steve,
great post. you make many interesting points, especially those
concerning dialectic, persuasion, and your example definition of art.
i don't have as much time to respond the way i would like to (ie, my
previous two posts) but i'll try here.
> 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.
i agree about pirsig's depth in writing. he has dramatized his reading
and reaction toward dialectic just as he created a total villain out of
the "chairman," richard mckeon, at u of chicago. dialectic originally
was a type of "20 questions" games with "simple" y/n answers. it is
based on inquiry, not so much on response. this approach could be
considered pure logic (if done correctly).
however, what plato does in dialogues such as _phaedrus_ is employ
rhetoric under the guise of dialectic (which is deceiptful because he is
arguing against rhetoric; of course, there is "subtley and depth" to
plato's writing, too. remember, plato renounced writing in the same
dialogue IN WRITING). plato, i find, is the ultimate "car salesman."
the other characters are largely strawmen used as foils for the platonic
socrates to destroy while mouthing plato's ideas. this, i think, is
behind pirsig's negative appearance of dialectic. in and of itself, it
is not evil just in its use. the same is true of rhetoric. it is a
skill that can be used to harm and deceive.
today, we'd say dialectic is restrictive, rigid, hard to use. of
course, our definition of dialectic has changed over time (see below).
when i referred to dialectic in my last post, i meant that which is used
by plato to seek Truth; this type of dialectic strips language of its
full potential (meaning pathos and ethos). this is similar to what the
pirsigian phaedrus was rebelling against in the composition classroom:
the type of writing that was formulaic, dull, and not creative-- a
stunted use of language and expression, slave to rules and false
authority.
> 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?
i think so, but i can understand what you are getting at here. you're
reading as a skeptic, which is good, but i challenge your definition of
"persuasion," which sounds to me to be more like "manipulation" or
"trickery" or even "bullshit." persuasion doesn't equal winning. our
posts are a prime example of what is occuring here.
in a modern sense, this post is a dialectic-- an exchange of ideas on a
certain topic. but in this modern sense, rhetoric plays a large part of
how this information is presented. we care about what the other has to
say. a y/n system would do little to expand our understanding of the
other's pov or experience.
at the same time, as practioner of rhetoric in this dialectic, we are
not trying to "win" the other person over to our point of view
(especially if we think our point of view is superior because it is our
point of view). we're creating logical, coherent arguments that support
our experience with the topic.
during this process, we explain what we mean so that the other person
will understand-- this is an example of ethos at work. if we use an
example, say a scenario or a personal story, to aid in this
understanding, we're using pathos because now the ideas and concepts
we're discussing have a visual element.
i'm not sure what you mean by "static point of view"; when i say that
rhetoric is the mediator of quality, i'm saying that it is the skill
involved in communicating our experience of Quality about a topic to
others. my experience with Quality in rhetoric is not necessarily
"static" to someone who doesn't have the experience i have had (which is
what this convesation is about. my ideas are not "static" to you, are
they?). again, like i wrote to mary, it is obvious that you know what
rhetoric is; your use of language is strong, and you employ, perhaps
unconsciously, logos, ethos, and pathos in your writing. if you'd like,
i can perform a rhetorical analysis of our conversation (it's no magic
trick, though; anyone can do it).
>
> 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 claim is based on the warrant that "spicing up" an argument is
equal to decoration. plato calls it "pandering" in _gorgias_. it's a
cheap gimmick used to *cover up* a weak argument (like that commercial
where the grandma sprays a rose-scented aerosol to cover a foul odor and
the little girl shouts "now it smells like fish [the "cold logical
argument"] AND roses ["the poetry, parables," etc.]!" this is saying
that those things are smoke screens, artiface.
here's the kicker . . . sometimes those techniques are artiface. but if
you study the communication act where a cold (which means boring,
right?) argument is shrouded with whistles and bells that have nothing
to with the logos, do nothing to advance the arguement, do nothing to
make it more convincing or, in the word i've been using, persuasive,
then it is not a Quality argument (which you yourself have already
stated above in so many words).
