Jamie wrote:
_____________________
i think pirsig argues in zmm (and maybe in lila, too) that rhetoric is
the mediator of Quality between people (just as plato thought it was
dialectic that informed us of the Truth). if this is so, any writing
would have to have some degree of an appeal to its audience in order for
the writing itself to be deemed as Quality (let alone the argument it is
advancing).
_____________________
Hello Jamie. Perhaps some of your comments here were directed at my
post yesterday.
It is unfortunate that the Dialectic has become associated with the
search for a static universal "Truth" (ie, Plato and Aristotle) in MoQ
circles. It might be worthwhile to consider the process of the
Dialectic as opposed to any particular end. The Classical Skeptics
would insist on this, I think.
I don't know how this group would respond to discussion of the Dialectic
given the rather infamous encounters Pirsig described in ZMM with
proponents of this method of discourse. Maybe its stating the obvious,
but what appears to be the point of disagreement in Pirsig's books may
not be, or least, not the crucial point he is trying to illustatre.
There is a subtlety and depth to his writing.
As for rhetoric, I am learning from your posts, Jamie. In fact, believe
it or not, I read your last one all the way through!
Still, I am bothered by this idea of convincing or persuading. This
seems like nothing more than an attempt to bring another around to see
my static view on something. This does not sound like Quality to me.
Am I missing something?
To "spice up" an otherwise dull cold logical argument with poetry,
parables, analogy, etc, etc, adds nothing to the intellectual content of
the argument. What it does do is attract the attention of someone who
may not otherwise give it the time of day. This is a two step process
(at least): Get the intended audience interested, and then pass the
message. Anyone here ever tried to read Spinoza? I doubt that the
Bible, if presented in this way, would have been as widely read. In
this I agree with you, Jamie. Pure logos is the most efficient, I will
still argue. However, if no one listens, how effective is it then?
One definition of art is a medium used to convey emotion. So,
literature, for example, will use the both the logos and the pathos.
But conveying information with clarity and attempting to persuade or
convince are two different animals. It is the difference between "Do
you understand my arguement?" and "Do you agree with my arguement?".
No matter the method used to generate and keep interest, an argument, by
definition, has at its core some premise to conclusion reasoning. If
the reasoning is sound, an appeal with ethos or pathos is superfluous.
Other than attracting attention and then keeping it I can only surmise
that the author is using ethos or pathos to fill in for poor logos. Now
this is getting close to misleading and dishonest.
For those interested more the subject I suggest "The Place of Emotion in
Argument", by Douglas N Walton, Pennsylvania State University Press
1992.
Steve
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST