull.  

4. As you were doing the above writing for this blog, how is your writing different (is it?) from writing in other contexts? Are you thinking about it or approaching it differently? How so?
-As I write the blog, I try to not be so academic wise. I feel that if I stick to much to the academic side so fast I tend to not be in touch with what I want to say and express. But surely as the course proceed I will begin to write more academically.