Imagining/creating as a function of communication can be portrayed as a communicative event with the end goal of sharing ideas through the utilization of one’s creative and imaginative cognitive abilities, and in this case, manifests in the act of telling a story to a public audience or group. In this particular instance, the lessons or [moral] values behind the speaker’s story can be considered as the concepts or realizations that he aims to relay to the audience, with his goal being to propagate such reflections and ideas through the narrative. Applying Aristotle’s communication model to this situation/event would demonstrate that the public speaker’s purpose was not to interact or coordinate with the audience socially. The speaker had no
(However, still the purpose was imagining and/or emotional expression since main goal was just to be able to convey his story, if the audience was motivated, great but that’s more of beyond the scope of the model as it simply recognizes the element of effect, but that effect has no effect (lol) on the message or the source). Motivation happened more of as an aftereffect – delayed/indirect, not within the immediate scope of the model (acknowledged, but not the speaker’s main purpose, though had indirectly effected such outcome) – the effect that is noted in Aristotle’s model is to persuade the audience towards/in favor of the speaker and the ideas he puts forward, but does not necessarily mean motivation in the sense of boosting their esteem or the speaker’s self-esteem; in this case, it was more of wanted an end product through driving action, not co-creating