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, haven'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 writing, 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 writing. For example, before this post was written, the ideas
existed in my head, separate from this paper. EVEN IF I wrongly think of
some ideas while writing, they still are previously thought of, if only
seconds before translated into text. This makes the subject, at least from
the writer's perspective (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 persuasion takes place
and is in fact an EXPERIENCE on behalf of the reader. Persuasion --
content -- is an experience. The subject is reflected in this experience, as
it acts as a separate but important basis for all that is said, however is
not solely where persuasion comes from. The persuasive experience, or
content, is necessarily and clearly equivalent 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 ultimately indeterminable because he
or she only sees it through what they have experienced. The idea in itself
is a separate experience of the author's and, as mentioned, relates only to
the reader through the persuasive experience. This creates the possibility
of misinterpretation. To resolve this, the author controls the outputted
content by deciding 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" coming into play. We may write
on the social level - ethos. Values and morals, in the traditional sense,
are purely social matters. We may write on an intellectual level - logos.
This is exemplified in this very post and most technical writings. 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 relative to the reader (or as Pirsig later puts it,
subjective) - emotion. Pirsig see this technical 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
"corny") the writes truly feels what he conveys, he taps into the persuasive
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 conversation (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 persuasive experience on
the fly, which entails such things as using the appropriate tone of voice,
finding appealing language from an incredibly large vocabulary in a matter
of seconds, and being able to express through body language and the like
what is appropriately. Modern dialectic, when done in person, is probably
the most dynamic experience of all, for it requires all patterns 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 persuasive experiences, dialectic transcends
humanity, for man looses the subject, thus it no longer exists as the
separate 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 are the writings of Nietzsche. He writes poetic philosophy, and
somehow is the only philosopher that convinces me (yes, I'm even doubtful of
Pirsig at limes).
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