tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36583114922432477122024-03-14T04:27:53.412-06:00The Intelligence of PersuasionA professional blog about persuasion, rhetoric, and leadership as related to current world events and technological revolutions.David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-3212773462059365062020-05-07T08:15:00.001-06:002020-05-07T12:21:02.002-06:00The Night of the Gods: Phillip Marlowe, Science, and the Heideggerian Poet<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Crime novels are often seen as low-brow fiction. The author can entertain with murders and murderers as a puzzle which is eventually solved, and the reader puts the book down with nothing but the thrills to show for it. But the best crime novels also teach us things about the world and our perspective of it.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">In </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Signs Taken
for Wonders: Essays in the Sociology of Literary Forms</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Franco Moretti
describes the role of the detective in classical crime fiction, “Since Poe,
detectives have reflected a </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">scientific</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
ideal: the detective discovers the causal links between events: to unravel the
mystery is to trace them back to a </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">law</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">.”
(144) The criminal is the exception to society, the outsider. “His defeat is
the victory and the purge of a society no longer conceived of as a contract
between </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">independent entities</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">, but
rather as an organism or social </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">body</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">”
(135). Thus it is the role of the detective to conquer over and purge society of
the undesired criminal element. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sherlock Holmes does this by a scientific work
of tracing clues of an act to find the cause of the act. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The crime of the criminal
consists in acting as an individual. The criminal breaks the laws of society,
yet his very act of law-breaking is involuntarily entangled in greater laws of
physics and human behaviour. It is this reality which makes the science of
Sherlock Holmes possible. Though the criminal seeks to hide in the mass, he
leaves clues of his individuality on the machinery and accessories he attempts
to hide behind, which makes detection possible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NIdq5kIhrYg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NIdq5kIhrYg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such is the case in “A Case of
Identity”, where the perpetrator is detected by the typewriter he uses. Thus
the role of Sherlock Holmes in society is to be the counterweight to the
criminals, which restores the balance of society and perpetuates the status quo.
The greater laws of science and human behaviour enable Holmes to reduce the
meaning of an entire plot to a conclusion, a simple unified meaning. In
Sherlock Holmes, “God”, a single organizing principle, is present. His world is
ordered and makes sense. There all answers can be found for someone who knows
how to read the signs.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Hard-boiled
detective fiction shows us a very different reality. In Raymond Chandler’s “Red
Wind” we are introduced into a dark malevolent world of chaos: </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">"There was a desert wind blowing that
night. It was one of those dry Santa Anas that come </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make
your nerves jump and </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">your skin itch. On
nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">the edge of the carving knife and study
their husband’s necks. Anything can happen" (134). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">What is the role of detective
Marlowe in this hostile environment? In the midst of corrupt police, unfaithful
spouses and a world on the brink of anarchy, Marlowe clearly emerges as the
hero of the story. Yet in what actions or attributes does his heroism lie? He
cannot be as Holmes the doctor purging society of its undesired elements; such
a purge in Marlowe’s society would mean genocide. He cannot hope to restore any
semblance of order or civility, since these virtues seem to have been lost long
ago. Marlowe’s society is one where God is absent. There is no unifying
principle which orders and makes sense of events and experiences, and society
seems to be a matter of egocentric entities fighting against each other in a
world of chance. Raymond Chandler himself describes his idea of Marlowe as a hero.
In “The Simple Art of Murder” Raymond Chandler writes, “down these mean streets
a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid...He
must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world.”
(991-992) What makes him the best man in his world?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxUzvhfmm3w/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KxUzvhfmm3w?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">In order to find that out we cannot simply look at his
actions, but rather we ask: What is the motivation behind Marlowe’s work? In
“Red Wind” he rejects any price for his services, although he risks getting
killed for them several times. In other stories he does take payment for his
work, but it seems unlikely that he does his job simply for money. As he says
in “Red Wind”, “I’m not in this for money” (157). All we learn from Chandler in
“The Simple Art of Murder” is, “the story is his adventure in search of a
hidden truth.” Except for searching for the perpetrator of the individual
crimes in the stories, there seems to be a deeper search which permeates
Marlowe’s being.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Marlowe appears as the Heideggerian
poet; the hero of the night of the Gods. The world described in “Red Wind”
seems familiar to the world Heidegger describes in the essay “What Are Poets
For?” from </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Poetry, Language, Thought</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">:
“At this night’s midnight, the destitution of the time is greatest. Then the
destitute time is no longer able even to experience its own destitution”
(90-91). The world is marked by the “default of God”: The absence of a God who
gathers a people to himself. Here I will take God to mean the gathering or
unifying principle which orders the world. This world, which Heidegger says is
without ground (without a foundation) hangs in the abyss. So the
question is, why does someone like Marlowe, who by the author’s own description is
the best man in his world, spend his time in the most depraved and sordid
surroundings? Why does he deal with the very darkest sides of society? Maybe
Heidegger’s poet can give us a clue. “In the age of the world’s night, the
abyss of the world must be experienced and endured. But for this it is necessary
that there be those who reach into the abyss” (90). What is the purpose of
reaching into the abyss? According to Heidegger, once the world has entered
into the night of the gods there can be no salvation in the sudden return of
the gods or by the appearance of a new god. There can be no “back to normal”
without people experiencing what Heidegger calls “a turn” rather than a return.
As Heidegger points out, “The salvation must come from where there is a turn
with mortals in their nature” (115-116), and “there is a turn with mortals when
these find the way to their own nature. That nature lies in this, that mortals
reach into the abyss sooner than the heavenly powers” (91).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">What
is the role of the poet in such a time? Heidegger remarks, “It is a necessary
part of the poet’s nature that, before he can be truly a poet in such an age,
the time’s destitution must have made the whole being and vocation of the poet
a poetic question for him” (92). Although Marlowe needs money to live, he is
not in his job for money. As Heidegger goes on to say, “Poets are the mortals
who...sense the trace of the fugitive gods, stay on the gods’ tracks, and so
trace for their kindred mortals the way towards the turning” (92). Marlowe is
on a hunt which very much differs from Sherlock Holmes'. Rather than doing a
scientific work by tracing causal links between events back to a law, Marlowe
is on an ontological discovery into the very abyss of human society and human
nature. This is not a journey for weak minds. As Heidegger puts it, “Are there
mortals who reach sooner into the abyss of the destitute and its destituteness?
These, the most mortal among mortals, would be the most daring, the most
ventured” (116). “He who is more venturesome than that ground ventures to where
all ground breaks off – into the abyss. . . .Those men who are . . . more venturesome
must also will more strongly” (116).</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">It
is a journey full of uncertainty into the darkness. “He among mortals who must,
sooner than other mortals and otherwise than they, reach into the abyss, comes
to know the marks that the abyss remarks. For the poet, these are the traces of
the fugitive gods.” (91) Unlike Holmes, Marlowe is on a mission where there may
not even be an answer. As Heidegger remarks, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">“Traces are often
inconspicuous, and are always the legacy of a directive that is barely </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">divined. To be a poet in a destitute age
means: to attend, singing, to the trace of the </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">fugitive
gods. This is why the poet in the time of the world’s night utters the holy.
That is </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">why, in Holderlin’s language,
the world’s night is the holy night” (92).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">The nature of Marlowe’s search resembles a scene in
“Red Wind” where he opens up the door to a dark room, “I went into near
darkness. Street light filtered in and touched a high spot here and
there . . . There was a queer smell in the air” (148). Entering into near darkness
Marlowe can detect traces of things. These traces may lead him to conclusions,
but it is hard to know if those conclusions are right. Similarly, the chess
problem Marlowe has set out on the table remains unsolved throughout the entire
story. There is no eureka-moment where everything becomes clear. There are
hints and clues, but no final solution. According to Heidegger, this is how the
search for Being must be in an age marked by the “default of God”: </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">“The
closer the world’s night draws toward midnight, the more exclusively does the </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">destitute prevail, in such a way that
it withdraws its very nature and presence. Not only is </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">the holy lost as the track toward the godhead; even the traces
leading to that lost track are </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">well-nigh
obliterated. The more obscure the traces become the less can a single mortal, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">reaching into the abyss, attend there to
intimations and signs. It is then all the more </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">strictly
true that each man gets farthest if he goes only as far as he can go along the
way </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">allotted to him” (92).</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">In
an age of chaos, it is not possible to have the certainty of Sherlock Holmes.