simply put, pathos is empty when it does nothing to advance the logos of
the argument. but to assume that the use of stories, example, analogy,
etc., is artiface is to restrict your understanding of rhetoric,
restrict your personal expression, and restict your experienc of Quality
communication. purely logical communication becomes boring . . . no
one's personal experience becomes relevent to the conversation because
HEY! that's "emotional."
now, after reading this, i can see that you may think that the use of a
personal story is part of logos. yes, it is. but its use is to
demonstrate something that is not logic itself; rather, the story
supports it, shows the concept, the idea "in action."
> 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.
getting the audience's attention is always crucial to any communication
act, especially in our overloaded, short-attention-span day and age.
ever try and publish a screenplay? agencies only read the first ten
pages. if there's nothing that "catches their attention" it's pitched.
that's why many big budget hollywood flicks feature beautiful scenery, a
murder, sex, etc. within the first five minutes so that they get the
audience's attention. magazine articles do this all the time as well.
it's a viable and necessary technique; however, as stated above, if a
movie shows sex just to get our attention and has nothing to do with the
plot or character, chances are (but you can never be certain) that it is
a cheap gimmick, empty, spectacle.
> Pure logos is the most efficient, I will
> still argue. However, if no one listens, how effective is it then?
precisely. as i stated in my last post, logos on its own isn't
effective (besides reading kant, i can't think of many places where ONLY
logos exists). but without logos, an argument can be pulled apart to
reveal that is has "no substance." a good rhetorician, such as
yourself, crafts his/her message in a way that reinforces the logos and
engages the reader (that's what pathos and ethos do the best).
for example, your use of the "rhetorical question" above, gives you a
lot of ethos (you are questioning your understanding, you are a willing
participant in this "debate," open) and establishes a bit of pathos (it
reproduces the thought of an actual conversation) and some logos (i stop
and think of an answer to this question).
> One definition of art is a medium used to convey emotion.
i know this is only an example definition, but it, like a definition of
Quality, is far too restrictive of what art really is. art, to me, is a
medium used to reflect life. even this definition sucks, but it doesn't
reduce art to emotion. the classic understanding is a rich part of life
too. so we don't get too fractured here, let us consider visual
(painting, sculpture) art.
there is a logos behind a painting; many "look" like life-- a person,
place, a thing, an action that we recognize is portrayed on canvas.
when it doesn't, many people make fun of it or discredit. they don't
see the apparent logos and turn away from it. that's why many say that
abstract art is not art. such people, as pirsig suggests, are locked
into value rigidity. they are not open to the "rhetoric of abstract
art" to appreciate its Quality; their own experience stops, stunted, and
confined to certain types of art.
now someone with an open mind, who values his/her own experience, as
well as other people's experience, can enter a conversation using
rhetoric to explain why a certain creation is or is not art (or any
other subject). the goal is not to win but to test your experience and
understanding of it-- i call it taking inventory of your awareness of
Quality.
in order to enter this conversation, though, you have to make it your
purpose to persuade, make it convincing. the goal here is for the
participants to walk away from the discussion with a richer
understanding of the Qualtiy experience. some may have their
understanding of Quality confirmed; those who don't alter theirs or look
for more experience to test that understanding (ie, phaedrus in zmm-- he
wouldn't tell the students what Quality in writing was; they had to be
aware and value their own experience of it).
i'll leave the discussion here. some of the points you touched on after
this are addressed above. let me know how this sounds to you. if
there's something i omitted, let me know and i'll respond later.
thanks for the responses. this has been a very helpful forum for me to
"test my understanding and experience" of rhetoric and Quality. i hope
you and others are getting something from it as well.
jamie
ps an apology to earlier posts that i didn't respond to. i just don't
have as much spare time as i need to make adequate response.
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