Ok, so I’m about to summarise some truth handed down from Patrick Thomsen. So this man rocks up onto the stage and immediately I’m enthralled. Was he talking about a data set vaguer than UoA’s marking schemes? No. He came onto the stage and started yarning, chewing the fat, spinning a tale, however you want to say it, he was telling a story. He started with him, his background, the things that he brings to the table of academia. He then told a story of why he originally thought there were no gay men in Korea, when in fact they just expressed their sexuality in a different way.
It was at this point that I realised that he had made an argument in storytelling. He talked of his past and sexuality to show he had both Western and Pasifika understandings of sexuality. Which then allowed him to see, that the lack of openly gay men in Korea was not because they ‘failed’ to reach Western ideals of sexuality. It was because they had found their own way of expressing their sexuality, often involving narratives of convenience.
I remember 10 year old me being told how my friend Nico broke a kids arm with a stick and a piece of gum. I do not remember Socrates’ arguments that I learnt last year. Stories are catchy and memorable, arguments are not. This is why I didn’t have to look at my notes for this (I hope it’s not too obvious). I remember his story, therefore I remember his argument because his story and argument are one and the same. Therefore consequently, metaphysically, theoretically, all the other lly’s, his argument is extremely effective and memorable.
