Mary, Jamie, Steve, and the rest:
I have very much enjoyed the conversation regarding rhetoric and dialectic
thus far and would like to throw in my own perspective on the situation,
although it may relate more generally (I just can't resist contributing). I
would like to explore how I have conceived of rhetoric up until and
including this date and show how it relates to emotion, dialectic, and the
other topics being discussed.
I write this paragraph, after writing the rest of the post, to say that I
find there seems to be very little relating directly to what has been
discussed. I suppose in order to get to the result, which concerns mainly
my support of emotions in argument, I have to give my conception of the
entire situation. I also haven't quoted anybody either, and for that
matter, havn't directly mentioned anybody. Nonetheless, I think the points
I agree upon and disagree upon are clear enough to not need quotes or
references.
For some time now I have considered all writting, in some quantity or
another, to contain two parts; the subject and the content. The subject
relates to those ideas that have certain existence outside of the particular
piece of writting. For example, before this post was written, the ideas
existed in my head, seperate from this paper. EVEN IF I wrongly think of
some ideas while writting, they still are previously thought of, if only
seconds before translated into text. This makes the subject, at least from
the writers prespective (while engaged in the activity of writing),
primarily static.
Content, on the other hand, is the way in which the ideas are related to
whomever may be reading. This is where perswasion takes place and is in
fact an EXPERIENCE on behalf of the reader. Perswasion -- content -- is an
experience. The subject is reflected in this experiences, as it acts as a
seperate but important basis for all that is said, however is not solely
where perswasion comes from. The perswasive experience, or content, is
necessarily and clearly equivilant to the experience of dynamic quality. It
is the realization of a particular quality through experience.
To speak in MOQian terms, the writer will mold the content at various
"levels" of quality. The higher the level, the richer and higher quality
the content, but reflective of the same abstract idea or subject, whose
quality in itself, on the reader's behalf, is untimately indeterminable
because he or she only sees it through what they have experienced. The idea
in itself is
a seperate experience of the author's and, as mentioned, relates only to the
reader through the perswasive experience. This creates the possibility of
mis
interpertation. To resolve this, the author controls the outputed content
by decideing upon a style, or level of quality, that is most akin to the
level or style he originally experienced the idea.
Here is where I see the "rhetorical trinity" comming into play. We may
write on the social level - ethos. Values and morals, in the traditional
sense, are purely a social matter. We may write on an intellectual level -
logos.
This is exemplified in this very post and most technical writtings. We may
write on the emotional level, which is something I would like to discuss
further.
It is obvious that technical writing (i.e. the use of logos) is one of the
things Phaedrus was rebelling against. He saw there to be another level,
one that is closer and more relitive to the reader (or as Pirsig later puts
it, subjective) - emotion. Pirsig see this technicical writing void of all
things personal, thus diminishing the experience's potential greatly.
Remember that motorcycle description Pirsig gives in South Dakota? Or
Aristotle's point by point reduction of rhetoric?
Emotions in rhetoric, emotions in anything, bring the experience to a
richness and quality no other things can give. They are not abstractions,
and certainly not static. If done well, where (although this may sound some
"corney") the writes truly feels what he conveys, he taps into the
perswasive experience itself and the reader truly has no choice but to be
convinced.
I would now like to conclude with a small discussion on how this all relates
to dialectic. The problem with modern dialectic is not contained in the
concept in itself, but in the incompetence of the men using it. Essentially,
to engage in a dialectical conversaion (not behind the screen of a computer,
but face to face) requires the individual to have a solid idea of what they
are arguing, and the ability to create a perswasive experience on the fly,
which entails such things as using the approiate tone of voice, finding
appealing language from an incredibly large vocabularly in a matter of
seconds, and being able to express through body language and the like what
is approiatly. Modern dialectic, when done in person, is probably the most
dynamic experience of all, for it requires all paterns of value to engage in
a way almost impossible to predict.
What essentially happens in modern dialectic is the participants get
overwhelmed and eventually hate it. The problem usually is that the
original idea the person is supposed to stand for is trampled upon by the
experiences of the conversation, and the point is lost. If executed
perfectly, the highest quality solution would be gained, which is the MOQian
version of the truth, however it is generally not because the content gets
in the way. The solution to this is either to abandon dialectic for man
cannot handle it or train oneself to be capable.
The message in all of this, I suppose, is that although technical is indeed
subhuman for lacking rich perswasive experiences, dialectic transcends
humanity, for man looses the subject, thus it no longer exists as the
seperate basis for all of the content, and the situation becomes pointless.
What is needed is some sort of balance. I only have one example of this,
which is the writtings of Nietzsche. He writes poetic philosophy, and
somehow is the only philosopher that convinces me.
Thank you for reading this, and please let me know all of your thoughts, for
I am surely anxious to know them.
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