It may be impossible to solve the entire riddle, or make out clear shapes of
meaning in the darkness. Yet it is this very darkness, the very destituteness
of the world and the default of the gods, which renders mortals able to reach
into the abyss sooner than the heavenly powers, and thereby find a way to their
own nature. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yet
there is an element in hard-boiled detective fiction that makes Heidegger’s
theory an incomplete description of Marlowe’s search. Heidegger envisions
altruistic poets who “trace for their kindred mortals the way towards the
turning,” yet there is no indication in Chandler that Marlowe thought much
about a “turning” or any kind of revolution in public consciousness. In “On Raymond
Chandler” Jameson quotes Chandler writing, “My theory was that the readers just
</span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">thought</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> they cared about nothing but
the action; that really, although they didn’t know it, the thing they cared
about, and that I cared about, was the creation of emotion through dialogue and
description” (122-123). In other words, where Heidegger sees the ontological
discovery as a means to an end, Chandler (and by association Marlowe) seems to
see the discovery or search as an end in itself. Instead of focusing on the
action leading to a certain revelatory end, Chandler gives us the experience of
a good man in a destitute world “in search of a hidden truth.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Chandler, Raymond. “Red Wind” in Penzler 134-160<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">---. “The Simple Art of Murder” in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Raymond
Chandler: Later Novels and Other Writings</i>, New <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>York: The Library of America. 1995. Print.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Heidegger, Martin. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Poetry,
Language, Thought</i>, New York: Perennial. 2001. Print.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Jameson, Frederic. “On Raymond Chandler” in Most and Stowe 122-148<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Moretti, Franco. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Signs Taken for
Wonders: Essays in the Sociology of Literary Forms</i>, London <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>and New York: Verso. 1997. Print.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Most, Glenn W. and Stowe, William W. ed. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Poetics of Murder: Detective Fiction and Literary Theory</i>, San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovic Publishers. 1983.
Print. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Penzler, Otto, ed. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Black
Lizard Big Book of Pulps,</i> New York: Vintage Books. 2007. Print<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-1054346541835038892020-04-18T07:40:00.002-06:002022-12-17T23:32:09.892-07:00Indirect Vision: How Learning Not To Focus Can Help You Succeed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's been over a month since all of Norway went into lockdown, meaning that I teach my classes and do my research from home (and defended my dissertation over Zoom!) while my wife and I at the same time are running a full-time homeschool and kindergarten. Luckily, we have a trampoline in our garden, so the kids get plenty of fun and exercise. Getting rather tired of jumping myself, I invented a game where I could lie down and throw soft balls at the kids, and they have to either dodge or hit them out of the way. My 7-year old son was getting pretty good at it, so I upped the game a bit. I would throw a slow looping ball towards his head (again, they were soft) and a fast-ball towards his stomach. He got frustrated because he could only focus on and knock one ball out of the way at a time, and then the other ball would hit him as they arrived at the same time. "I can't do this!" he cried, and then I gave him a lesson I had learned from juggling:<br />
<b>"You have to learn not to focus."</b><br />
<br />
At first he was a bit puzzled, so I explained that he could look past me to the bench on the lawn. Soon, he was doing double-blocks like a ninja and felt like he had just unlocked a superhero skill, and he was right. <i>Learning not to focus </i>is a skill that is crucial to success in many arenas. I mean this both in a literal and metaphorical sense, and the skill is called <i>indirect vision</i>.<br />
<br />
Indirect vision is defined as "vision resulting from rays of light falling upon peripheral parts of the retina" or "vision as it occurs outside the point of fixation." Simply put, it is all the visual input your eye gets and processes without focusing on an object. This is quite a significant amount. When you focus on something, your field of vision is about 5 degrees, whereas when you don't focus your field of vision is 200-220 degrees.<br />
<br />
<img alt="File:Peripheral vision.svg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Peripheral_vision.svg/600px-Peripheral_vision.svg.png" /><br />
<br />
You can experience this yourself. Look straight ahead and have a person behind you move an object from behind you to in front of you. Alert them the moment you can detect movement, and tell them to stop. You will see that you detected the object already as it was about 90 degrees from the direction you were looking in. This is because our eyes are not just holes. The eye does actually extend out of the body (though not to such a mad extent as the house fly, which does have almost 360 degree vision but can't focus).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg46ymdFnRGjeg94KGp2LyY-ySrBFog25BK01OpcUhlIMjh0rIkeacA8ZgAEvsYTk8dggjaYArtav-HqzEVuBYsqm2X_xDdUwi12-Tk9UgQKVqXYYr3XU3tyJqQAmWufnqPlKdW4FSjOSc/s1600/Mairead_cropped.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="654" data-original-width="914" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg46ymdFnRGjeg94KGp2LyY-ySrBFog25BK01OpcUhlIMjh0rIkeacA8ZgAEvsYTk8dggjaYArtav-HqzEVuBYsqm2X_xDdUwi12-Tk9UgQKVqXYYr3XU3tyJqQAmWufnqPlKdW4FSjOSc/s320/Mairead_cropped.png" width="320" /></a></div>
(Image from Paul Savage - https://www.flickr.com/photos/45202571@N00/60833726/)<br />
<br />
This unfocused vision gives you less quality of perception, but much greater quantity. Indirect vision is excellent at (a) recognition of well-known structures and forms, (b) identification of similar forms and movements, and (c) delivery of sensations which form the background of detailed visual perception.<br />
<br />
It is an ability that all humans have, but it is an elite skill to recognize, trust, and fully utilize the functions of this ability. This is especially true in elite sports where the athletes have to keep track of many moving parts at the same time. Here is a prominent example.<br />
<br />
<b>Football: Bruno Fernandes (Manchester United)</b><br />
Since his arrival at Manchester United in January, Bruno Fernandes has been on fire. With him in the team, Manchester United have not lost a single game and have taken more points than anyone else in the Premier League except Liverpool. One of the key attributes about him that have been praised by pundits, teammates, and his manager is that he is "one or two steps ahead of everyone else." Bruno always seems to know what he should do with the ball before he gets it, and the key to that is that he frequently scans the football field. Just a glance over his shoulder, but he quickly perceives and processes the key threats and passing opportunities. How does he do this? By relying on indirect vision.<br />
<br />
It was previously believed that it takes the eye about 100 milliseconds to detect an image, but <a href="http://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116" target="_blank">new research from MIT</a> has shown that your eyes can successfully detect and identify images in only 13 milliseconds, and that limit was only determined because it was impossible for the computer monitor in the experiment to shift the images shown to the research subjects quicker. This means the eye can process almost a shocking 77 images per second rather than the previously believed 10 images per second. The lead scientist theorized "one reason for the subjects’ better performance in this study may be that they were able to practice fast detection as the images were presented progressively faster, even though each image was unfamiliar" (Trafton). The images were also familiar shapes rather than abstract art.<br />
<br />
This is how Bruno is able to pull off this impressive feat. Although indirect vision gives less quality, it is good at (a) recognition of well-known structures and forms and (b) identification of similar forms and movements. This is one reason why it is important for football players that the kits of the two teams are not too similar. Since they have to rely a lot on their indirect vision, they want to be able to just have to detect the right color to know if they can play the pass to them or need to avoid them. The best playmakers are able to detect patterns of play and movement in milliseconds and can make snap decisions about how to progress the ball up the field. Everybody has indirect vision, but the best players have learned to rely on it instinctively and can match the input with their tactical and experiential knowledge to create magic.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EVffRia9nNg/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EVffRia9nNg?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The same is true of elite performers in speed chess: they keep most of the chess board in their indirect vision and can accurately perceive and replicate the moves made by the opponent in milliseconds. Again, this is because the moves, the chess board, and the pieces are all familiar and they can tap into those trained patterns to process the data. For trained practitioners, indirect vision can tell them everything they need to know in order to act.<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Not To Focus Your Mind</b><br />
This ability transfers to our mental patterns as well. It's a common misconception that our mind is a completely separate thing from our bodies. Rather, we think through our bodies. The senses and processes of our bodies gave our minds all the input they had to develop and learn the patterns of life. We express what our mind does based on what we can do with our bodies, showing the same relationship: We "digest" information, we "grasp" a concept, and we "wrestle" with a problem, describing actions of our stomach, hand, and muscles. This does not mean that the mind can be reduced to the body, but it shows that there is a strong relationship. This is especially true about our eyes and ability to see: the primary sense humans have had to rely upon for their survival. Our neural patterns mirror the input they receive from foveal or "central" vision and indirect vision.<br />
<br />
We talk about "focus," which is a function of our eyes, and equate it with narrow and intense concentration, but we often disregard what happens when we are not focusing and devalue it with terms such as "unconcentrated," "unfocused," or "scatter-brained." A lot of time is spent on teaching people to "focus" and even to "hyperfocus," as exemplified in the video below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vZlX1k-YQAw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vZlX1k-YQAw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
It is not my intention here to disparage that work, but focusing A can often lead to the neglect of B, and I want to point out some of the things this focus on focus misses and why learning not to focus at times can be crucial to success. However, first I have to make it clear what I am describing and clear up one likely objection: <b>not focusing is NOT the same thing as inattention or laziness, it's just a different kind of attention or work</b>. Indirect vision is "focused," as it were, on a broader field of vision which may pick up less details but covers more ground.<br />
<br />
I could expound more on this principle, but here are a few examples:<br />
<br />
