I found Lockes essay very interesting concerning complex rhetoric. As an EWM major, I have rarely pondered how complex, well written and persuasive speeches are a bad thing. But as Locke points out, wit and fancy find more entertainment in our world than dry truth and knowledge (826). He believes that persuasive, complex speeches are deceiving and manipulative, rather than ingenious and powerful, as I have always thought. It is interesting that he campaigns a universal, simple language. While I can see his angle I can't agree with it. I think so much of what makes communication such a powerful form of expression is that we can try to relay our own complex thoughts to our peers.
I agree with Locke's explanation on how we learn from experience. I don't believe we are born with any knowledge and I agree that we are all products of our environment. I think him and Barthes would agree that this is why authorship is dangerous-- our previous learned experiences and knowledge are always present, including previous notions and ideas about the author behind the rhetoric. Our experience shapes how we interpret, especially how we interpret less straight forward and more complex knowledge.