[MD] Rhetoric

Adrie Kintziger parser666 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 23 07:55:01 PST 2016


very interesting material.

"*[**M]**embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will
sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent
wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same
time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves
desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be
taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.*

*At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will
decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman
to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the
smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist
professors will no longer be calling the shots."*

*---------------------------------------------------*

This alinea is also a transcript of what is happening in Europe. …

2016-11-23 14:49 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:

> David, Adrie, Horse, and all MOQers:
>
> Yes, I've seen Rorty's predictions from 1998. Posted it on my facebook
> page. He had written something very similar about 6 years before that. This
> is from the same essay I quoted here the other day about the University of
> Chicago (the one wherein he mentions Zen and the Art) and I think both
> quotes not only nailed it but could easily serve as a launchpad for
> discussing the conflict between social and intellectual values.
>
> "At the moment there are two cultural wars being waged in the United
> States. The first is the one described in detail by my colleague James
> Davison Hunter in his comprehensive and informative Culture Wars: The
> Struggle to Define America. This war – between the people Hunter calls
> 'progressivists' and those he calls 'orthodox' – is important. It will
> decide whether our country continues along the trajectory defined by the
> Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, the building of the
> land-grant colleges, female suffrage, the New Deal, Brown v. Board of
> Education, the building of the community colleges, Lyndon Johnson's civil
> rights legislation, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement.
> Continuing along this trajectory would mean that America might continue to
> set an example of increasing tolerance and increasing equality. But it may
> be that this trajectory could be continued only while Americans' average
> real income continued to rise. So 1973 may have been the beginning of the
> end: the end both of rising economic expectations and of the political
> consensus that emerged from the New Deal. The future of American politics
> may be just a series of increasingly blatant and increasingly successful
> variations on the Willie Horton spots. Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen
> Here may become an increasingly plausible scenario. Unlike Hunter, I feel
> no need to be judicious and balanced in my attitude toward the two sides
> this first sort of culture war. I see the 'orthodox' (the people who think
> that hounding gays out of the military promotes traditional family values)
> as the same honest, decent, blinkered, disastrous people who voted for
> Hitler in 1933. I see the 'progressivists' as defining the only America I
> care about." -- Richard Rorty, 1992
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of
> Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 6:27 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Rhetoric
>
> Can't be so that it is forbidden to ask horse 's approval to expand a bit
> on
> politics,as a cure for depletion.
> I would support the idea, but the theatre is Horse's area.
>
>
> 2016-11-23 12:59 GMT+01:00 David Harding <david at goodmetaphysics.com>:
>
> > Hi dmb,
> >
> >
> > Ahhh yes - Rorty.  I’m sure you’ve seen all the latest news about him…
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys-
> > 1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I’ve ordered the book as it appears to have been very astute analysis.
> > It’s a shame we can’t discuss politics much here as the MOQ provides
> such a
> > great language to discuss it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent with Unibox
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:05 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > David Harding said to dmb:
> > >
> > >
> > > I do wonder if you agree with the words you write when you’re
> > continually referring to what ‘Pirsig says'. Do you agree with Pirsig?
> > What’s your opinion?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree with Pirsig in particular and with Classical Pragmatism in
> > general. I like to quote Pirsig in order to present and explain the ideas
> > rather than defend them. It seems to me that nearly every "critic" of the
> > MOQ ends up attacking ideas that are NOT actually features of the MOQ but
> > rather products of the critic's misunderstanding. Since there's no point
> in
> > defending a distorted idea that Pirsig never endorsed, it's better to
> > answer the critic by offering an undistorted version of that idea. In
> this
> > case, for example, Tuukka was operating with conspicuously incorrect
> > conceptions of "dialectic" and "rhetoric". Pirsig's own comments on the
> > topic serve as the perfect antidote to poison, I think.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Harding said:
> > >
> > >
> > > On this point I’m not so sure but in your first paragraph you write
> that
> > a traditional understanding of rhetoric and sophistry is fine as there
> are
> > so many hucksters out there. But on this I disagree. I would argue that
> > it’s precisely because of our traditional understanding of these terms
> that
> > there are so many hucksters and deceivers out there. ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > >
> > >
> > > Think of it this way: People use the term "vandalism" to describe
> > pointless destruction and that's find because there are people who
> destroy
> > thing for no particular reason but we can also speak historically about
> the
> > Germanic tribe called "Vandals" and make a case that the conventional
> term
> > is slanderous toward actual Vandals. In the same way, we can use
> > "sophistry" to describe Trump or talk radio hosts but still make a case
> > that this is slanderous toward the actual Sophists of ancient Greece. I
> > mean, if you're talking to Pirsig and he says you're a great rhetorician
> > then you should know that you have not been insulted. Quite the opposite.
> > In that context, you would have been very flattered. But it you're down
> at
> > the local bar and some dude accuses you of sophistry, then you have been
> > insulted (and I would not mind meeting the kind people who hang out there
> > because that's my kind of insult).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Harding said:
> > >
> > >
> > > What’s missed by Socrates is that he, and not the Sophists, is being
> the
> > deceptive one by claiming he doesn’t know what is good. That’s why I
> think
> > it’s our current day Metaphysics, built upon Socrates assumption, that
> > creates this deceptive attitude. One in which the words we speak can be
> > meaningless so who really cares about them anyway? And Quality forget
> that
> > - what’s that? Furthermore, how can you be honest and speak to the
> > wholeness of experience without perceiving and speaking directly of its
> > Quality? And how better to continually do this than with a Metaphysics
> > which points out that all things are built upon it, and so are it? But
> you
> > were probably just giving a throwaway line and I’m reading too much into
> > this but figure it’s worth a chat anyway :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > dmb says:
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not clear what you mean, David, but I'll give an indirect answer
> > and just hope that some of it addresses your concern.
> > >
> > >
> > > Socrates actually ends up looking pretty good. That short epigraph from
> > the front of ZAMM - Do we need anyone to tell us what's Good and what's
> not
> > Good? - that line is put into the mouth of Socrates (in Plato's
> Phaedrus).
> > It's really Plato himself - or rather Platonism in general - that is so
> > much at odds with the MOQ. This isn't just because of the vicious slander
> > against the Sophists but also against the view that Truth is eternal and
> > separate from the world as it appears to us finite mortals. By contrast,
> > Pirsig says that Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the
> > creation of all things, and that means that there is no eternal Truth
> > beyond appearances but only humanly constructed truths within a human
> > context. As William James put it, 'The trail of the human serpent is over
> > all.' This anti-Platonism is a common feature of Pragmatism, the meaning
> of
> > which has been enriched by reading people like William James, John Dewey,
> > and even Richard Rorty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "At the same time as I was worrying about this tension within Platonism
> > – and within any form of what Dewey had called 'the quest for certainty'
>> > I was also worrying about the familiar problem of how one could possibly
> > get a noncircular justification of any debatable stand on any important
> > issue. The more philosophers I read, the clearer it seemed that each of
> > them could carry their views back to first principles which were
> > incompatible with the first principles of their opponents, and that none
> of
> > them ever got to that fabled place 'beyond hypotheses'. There seemed to
> be
> > nothing like a neutral standpoint from which these alternative first
> > principles could be evaluated. But if there were no such standpoint, then
> > the whole idea of 'rational certainty', and the whole Socratic-Platonic
> > idea of replacing passion by reason, seemed not to make much sense." --
> > Richard Rorty, 1992
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:47 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello, MOQers:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I suppose everyone knows that people are suspicious of the emotional
> > language in "rhetoric" and consider "sophistry" to be a form of
> > manipulative deception. The conventional meaning isn't likely to change
> > anytime soon and that's fine because there is empty speech and there are
> > plenty of manipulative deceivers that deserve the name. In telling the
> > story of philosophy Pirsig turns those meanings upside down.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> “Plato’s hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle
> > in which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the
> > reality of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a
> > huge struggle for the future mind of man.” -- Robert Pirsig
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As the story is usually told, rhetoric is too emotional to be
> > considered serious about the truth. Our feelings have no bearing on the
> > truth, this story goes, and clear thinking is about cool logic and
> putting
> > one's passions aside. But, Pirsig says, this story doesn't make as much
> > sense as it used to.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> “It’s been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the
> > passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an
> > understanding of nature’s order which was as yet unknown. Now it’s time
> to
> > further an understanding of nature’s order by reassimilating those
> passions
> > which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the
> affective
> > domain of man’s consciousness, are a part of nature’s order too. The
> > central part.” — Robert Pirsig
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> At certain points in the re-telling and inversion of this old
> > slanderous story Pirsig is downright angry about it. He finally realizes
> > that the Platonic demand for passionless dialectic has the effect of
> > excluding Quality, which is the whole thing for Pirsig.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> “Phædrus’ mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last
> > a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which
> pretends
> > to try and understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real
> > purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to
> usurp
> > them and enthrone itself. Dialectic - the usurper. That is what he sees.
> > The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it
> and
> > control it."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And he's feeling triumphant about this discovery because it turns out
> > that the Sophists weren't demagogues, hucksters, or confidence men. They
> > were teaching Quality and they were teaching it the same way he had been
> > teaching it to his student in Montana.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Lightning hits! Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists
> > were teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue.' But areté.
> > Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before
> > form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been
> > absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching
> Quality,
> > and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And this re-telling of ancient history is part of the book's central
> > project, which is a root expansion of rationality. The criticisms of
> > rationality that he offers almost always involve the problem of objective
> > truth. Value-free science has got to go, he says. Attitudes of
> objectivity
> > make our thinking stiff and narrow and entail a denigration of
> subjectivity
> > so that Quality is JUST what you like, is JUST your opinion or assessment
> > of some thing or other. But this is part of that same old slander against
> > the Sophists and rhetoricians, Pirsig says, and our form of rationality
> > would actually be vastly improved by putting Quality at the cutting edge
> of
> > all experience and all thought. Quality is right there at the very roots
> of
> > our thinking and by including Quality our thinking is broadened and
> > deepened and enriched by the inclusion of the emotional and aesthetic
> > quality that pervades our thought regardless of whether we acknowledge it
> > or not. You gotta have a feel for the work, he says, and that's not just
> > about fixing motorcycles. It's about everything. All the time.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For Pirsig, "rhetoric" simply means excellence in thought and speech.
> > Rhetoric is truer than objective truth because it includes the heart as
> > well the head, so to speak. To talk truthfully will mean that the claim
> is
> > supported by evidence and its expression logically sound, just as before,
> > but that's no longer good enough. Speaking truthfully also means that you
> > care about the truth, have feelings about that truth and maybe your
> > expression shows the power or the beauty of that truth. To move or
> persuade
> > another is not a sinister manipulation or a deception. It's a good thing
> > and we should love it somebody does it right.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > >> Archives:
> > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > >>
> > >
> > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > > moq.org
> > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > >>
> > >
> > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > > moq.org
> > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> moq.org
> > >> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > >> Archives:
> > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > >>
> > >
> > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > > moq.org
> > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > > moq.org
> > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Harding said to
> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> > >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list