1. The Observer Effect and Early Childhood Development<br />
<br />
You can't observe something or "focus" on something without changing it. According to quantum mechanics, even subatomic particles change their nature based on the focus of an observer. While that might just be a theoretical reality, this is definitely true in social science studies such as psychology, and it is also the case in parenting. Many parents are hyperfocused on their kids, making great sacrifices of time and money to make sure that all their needs are cared for and that they have no limits to their development. However, sometimes it is that very focus that can be one of the greatest impediments to their development.<br />
<br />
Imagine there are two toddler's playing together. They are relating now to somebody at their own level, without large differences in size, power, or ability. As soon as an adult enters the picture, the dynamic between the toddlers sometimes changes almost instantly. A source of attention and adoration, a greater power, and the "bringer of food and changer of nappies" has now entered their universe.<br />
<br />
The same is true of a child concentrating (focusing) individually on a task and hitting a barrier. On their own, a new part of their brain starts problem-solving, but with the focused attention of a parent the answer is only a cry for help away. It's like trying to learn maths with the answer sheet in front of you. <br />
<br />
I am not saying that parents don't have a responsibility to model appropriate behavior, help the children learn how to solve problems, or (most importantly) keep the child safe from too great physical danger. What I am trying to point out is that there is a need, place, and time for a different kind of attention: the quick look around the corner to make sure the toddler is alright as they stack bricks into towers and knock them down, looking out the window now and then as the kids and their friends learn how to play a new game together, allowing them spaces where parents do not intrude or interrupt except in cases of emergency. One good unsupervised act is worth twenty supervised ones, and the magic of unstructured play needs to be undisturbed from the too focused presence of parents. It's similar to "pulling up a flower to see how the roots are doing. Put another way, too many anxious openings of the oven door, and the cake falls instead of rising. Moreover, enforced change usually does not last, while productive enduring can ingrain permanent change" (Neal A. Maxwell, "Endure It Well").<br />
<br />
2. Management and Micro-managing<br />
<br />
When people without experience in leadership get promoted to leadership they are in danger of becoming micro-managers. They want to put in a lot of effort, and very often they think that effort has to come in the form of focused attention to each of the people they are supposed to be leading. While this can do some good in certain instances, very often these leaders tend to wear out themselves and the people they are supposed to lead by their excessive focus. Moreover, any gains in productivity are likely to disappear again as soon as the effort is reduced or another manager is brought in.<br />
<br />
The more sustainable model is one who leads with indirect vision, recognizing patterns and keeping an eye on the processes going on, but also knows to step back and let a natural good dynamic develop, adding some encouragement here and some help there. This model is more like the farmer or gardner who keeps an overview of the processes going on but knows not to interfere too much in them.<br />
<br />
3. General vs. Specific Knowledge<br />
<br />
In academia, and the sciences in particular, specialization or hyperfocusing is the name of the game. It has come to the point where even different branches of physics or chemistry may have little understanding of the work that is going on in the other branches. Generalists are inherently suspicious, crossing from one discipline to another is seen as indicative of lack of depth or discipline, and a wide spread of publications is often punished in tenure or promotion reviews. Yet some very innovative insights have come from people who were able to cross the disciplinary boundaries, and this has often been the birthplace of new disciplines. John von Neumann started in mathematics but also became a foundational figure in game theory, nuclear physics, computer science, and international relations. Kenneth Burke felt uncomfortable with the rigidness of academic disciplines and therefore never completed a degree or stayed teaching at any academic institution for too long, and he has become an authority in communication, rhetoric and composition, literature, and many of the social sciences, influencing figures such as Goffmann, Francis Ferguson, Renè Girard, and many others.<br />
<br />
I am usually skeptical of conferences with too broad topics, since these can often be predatory, but in the midst of this hyperspecialization there is an important place for conferences such as TED. Here, people from many walks of life meet together and listen short presentations of inspiring and interesting stories and projects prepared for a general audience. Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, describes how he at the first day of his first conference started out amused, then confused as there seemed to be no common thread to what they all were saying, and then his mind started to cross-polinate ideas from all these different areas into new and remarkable insights. He could only get to this point by taking in a "wide vision" of impressions and ideas without focusing too much on each individual one, and that brought him much more than any conference he had ever been to before. He became aware of "the interconnectedness of knowledge," even in an age of specialization.<br />
<br />
Like my son, we often encounter situations where a lot of balls are coming towards us at the same time, and the best way to respond to these challenges long-term may be learning not to focus on each one of them too much, but keep our eyes on the bigger picture.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-14174310686270805332018-04-12T05:22:00.002-06:002018-04-12T06:21:50.955-06:00Overview of Pedagogical Posts on Rhetoric<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hi everyone! This blog has become quite vast after a while, and I thought it might be useful to gather some of the more pedagogical posts on rhetoric together so teachers and students can use it as a learning tool. Below are some rhetorical concepts and theorists I hope I have helped to elucidate (make clearer, more understandable) and the links to blog posts dealing with them.<br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<b style="font-size: x-large;">Kairos</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2013/04/newtown-gun-control-and-importance-of.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Newtown, Gun Control, and the Importance of Kairos</a><br />
<div>
A post explaining the concept of kairos and applying it to the Newton school shooting.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Stasis</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2012/11/classical-rhetoric-and-2012.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Classical Rhetoric and the 2012 Presidential Debates</a></div>
A post explaining the concept of stasis and applying it to the first 2012 presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Topoi and Topos of the Tyrant</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2014/02/whats-not-to-like-about-tyrant.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;" target="_blank">What's Not To Like About A Tyrant?</a><br />
A post explaining the classical rhetorical exercise called the topos of the tyrant with examples<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2016/04/why-trump-is-tyrant.html" target="_blank">Why Trump is a Tyrant</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman";">An application of the rhetorical exercise "topos of the tyrant" to a relevant modern case</span></div>
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Chaim Perelman's Overview of Arguments</span></h3>
<div>
These posts are a series describing the different arguments Chaim Perelman and Lucie Albrechts-Tyteca categorized, how they work, and how they can be defeated.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2015/04/philosophical-rhetoric-beginners-guide.html" target="_blank">Philosophical Rhetoric: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman's Quasi-Logical Arguments, Part </a>I</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2015/09/a-beginners-guide-to-perelmans-quasi.html" target="_blank">A Beginner's Guide to Perelman's Quasi-Logical Arguments: Part II</a></div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2016/01/arguments-and-structure-of-reality.html" target="_blank">Arguments and the Structure of Reality: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman, Part III</a></span></h3>
<div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2016/07/arguments-to-establish-structure-of.html" target="_blank">Arguments to Establish a Structure of Reality: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman, Part IV</a></span></h3>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-1985587025940724612018-02-06T04:24:00.000-07:002018-02-07T01:38:42.897-07:00Blockchain, Bitcoin, and the Conservation of Information<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A lot of these thoughts are inspired by or based on a lecture given by Torbjørn Bull Jenssen, Senior Economist at Menon Economics. He completed his MSc in Economics at University of Oslo in 2014 with the master thesis "Why Bitcoins Have Value, and Why Governments are Skeptical" (available <a href="https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/40966" target="_blank">here</a>). The lecture was titled "Blokk-kjede: Et nytt teknologiparadigme" ("Blockchain: A New Technological Paradigm").<br />
<br />
Now this is of course way off the area of my expertise (rhetoric), but at the same time I found a lot of implicit and explicit rhetoric going on in the discourse concerning blockchain and Bitcoin. Here are four of the impressions I took away from the presentation:<br />
<br />
1. Blockchain is essentially a conservative technology<br />
<br />
The technology is described very briefly in the video below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6WG7D47tGb0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6WG7D47tGb0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
According to Wikipedia, " A blockchain, originally block chain, is a continuously growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography. Each block typically contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. By design, a blockchain is <i>inherently resistant to modification</i> of the data. It is 'an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way'. For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically <i>managed by a peer-to-peer network</i> collectively adhering to a protocol for validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block<i> cannot be altered retroactively</i> without the alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires <i>collusion of the network majority.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So in a sense, the blockchain technology is an attempt to create permanence in a fluid online universe, but without a centralized source guaranteeing that permanence. At its base, the technology is a ledger, but one where the credibility of the ledger has been transferred from the bank clerk to the technology. In that sense, blockchain is a modern museum archive or vault. The technology is designed for the conservation of information in the same way as the archive or vault is designed to conserve precious texts or artifacts. The difference is that the menace is not rust or mice, but rather hackers and government agencies who can usually steal or corrupt data. The blockchain solution to this threat is rather ingenious. Rather than retaining the original information in a safe place, the information is protected by active usage and proliferation, requiring all future transactions to repeat the original information of every transaction that has been made so far.<br />
<br />
Of course, this does not guarantee that the blockchain cannot be changed, but it is increasingly costly to do so for every transaction (because the encryption chain gets longer). And that brings me to point number two:<br />
<br />
2. Safety lies not in the impossibility but rather the costliness of the attempted hacking.<br />
<br />
Safety is never complete, it is never absolute. Any wall that is built can be climbed or breached, any rules set up can be bent or broken. Asking "how do you prevent theft?" can be compared with the question "how do you prevent war?" The answer is that you can never be certain of preventing either, but you can do your very best to discourage it by making it an extremely costly endeavour. The claim is that the amount of computing power and resources needed to breach the blockchain system is so costly that the attempt simply does not make financial sense (the computing power alone to breach Bitcoin is estimated to cost upward of 2 billion dollars). This supposes some things of course, and makes some assumptions that can be challenged (for example, it does not account for a radical increase in computing power that could come with quantum computers etc.) but it is similar to the argument Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite), Orville Wright (co-inventor of the airplane), and Niels Bohr (inventor of the trigger for the plutonium bomb) made for increasing the costliness of war: once the object to be gained (victory) is no longer worth the transaction cost (the destruction of all major cities on both sides), the incentive for that act is gone.<br />
<br />
3. Bitcoin (one of the products using the blockchain technology) is more than a technology, it has in some ways become a sovereignty unto itself, with its own form of governance and government (with power divided and in some way balanced between developers, miners, and users). When it comes to Bitcoin, the system and its safety cannot be reduced to the blockchain technology. Rather, there is a complex web of ideologically motivated people, exchanges, and other systems and actors with diverse incentives, who make this work. Bitcoin, exactly because it is all online, generally has to fend off or sustain more attacks than other currencies, but there are significant computing and brain power invested in its security and success. Rather than having a one-time technology (blockchain) that forever will have solved the problem of security, the Bitcoin community is all about further development and innovation. In some ways, this is similar to Alexis de Tocqueville's argument about monarchy and democracy. Monarchies are inherently stable, but then have to go through violent crises of succession whenever the king dies. Democracy is the crisis of succession made permanent, where "a king dies" every 2 or 4 years. This makes the peaceful transfer of power possible, because the people have been well trained to handle this kind of crisis. The system of world finance many in the Bitcoin community envision is also reminiscent of H.G.Wells' vision in <i>The Open Conspiracy </i>(written and published in 1928)<i> </i>where he describes a world system more governed by scientific criticism and merit than politics. Rather than resembling older forms of governance, he the World Republic would be something altogether different, and envisions a decentralized meritocracy where facts and scientific criticism of ideas (comparable to the mechanisms driving physics) will be the main forms of influence.<br />
(You can follow the cryptocurrency market development here https://www.worldcoinindex.com/)<br />
<br />
4. Implicit in both blockchain and bitcoin is an inherently libertarian ideology. How can a technology be ideological? Well, Freeman Dyson says a technology is ideological in the sense of what it makes easier or more difficult. For example, the atomic bomb makes offense the best defense, and in that sense it strengthens a hawklike aggressive military ideology. Bitcoin is inherently libertarian because it makes easier (almost inevitable) the libertarian choices and preferences for governance, and relationship between the government and the governed. Individual freedom and privacy are inherently made easier than oversight and control.<br />
<br />
This of course leads to all kinds of abuses, with Bitcoin being used to pay for illicit activities, but it also makes it the preferred method to donate to many human rights activists and campaigners in countries with oppressive government control of the financial system. It opens up banking to the 2-4 billion people who do not currently have access to a well-functioning banking system, and it opens up payments to people and countries currently under sanctions by the US. In a way, it opens the way for "economic freedom" and removes barriers for parties who for whatever reason want to exchange money. According to libertarian ideology, this (although it can have some negative effects) overall is a good thing for human creativity and happiness. Left to themselves, without heavy oversight or intervention from state powers, humankind is most likely to be happy and prosperous.<br />
<br /></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-84118991043542257432017-12-07T05:20:00.001-07:002017-12-07T05:25:12.046-07:00Freedom or Stability: Terministic Screens of World Politics and Their Rhetorics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."<br />
<br />
In his book, <i>No Apology: The Case for American Greatness</i>, presidential candidate Mitt Romney looks at the main state actors on the world stage and compares them to businesses with different business models. He sees the American leadership of the world weakening because "nothing is as vulnerable as entrenched success," a proverb he learned from his father's business experience. At the time, some criticized his assessment of Russia and China as being too "Cold War-ish," although many of his critics have later apologized and said <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/opinions/obama-romney-russia-opinion-drucker/index.html" target="_blank">"Romney Was Right About Russia."</a> It may be a part of an occupational psychosis for a business man to see everything as likened to a business model, but that perspective also gave some interesting insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each nation's plan for success.<br />
<br />
Today I'd like to do something similar, based on my occupational psychosis as a rhetorician, and give a brief overview of some of the main perspectives on world politics that the major actors use to make sense of things. These are different lenses or screens through which world events can be viewed, and it can help us to make sense of the logic that dictates or at least guides their actions, their moves and countermoves. As Kenneth Burke wrote, these different screens each turn our attention to different things and shows different meaningful relationships. He writes in <i>Language as Symbolic Action</i>: "Even if any given terminology is a <i>reflection </i>of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a <i>selection</i> of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a <i>deflection</i> of reality" (45). So here are a two of the screens and some feature of reality that they reflect, select, and deflect.<br />
<u><br /></u>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Freedom</u></b></div>
Though this has often been a smokescreen to hide the real motivation (selfish national interest) it is also true that many choices have been made in US foreign policy that were not based on the goal of getting any immediate gain, but rather serving the long term benefit and freedom of a large group of people.<br />
<br />
Following WWII, it would have been possible for the US to maintain their world leadership and keep all the other nations, who were all broken from WWII, in subjugation and disorder. Instead, they instituted the United Nations, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and offered the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of Europe. They even offered, with the Baruch Plan, to share their knowledge of the atomic bomb and allow the United Nations to control all the uranium in America and in the world in general. As the world's only functioning economy, the world's only nuclear power at the time, and the largest and most advanced military in the world, the US could easily have become oppressive world masters, but they chose instead a course that led to unprecedented freedoms and wealth for millions of people around the world.<br />
<br />
The seeds for this way of thinking goes back to the American revolution, where the greatest thing to be feared was the tyrant, and the greatest thing to be preserved for all was liberty. As Kenneth Burke writes in <i>A Grammar of Motives</i>:<br />
<br />
"Considering the Constitution, then, as an enactment arising in history, hence a dialectic act, we find something like this: Thrust A (the will of the monarch) had called forth a parry A1 (the 'rights' of the people). A document is formed that memorializes and perpetuates this parry. And it survives, in its memorialization, after the role of the opponent, whose thrust called forth this parry has been removed" (365).<br />
<br />
We find this anti-tyrannical attitude in Thomas Jefferson's quote about too much and too little law:<br />
<br />
" … were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, the great societies cannot exist without government. The savages, therefore, break them into small ones."<br />
<br />
With this frame of mind, one looks over the world and wants to see liberty. When one sees what resembles "the tyrant" and an absence of the rights set down in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution as universal rights and self-evident truths, one immediately looks at how one can relieve and free the oppressed from the burdens of a tyrant. The assumption is, as Winston Churchill states, that when the people of the Earth are free they will move into "broad, sunlit uplands."<br />
<br />
This sentiment is well and alive today, most notably in the US and Europe, with some very recent "converts" to this perspective in former Soviet Union states like Georgia and the Baltics. Here is a passionate defense of that perspective by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, denouncing Russia and envisioning a future of free nation states, without empires.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B4vSocpB9no/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B4vSocpB9no?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
Though it has recently suffered a set-back in the US, with the "America First" policy of Donald Trump, John McCain and others both on the left and right side of the aisle still speak in defense of freedom and denounce tyranny and oppression in all its forms. Here as recently as in November.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D6U_FwfXCL0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D6U_FwfXCL0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<u>Reflection of Reality</u><br />
This terministic screen really does reflect an important reality in the world: There is a real difference between freedom and oppression. There is a difference in terms of which governments kill huge swaths of their citizens. Communist regimes have killed a total of between 83 and 100 million of their own citizens, with just the administrations of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Khmer Rouge alone killing between 21 and 70 million. In general, there is also a difference long-term in economic development and prosperity, and innovation (though Russia and China so far have been able to introduce market reforms without allowing for full democratic freedoms). Freedom vs. oppression also seems to have a rather universal appeal, with people all over the world willing to dedicate their lives to be able to live in freedom.<br />
<br />
<u>Selection and Deflection of Reality</u><br />
What does this perspective miss? Why doesn't freedom flourish as soon as dictators are killed and regimes are toppled? Why is there a current movement even in free nation state democracies to elect parties and implement policies that are antithetical to this dedication to freedom? Well, a few things:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Freedom isn't easy.</b><br />
Freedom can be great, but it can also be a huge burden. For people who were used to be told what to do and what to think, freedom can be disorienting, leading many to feel lost, abandoned, and alienated. Suzanne Langer claims that many Germans, growing up with an authoritarian system, felt disoriented in the modernistic Weimar Republic, and this made them easy prey for the collectivized lures of Nazism and Communism. Except for the absence of tyranny, what does freedom even mean for the average person? What does freedom mean to you if there is nothing you want to be free to do? In some ways, it can be a bit like what Ryan Hamilton says about freedom and being single (starting at 2 minutes.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T8OTlsfCDt8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T8OTlsfCDt8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
For many people from the former Soviet Union, who were used to having the state plan and provide for them, freedom soon seemed more like abandonment. It may be similar for some Muslims who transition from rigid moral codes to countries where you can pretty much "do whatever you want" and react by seeking fundamentalist clerics online and become radicalized. Though economic aid, meaningful work, idealistic social projects, a strong social bond, and friendships can ease these plagues of modernity and transitions from authoritarianism, the hard truth may be that some will in the end still reject this because <i>they simply don't want freedom</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Tyranny can be better than anarachy</b><br />
Though state actors have been responsible for mass killings on a large scale, most people in the world are not killed by their own governments, for the simple fact that it is not in their interest. If nothing else, governments need people for tax revenue, recruits for the military, and to provide a labor force, so even the worst governments in the world provide some benefits to their populations. As long as you are not a threat to the government and control your tongue you can usually do your work and go about your everyday life without too much interference. People can live in the most oppressive conditions as long as there is some degree of predictability. Anarchy, on the other hand, can lead to a brutal war of everyone against everyone, with constantly shifting power structures, uncontrolled violence, and where what is praised one day can be punished the next day. That is a situation that is truly intolerable for people to live in. There is nothing as uncivil as a civil war, with neighbor fighting against neighbor. In comparison to this, even the most oppressive regime becomes tolerable and preferable. Which brings me to my next perspective.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Stability</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
For a while in college, I for some reason found myself listening quite a bit to an English-speaking Chinese radio station, and it was so interesting to observe how world events and news were covered on that station. The overwhelming term around which all evaluations of the world swirled was "stability". Whenever a protest, a war, an election, or anything else was covered, it was all seen through the prism of stability: "X country has returned to stability, Y country has recently been destabilized, the destabilization was caused by Z. Prospects are not good for having the country make a quick return to stability." It struck me that they reported the world news somewhat the way I am used to hearing reporting about the financial markets and stock exchanges. At some level, I am wondering whether this goes back to the Confucian focus on <i>harmony</i>, with harmony being a greater and more important virtue than truth. Another word for harmony is balance, and balance is a manifestation of stability.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Incidentally, this is a view shared with Vito Corleone (The Godfather) and Donald Trump. Vito Corleone observes that a gang war between the crime families is "bad for business" and therefore seeks harmony rather than vengeance (at least in the short term). Perhaps for similar reasons, Donald Trump thought Michael Gorbachev was a bad leader and praised the Communist regime in China based on their ability to maintain stability. This is from an interview he gave in 1990:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand. [...] Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a wonderful leader - and we should continue giving him credit, because he's destroying the Soviet Union."</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The promise of stability has always been the lure of authoritarianism in its different forms, and the prism of stability makes you see a well-functioning democracy and a stable dictatorship as almost equivalent. With this perspective, it makes sense to knock down popular protests as though they were insurgent groups or foreign agents: after all, they are agents of instability, the devil in this moral hierarchy. Here is Vladimir Putin using that argument for all it is worth to defend supporting the Syrian regime, despite the fact that Assad's regime has killed most of the 250,000 killed in the Syrian Civil War.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f6USXGp_K9s/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f6USXGp_K9s?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Of course, even he speaks of democratization as being the ideal (though he actively undermines that same process for his own citizens in Russia). This just shows how prevalent the "freedom" lens is still in the world. He is arguing for stability, but needs to do so in the language of freedom.<br />
<br />
<u>Reflection of Reality</u><br />
As I said, the yearning for stability is deeply ingrained in the human mind. With stability comes a measure of predictability, and with predictability comes a measure of safety. In some areas and countries, regimes focused on stability have been able to more effectively provide for the safety of the inhabitants than regimes focused on freedom. Even in democracies there is a provision called "martial law" where normal rights and procedures are abandoned in order to deal more effectively with an emergency or a crisis. In some ways, this is an admission that freedom is a burden and a luxury which can be put to the side in times of great need. The "stability" perspective maintains the importance of an aspect of reality that is essential. Even for the American military a "failed state" or "power vacuum" is the nightmare scenario. As far as it goes, modern world politics disprove or at least does not agree with Jefferson that no law is better than too much law.<br />
<br />
<u>Selection and Deflection of Reality</u><br />
So what does this perspective miss? Why have so many people in past and modern times rebelled against and toppled regimes that were very adept at providing the basic needs of stability and predictability?<br />
<br />
<b>1. Freedom and stability are not mutually exclusive</b><br />
You have to be a pretty bad leader to lose in a contest between your selfish but stable leadership and anarchy, but these are not the only options on the table. In the United Kingdom there has been some form of representational government at least since 1430, and yet it has been one of the most stable and predictable countries in the world by almost any measure during the last almost 600 years. The United States of America has enjoyed over 150 years without a civil war or major domestic dispute, despite absorbing the largest amount of diversity, immigration, and social change in any nation during that time. In addition, during the same time span both these countries have pretty consistently been among the most innovative and the most wealthy nations in the entire world. Yes, these patterns of peaceful, stable, and reliable democratic coexistence are not easy to create, but they have been replicated in nation after nation using these two as an example.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikVTPLbxb8HKRpBkFFCqatLdaywY1zISk1FA4g7UPTdFI6tbeYoQqkRj7CFyH4_aYerGK7oe7sy5ZKVgTPxAZyt7OEs9Zkg0sgWZKJA4guLVt-pv0uA20OJxLlkPFSkHUjBZ8Z4E4AZFI/s1600/democracy_advance_gif.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="589" data-original-width="1024" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikVTPLbxb8HKRpBkFFCqatLdaywY1zISk1FA4g7UPTdFI6tbeYoQqkRj7CFyH4_aYerGK7oe7sy5ZKVgTPxAZyt7OEs9Zkg0sgWZKJA4guLVt-pv0uA20OJxLlkPFSkHUjBZ8Z4E4AZFI/s640/democracy_advance_gif.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Yes, you need some time, both the US and England fought civil wars early in their democratic experiments. Yes, you need strong institutions. Yes, you need a somewhat enlightened electorate. It's not easy, but stable and reliable democratic governance is possible. And the benefit of that governance is pretty convincing. As Vox reports, "At the same time as democracy spread globally, every objective metric of human welfare jumped up dramatically. Between 1950 and early 2011, global life expectancy jumped from 47 to 70. From 1990 to 2011, the percentage of people who died before turning five fell by about half. The percent of people killed by war is 1/30th of what it was in the late 1940s. 721 million fewer people live in poverty today than in 1981." In comparison to this, the feeble promise authoritarians give of "stability" is pretty pathetic.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Dictatorships lack a mechanism for change, renewal, and improvement</b><br />
On a pretty fundamental level, democracies and authoritarian regimes operate on the basis of some very different assumptions about people. For authoritarian regimes, the population is a threatening and irrational mob that needs to be controlled, trained, and supervised. They need to be organized by a superior intelligence who then rules by decree supported by force. However, there is nothing innate in those who arrive at the highest echelons of power in those regimes that endows them with superior intelligence to those in the population (unless the population can be kept stupid and ignorant by artificial means). Therefore, it is likely that ideas, mechanisms, and methods superior to those developed by the regime will be developed by the populace, and they will definitely be developed by neighboring free nations that do not supress these ideas in the same way. In order to keep up with the rest of the world, these regimes will have to reward merit, and once they reward merit they also give power. Once they give power, then sooner or later their own grasp of it becomes threatened.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Union needed an enlightened elite to keep up with the US in the nuclear race, but this at the same time put the future success of the Soviet Union into their hands, thereby giving them influence. This influence was then used by the likes of Andrei Sakharov, who invented the Soviet hydrogen bomb, to undermine or change the rigid structures of the Soviet Union. In the 1980s he "helped to initiate the first independent legal political organizations and became prominent in the Soviet Union's growing political opposition."<br />
<br />
In democracies, brilliant people and ingenious ideas can rise to the top without any threat to the system. Rather than gathering a movement to overthrow a regime violently, they can peacefully join political parties, debate their ideas, and win local or national elections. People who see errors or imperfections can join with others to remedy them, and if the errors or imperfections are significant enough they will sooner or later gain power to do so. As long as there are strong institutions and ideals to manage the "crisis" of a national election, there is no great instability or risk inherent in the transfer of power. Although democracies at times elect people completely unsuited for their office, overall democracies have produced some of the most eloquent, capable, and intelligent leaders, and have been spearheading the reduction of poverty and increase in health and standard of living. In an authoritarian regime you are either the organizer or the organized, whereas democracies allow people to both organize and be organized in turn. Below is an eloquent statement on this by Robert F. Kennedy (starting at 2:40).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vX68fMPEKT4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vX68fMPEKT4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<u>Rhetorics of These</u><br />
So how does this all influence the rhetoric used by the proponents for each of these systems? For the proponents of <b>stability</b>, the most important thing is to always hold up the devil of instability to scare the populace. In order to do so credibly, these regimes will sometimes create <i>artificial instability</i> in order to have a clear deterrent. Russia has fomented ethnic and religious tensions in Azerbajan, Ingusjetia, Abkhasia, and South Ossetia, Stalin divided the Fergana Valley into four nations in order to create tensions between population groups (preventing a direct rebellion against his rule), and Putin is currently more interested in prolonging the Syrian civil war than actually bringing it to a close. In addition, it serves their interest to create civil discord in the "so-called" stable democracies. In the 60s, the KGB were planning to assassinate Martin Luther King jr. and install Stokely Carmichael as the head of the civil rights movement, since he was more favorable towards a more violent approach. At the same time, they were supporting the Black Panthers and other paramilitary groups financially, because doing so could weaken the United States. More recently, they have used Facebook, Twitter, fake news websites, hacking, and intimidation to organize protests and events aimed at stoking racial and religious tensions, and creating disillusionment among the populace. And they are also providing funds and arms to the Taliban to prolong the war in Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
Proponents of <b>freedom</b> on the other hand will look for and support initiatives, groups, and people who are trying to limit or fight against tyrannies. Sometimes they will take the zeal too far, and not pay attention to the dangers posed by instability. Being used to the proponents of <b>stability</b> using this as a scare tactic, they will often disregard warnings against or be blind to the dangers that come with giving freedom to areas without strong institutions and with long histories of ethnic and religious tensions. The invasion and subsequent "democratization" of Iraq showed quite clearly the dangers of that blindness. The current state of affairs in Libya, where people are again sold as slaves in the marketplace, shows just how bad a state of anarchy and tribalism can become. Also, with the focus on parrying tyranny this worldview may be blind to other threats and problems that go beyond the question of freedom and oppression. Finally, they may become lost in a game of always supporting the underdog, even though the underdog turns out to be just as bad an oppressor as soon as the shoe is on the other foot.</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-91213304599079273832017-11-01T05:03:00.002-06:002017-11-01T05:11:52.743-06:00Bellwethers, Indicators, and Omens: The Rhetorical Impact of Special Elections and Micro-Movements<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As I was pulling into the university parking lot today, I realized that my mind was instinctively looking not just for free parking spaces, but also <i>behavioral patterns</i> that might indicate to me whether the other spaces were empty. This made me think about how we, as humans, by nature or nurture think in this way, and how that endows some events or images with profound meaning, or at least meaning beyond the event itself.<br />
<br />
Here is the parking situation I face every day:<br />
- If you come to the university between 7 and 8 am, the world is your oister. You can pretty much pick and choose your preferred parking space. The lots closest to the entrances go first (we have just one large building on campus).<br />
- If you come after 9 am you'll be lucky if you don't have to park across the street by the hotel or fitness center.<br />
- If you come between 8 and 9 am you will find a spot, but the best (closest to the entrances) will most likely be taken, though you may get lucky.<br />
<br />
This morning I had to drop my daughter off at school, so I arrived between 8 and 9 am. As I entered the parking area I immediately started looking for signs or indicators (as all of you probably do). We know some of the familiar ones:<br />
- If a car enters a parking lot and then exits it, that parking lot is full.<br />
- If the parking lots furthest from the entrance are jam packed, that means those closest to the entrance are all taken. The same goes if some pseudo-lots (could work, but not marked) are taken.<br />
<br />
And then there is this peculiar one that I have found at my university:<br />
- If the parking lot in the corner with the greatest chance of getting boxed in or getting a scratch while maneuvering is taken, then the lot is full.<br />
- If that and another space is empty, then there is a good chance for more empty spaces too.<br />
<br />
The space I am talking about is this one in the corner, where the black/grey car is parked<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivd7T0V1SF0Ln8K6L6kP-9pPRHSultQxNHhltoFhXbVIG4MGXlRgbJzRczJmiDPuhYN2z0xNPadTp5MScPx1abpGftxBUajapad9j6moIQad2BF7o7A51oL70CuXe_8dhI9NVbDv3b_sY/s1600/20171101_084059.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivd7T0V1SF0Ln8K6L6kP-9pPRHSultQxNHhltoFhXbVIG4MGXlRgbJzRczJmiDPuhYN2z0xNPadTp5MScPx1abpGftxBUajapad9j6moIQad2BF7o7A51oL70CuXe_8dhI9NVbDv3b_sY/s400/20171101_084059.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The space next to the two birch trees is an indicator for the parking lot capacity</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It occurred to me that we use the same kind of thinking in a lot of ways to try to predict the future or make estimates beyond what we have knowledge of at the moment. They are used in politics (often to describe by-elections), economic forecasts, weather forecasts, statistical analyses, and (more anciently) to tell fortunes or predict the success of a battle or war. Hume would claim that all of these are superstitions, but they have proved their value in the past. In either case, whether or not we like it, it seems we as humans are hard-wired or trained to think in these terms.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We have different words for these signs, with some different meanings and implications:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A <b>bellwether</b> (originally meaning a male castrated sheep wearing a bell) has come to mean one that leads or takes initiative, or actively establishes a trend that is taken up by others (a little podcast about the word available <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bellwether" target="_blank">here</a>). The parking space in question cannot be a bellwether in this case, since the parking space is not an agent and therefore not able to <i>actively</i> establish a trend or take initiative. However, the first car that abandons the attempt of finding an empty spot in the lot can become a bellwether. If I and five others behind me saw that, we likely won't even try that parking lot. The problem with designating something a bellwether (and talking about signs of the future in general) is that you can only clearly establish the truth of the statement <i>afterwards</i>. It can be factually true that "this proved to be a bellwether of the market," or "this company has often been a bellwether," but "this company is a bellwether" can never be anything but an unsubstantiated claim about the future. I and the cars behind me might now follow the lead of that first car at all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Everyone wants to be a leader, nobody wants to be a lone wolf or that one weird guy that walked off by himself, but the difference between a bellwether and a freak or anomaly is first determined after the first step has been taken. A leader has to walk alone in the beginning in order to lead, to establish a new direction. Leadership is lonely, at least at first. But if the flock doesn't follow, what then? Then it's suddenly not leadership but egotism or deviant/disobedient/anomalous behavior.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look at the example of Republican Senator Jeff Flake and his recent powerful speech denouncing Trump and the current administration. The speech makes it clear that he <i>wants</i> to be a leader and he predicts that he will be a bellwether: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a healthy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gkj3uWB5Wxo/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gkj3uWB5Wxo?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Without doubt, this is a call to the flock to follow his lead. It is a speech with the grandeur and visionary statements customary when leaders set out a new course, and it has appeals to emotions, patriotism, and the principles many of the other members of the Senate have mentioned themselves often. But will he prove to be a bellwether, or will he be a lone lost sheep from the Republican fold? It all depends on how many others are willing to follow his lead. As Evan McMullin and others argue here, the difference between the two can depend on very few people bringing it over the tipping point.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pJoV92rvPMI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pJoV92rvPMI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
However, by <i>calling</i> something or someone a bellwether you may actually influence whether or not a person actually <i>becomes</i> a bellwether. In the clip above, the panelists compare Jeff Flake to those who spake out against Senator McCarthy and finally were able to bring about his downfall. Those people were bellwethers, but many other people who have spoken out against dominant trends ended up just being lone wolves howling to the moon. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is what Cicero and later Chaim Perelman called "<a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2015/04/philosophical-rhetoric-beginners-guide.html" target="_blank">the argument from definition</a>." As Perelman writes, “Every time an idea can be defined in more than one way, ‘to define’ comes to mean to make a choice” (62). The White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is trying to define Senator Flake's words as the exit of a lone wolf ostracized by the flock. If other Republican leaders see the action in that light, then they will be more unlikely to want to follow. After all, who wants to follow a madman into the desert? If, on the other hand, Jeff Flake and other people can define the act as that of a bellwether, a leader, someone who actively establishes a trend which others then follow, then people are also more likely to join the effort, add their voices and influence to boost it, and actively develop the potential trend to make it dominant or at least significant.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The argument works because our mind constantly strives to be ahead of the future in order to safeguard our well-being and that of those around us, and so we are willing to accept unsubstantiated arguments about the future because these are often the best we have. In any case, it is a possible future which we may be able to help bring to pass.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
An <b>indicator</b> is a word commonly used in science and technology, and it does not have the same requirement as a bellwether of <i>active involvement. </i>The car in the space by the two birches is an indicator that the parking lot is full. An indicator is something which indicates. To indicate is either to point out or show, or to suggest something as a desirable or necessary course of action. It originally comes from Latin "indicare," meaning to point out or show something with your finger. In chemistry, it means "a compound which changes colour at a specific pH value or in the presence of a particular substance." The compound points to or shows that a specific pH value has been reached or that a specific substance is present in the mixture.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A bellwether actually has to do something, but indicators can often simply be events or objects which point to or show us something else. A beating pulse is a key indicator of life, your breath turning to steam is an indication of minus degrees (Celsius) temperatures, and a surprising defeat in a by-election may indicate that popular sentiment is turning against your party. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Of course, not all things called indicators have a necessary correlation with what they are intended or purported to show or point to. And one can also choose which indicators to focus on or view as significant. Is the popular vote or the electoral college the best way to indicate which candidate had the most support (or was least disliked)? What are the best indicators for popular sentiment or wealth distribution? At the fringes, indicators become any potential sign of future intentions or actions, and people search words for hidden meanings, weightings, or indications of what else is to come. Again, this may be done unconsciously or consciously in order to support your ideological narrative. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The Left in America claim the future belongs to them, because students vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, but this has also been the case for many years and has not significantly changed the balance in American politics. Yet after every election lost by the Democrats one sees articles and posts about this same "ray of hope." I have read them ever since Al Gore's defeat in 2000, and they were repeated with Kerry's defeat in 2004. They were turned to exultations about the future when Obama won in 2008, and were offered again as solace when Clinton lost in 2016. There is a saying that "A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head." Whether or not that is the case, it seems to be a prevalent trend that the radical youth vote turns into the considerably more conservative adult vote and most conservative senior vote. But what do these facts indicate? What do they point to or show? And can they give us any meaningful data or hunches about the future?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Well, some indicators are seen as more meaningful than others, so a lot of attention flocks to them. And that makes it important for certain groups to <i>create </i>indicators even when they don't occur naturally. This is where by-elections or special elections come in. These are elections held outside the normal campaign season, and are for that reason given disproportionate attention and endowed with disproportionate importance. Opinion polls are all well and good, but the only way to understand how people will actually vote is to actually have them make a vote that counts. Special elections are given lofty titles such as "a referendum on the President" and huge amounts of money are poured into a race that, in terms of actual political influence, has very little effect overall. In Georgia's sixth district special election, over 50 million dollars were spent to convince the roughly 250,000 voters, totaling about 250 dollars per vote.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RLJNyt7Api4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RLJNyt7Api4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Why did they do this? It was because both sides hoped this election could have a signal effect and become an indicator to their supporters as to which side was winning and would be winning in 2018 and 2020. For the next year, whenever the Democrats claimed they were winning the Republicans would be able to say "look at the Georgia sixth district election." Even though the huge amounts of money spent made the indicator really an unreliable and artificial one, both sides still saw enough value in securing it for their side to spend over 25 million dollars each. This huge symbol effect connected to a single event brings us close to the next point, the omen.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
An <b>omen </b>can be any event or object that is believed to foretell the future, and often signifies the advent of change. It is a slippery slope argument to say that "the factory in town closed down, a recession must be coming" and yet we all at times feel gloom gathering or think "the writing is on the wall" for some momentous future event. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omen" target="_blank">"People in the ancient times believed that omens lie with a divine message from their gods."</a> We may claim in the modern world to have put such feelings and notions behind us, but they pop up in all kinds of predictions about the future, from election forecasts to sport outcomes. Here is a star Norwegian coach who towards the end of two defining matches (one to avoid relegation and the other to become league champions) said he got the feeling "it's not meant to be." </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yjMW-PEkJqk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yjMW-PEkJqk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ra35VsD4MA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ra35VsD4MA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The inauguration refers to the old Roman role of the augurs, who were supposed to read the guts of animals in order to determine what the likely outcome of a policy would be. In that role, they were searching for omens of the favor or disfavor of the gods. Moments and images in politics and history have been seen as omens or ominous: the soldier jumping over the nearly completed Berlin wall,</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd96kW9WB0gerJdBoYkvk6jvujv2qW9NWEjnSooG-F310Yd6tJk8_YsMwTBgsp-P3IDRIsZ652Wf5GuB3jlLYgoXZv9E4D4B8jSOfXh2s1YL2K0W3ErWrxigJoQ1sIfutoTkuWsv1o5tA/s1600/Berlin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="887" data-original-width="1100" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd96kW9WB0gerJdBoYkvk6jvujv2qW9NWEjnSooG-F310Yd6tJk8_YsMwTBgsp-P3IDRIsZ652Wf5GuB3jlLYgoXZv9E4D4B8jSOfXh2s1YL2K0W3ErWrxigJoQ1sIfutoTkuWsv1o5tA/s320/Berlin.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
for example, symbolizing a last escape from what was to become the Iron Curtain encompassing half of Europe. Another famous "omen" is the explosion of the first atomic bomb with the following quote going through Robert Oppenheimer's mind: "I am now become Death, the destroyer of worlds." </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ16aF07ZVWIAwlGf2UHMyLY_uh-Cid8R3lNL2Arn4gjHqy5TbRwJ-MXxi24leSmWN97iz66WxOmGnng0NIr01gDxebN5639jyUNCA4YriQ9CTh93zZrtZKZyfK9kNR9O7eS8xmocxMLs/s1600/the-trinity-explosion-photo-u2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="551" data-original-width="650" height="337" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ16aF07ZVWIAwlGf2UHMyLY_uh-Cid8R3lNL2Arn4gjHqy5TbRwJ-MXxi24leSmWN97iz66WxOmGnng0NIr01gDxebN5639jyUNCA4YriQ9CTh93zZrtZKZyfK9kNR9O7eS8xmocxMLs/s400/the-trinity-explosion-photo-u2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, from its very inception the omen and the augur were also tools of persuasion. Cicero often used the augur's office to delay the decrees of Marcus Antonius, and magazines and political campaigns like to stage "omens" to appeal to the potential people have to be convinced by these.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In America, financial or electoral success are often heralded as<a href="http://religionnews.com/2017/01/17/did-god-choose-trump-what-belief-in-divine-intervention-really-means/" target="_blank"> signs or omens of divine approval</a>. After Donald Trump's election, Representative Michelle Bachmann stated “God raised up, I believe, Donald Trump,” and Rev. Franklin Graham said of the victory “God showed up.” The Economy (written that way on purpose) is also often seen nowadays as signs of divine approval or disapproval. Thus, the slow economic recovery for many years during the Obama presidency was God's rebuke.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How useful are bellwethers, indications, or omens when we reason about the future? Well, they are obviously faulty, some less so and others more, but any estimate of the future is bound to be uncertain. We have these frames of mind, I believe, because they have shown their usefulness and validity in the past, and because they really have nothing or very little to compete with when it comes to knowledge or purported knowledge of the future. In either case, we can hopefully sharpen our intuition and discerning ability by questioning to which extent we listen to those who would take advantage of our predisposition to be thus persuaded, and learn to question whether we are here dealing with hard indicators, bellwethers, or purported omens of the future. That may also form and inform the future we help to create.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-59871712078346930172017-07-07T08:48:00.001-06:002017-07-07T08:57:26.628-06:00Publication Update: Internal Logic, Indexing, and Consummation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hi everyone!<br />
<br />
I generally write the blog posts at a reading level that requires some effort, but if you are up for a challenge there's more in-depth research from me available for free. I will post them below with links and brief descriptions.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-internal-logic-persuasive-form-and-hierarchy-in-kenneth-burke/" target="_blank">Internal Logic: Persuasive Form and Hierarchy in Kenneth Burke</a><br />
<br />
This is from a conference presentation I gave at the Internation Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, 2014. It mainly concerns how a text establishes its own form of logic and teaches the reader to think in its terms and according to its own logic. This logic operates by literary form rather than formal logic, and by arousing and fulfilling expectations it can make the reader/listener feel that because it is true to its form the argument it advances is also objectively true. (I apologize in advance for the spelling mistakes)<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kbjournal.org/isaksen-indexing" target="_blank">Indexing: Kenneth Burke's Critical Method</a><br />
<br />
Web project/multimedia argument that helps to explain, illustrate, and train you in one of my favorite research methods. Some fancy animations and presentations help to make the tutorial less boring, and there's a full literature review and scholarly background for those who want to go deeper. This method can be used for a lot of things. It was Kenneth Burke's favorite method for textual/rhetorical analysis and helps one to find the logical structure of the text and the "ideology" the text presents. This was published in the KB Journal, spring 2017.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kbjournal.org/isaksen-consummation" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="http://kbjournal.org/isaksen-consummation" target="_blank">Consummation: Kenneth Burke's Third Creative Motive</a><br />
<br />
My most read publication. If it wasn't obvious before, I use Kenneth Burke in a LOT of my research, basically because I see him as someone who is intellectually honest and actually gets a lot of things right. Here I am teasing out a theory he has about the aesthetic motivations that direct the development in areas like the natural sciences, art, music, and is a potential factor in both individual and group motivations. It centers around an aesthetic desire for order, consistency, and completion. Edward Teller, Robert Oppenheimer, Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, Espinoza, and Saint Anselm all make appearances here. Also published in the KB Journal, spring 2017.<br />
<br />
That's it for now. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have any questions or comments (or leave a comment below).</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-57541669321511300092017-01-31T04:19:00.000-07:002017-01-31T04:19:03.980-07:00Winning Hearts and Minds: How WWII Was Won By Words Before It Was Won By Bombs <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In August 2016, lifelong Republican voter and former CIA spy Evan McMullin threw his hat into the ring as presidential candidate to oppose Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. When asked why he opposed Trump, he answered that Donald Trump posed a greater long-term risk to the US than ISIS because he would undermine the goodwill for the US around the world. And this goodwill was an essential asset the US could not do without.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgupALdagbaanfxuEPb8AtGl-_si4GeY_OlmOgNzPh-cgWiPbx1RPdF0-iDcUFoQTwh55Z1ck_u46lXGrCU-28WDYOnkBlmyRuAbGJZu2LE2pVl2eQ_S-XfKRRKpnaNyw5rplTCRE0bLWA/s1600/Soft+power.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgupALdagbaanfxuEPb8AtGl-_si4GeY_OlmOgNzPh-cgWiPbx1RPdF0-iDcUFoQTwh55Z1ck_u46lXGrCU-28WDYOnkBlmyRuAbGJZu2LE2pVl2eQ_S-XfKRRKpnaNyw5rplTCRE0bLWA/s400/Soft+power.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
So this seems like a rather strong claim. Is there a precedent for this? Yes, plenty of them, and none is more telling than WWII, where I would claim that the US won primarily because the right people wanted to go there, and because those same right people wanted to leave Germany.<br />
<br />
In 1933, Adolf Hitler instituted a racial purge of the universities and other institutions of higher learning and research in Germany to "get out the Jews." As a result, there was a massive brain drain of some of the leading minds in physics, chemistry, and other areas of learning. Here is an incomplete list of physicists who left Germany and Italy because of Hitler and Mussolini:<br />
<br />
- Leo Szilard (filed the first patent for an atomic bomb, instrumental in creating the first atomic reactor and in convincing president Roosevelt to start up the Manhattan Project).<br />
- Edward Teller (father of the hydrogen bomb and radical anti-Communist)<br />
- John von Neumann (father of the modern computer, essential contributor to the development of both the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb).<br />
- Rudolf Peierls and Otto R. Frisch (discovered the first workable cross-section for an atomic bomb and wrote the Frisch-Peierls memorandum which convinced the UK and US to develop the atomic bomb)<br />
- Albert Einstein (developed the theory of relativity and convinced president Roosevelt to invest money into making the atomic bomb).<br />
- Theodore von Karman (father of modern aviation physics and jet propulsion).<br />
- Hans Bethe (Nobel laureate and instrumental member at Los Alamos)<br />
- Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel laureate and father of quantum theory)<br />
- Niels Bohr (father of quantum physics)<br />
- Joseph Rotblat (founder of the Pugwash Conference and Nobel Peace Prize laureate)<br />
- Emilio Segre (Nobel laureate)<br />
- Enrico Fermi (Nobel laureate)<br />
- Lise Meitner (discovered fission)<br />
- Max Born (Nobel laureate)<br />
- James Franck (Nobel laureate) <br />
- Eugene Wigner (Nobel laureate)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgavCcoq5PrcBY3ReTeLvkAtKQ6JcJA7bq-fzh4siKM4Lhe4kNW8abba8pYDBzeYKL7_fTm9UViADk5mHJ8hZIJhdmq_E03slb486i1vnWvRuNOUi2kDzg32quWTKMgRKqY436MgrkVA1s/s1600/Einstein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgavCcoq5PrcBY3ReTeLvkAtKQ6JcJA7bq-fzh4siKM4Lhe4kNW8abba8pYDBzeYKL7_fTm9UViADk5mHJ8hZIJhdmq_E03slb486i1vnWvRuNOUi2kDzg32quWTKMgRKqY436MgrkVA1s/s640/Einstein.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In total, Germany and Italy lost more than 25% of its physicists, 11 Nobel Prize laureates, and a total of more than 2,500 scientists. Most of these chose to join the allies and made crucial contributions to the development of the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and other crucial inventions, such as the radar, which contributed to the Allies ultimately winning the war against the Axis powers, and also led to an American advantage in science, technology, and industry which the US has maintained ever since.<br />
<br />
But why did all these physicists choose to join forces with the US, why did they choose to give their loyalty and all of their considerable knowledge and scientific effort to a foreign country? These numbers are the aggregate of thousands of individual decisions, a different algorithm of choices and consequences in these individuals' lives, and in most cases the US became the choice. Why?<br />
<br />
The US in the 30s and 40s were not without a blemish in the eyes of these physicists. There were strong anti-Semitic forces in the US too, and the Roosevelt government was enforcing a strict quota on Jewish immigration which kept many refugees from Europe out of the country. Boats were turned back, and Jews were sent back to a continent in flames to meet their deaths in the camps at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Some Jewish scientists feared to go to the US because of this, but they were also attracted to Roosevelts rhetoric in defense of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, the Soviet Union was unattractive because of the many purges instigated by Stalin and the lack of freedom of expression. Some scientists still chose to join the Soviet Union, or to spy for them in the US, like Klaus Fuchs did, but for most the Soviet Union seemed neither safe nor attractive. Stalin was his own worst enemy, and he set the technological power of the USSR back many years because of his mass executions and deportations.<br />
<br />
In <i>Turing's Cathedral: The Origin of the Digital Universe</i>, we get a glimpse into the decision-making process for one of the most important of all of these scientists who did more than perhaps any other to give the US an advantage in science and technology for the next 60 years: John von Neumann.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P47VBYF9Woo/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P47VBYF9Woo?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<div>
It says: "Von Neumann left Europe with an unforgiving hatred for the Nazis, a growing distrust of the Russians, and a determination never again to let the free world fall into a position of military weakness that would force the compromises that had been made with Hitler while the German war machine was gaining strength. He replaced the loss with a passion for America and everything its open frontiers came to represent" (181).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, he nearly didn't make it to America. For himself, as a world famous scientist, it was easy enough to gain employment and an exception from the immigration quotas, but for his fiance and soon to be wife it was not so easy. Would he have stayed in Europe or even chosen the USSR out of desperation if his wife would not have been granted immigration to the US? What would the world have looked like then?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The world of minds, from Sergej Brin at Google to John von Neumann who invented the first computer, is distributed all over the world in every nation and language. The US will only be able to keep its edge in all fields if it is open to these people and if these people actually want to go there or support what the US and the West is trying to do around the world. This is why the actions of Donald Trump's presidency may in the long-term be more fatal to the US than ISIS. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-26713129108552195182016-07-13T08:27:00.002-06:002016-07-13T08:27:54.166-06:00Arguments to Establish a Structure of Reality: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman, Part IV<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
Of all the types of argument that have been explored so far, these are the only ones that do not rely on a previous structure of reality in order to work....or do they?<br />
<br />
<b>Quasi-logical arguments</b> rely on essential patterns of thought that we use to reason about any issue, such as, "if there is a thing that is distinct from another thing then there must be a border that defines the extent of this first thing." Such as the first distinction a child learns between "me" and "not-me" or "mine" and "not-mine," or "momma" and "not-the-momma" (as illustrated by this cute dinosaur baby).<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Vanlig tabell";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HNR4hKbSH7I/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HNR4hKbSH7I?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><b>Arguments based on the structure of reality</b> require habits of thought that give us some kind of expectation based on a pattern of thinking that we have accepted. Both these two types of argument have no guarantee of validity, only consistency. It is a quasi-logical argument of consistency that undergirds both types of argument. One type requires the arguer to be consistent with <i>essential </i>patterns of thought and logic, whereas another type requires the arguer to be consistent with <i>learned</i> patterns of thought. This distinction may be artificial (all patterns of thought may be learned), but they are still real in the sense that these two types have different status with the quasi-logical being seen as more logical and fundamental, and less culture-dependent. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left;">
<b>Arguments to establish a structure of reality </b>is maybe best understood as a counterpart to arguments based on the structure of reality. Whereas the second uses general patterns of thought to prove or explain one specific case, the first type of arguments works from specific to general, a kind of induction. You use an accumulation of specific examples
to prove or indicate a more general principle, pattern, or law in operation. This is the general preferred method of the empiricists and positivists, and they claim that induction is the method whereby one can prevent just spinning in logical circles and actually have scientific progress. A ball falls to the ground one time, and that is recorded. In the same way, it falls to the ground the second time, and that is recorded. One continues to do so until the mass of specific events and instances seems consistent enough to be indicative of a general law that "a ball with mass will always fall to the earth instead of falling upward into the sky." This proposition is problematic, but it has so far worked as the basis for the hegemony of science and its privileged status in the realm of academic fields. A repetition of events that is predictable creates a pattern that indicates that some greater law or principle can be found to determine these events. The same type of argument works in our everyday life and in politics. Here are some of the categories that belong to this type of argument:<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><i>Example</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
In <i>The Realm of Rhetoric</i>. Perelman writes: “To argue by example is to
presuppose the existence of certain regularities of which the examples provides
a concretization” (106). Whether in science, politics, religion, or any other field, a concrete example is often the most vivid and memorable evidence for a more general rule or principle. The atomic bomb is the most vivid evidence of the neutron and its capabilities, the Churchill/Chamberlain experience has forever made "appeasement" a dirty word, and the atonement of Christ stands for Christians as the great example of Gods love for mankind. Of course, in civic debate, an example shares the weakness of empirical results as a basis for science: It can always be contested. A scientific theory is never proven. Not a single scientific theory or result is forever proven and accepted. If the ball falls up just one out of 700,000,000 times, it still invalidates the argument that the previous events were indicative of a general rule. Whereas, if an example is
used to invalidate a case then, by itself, it can require the rejection of a rule to
which it is opposed. Just a single counterexample can destroy the effectiveness and validity of the example.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><i>Illustration</i>, unlike example,
is not used to establish a new rule but rather to give it presence and make it
more understandable and applicable. An illustration has a rule that has already
been justified or agreed upon, and the illustration simply serves to make it more vivid or clear. Illustrations are commonly used for pedagogical reasons, but they are also used to emphasize points and give them greater emotional appeal. An illustration of this, is the illustrations that are used at memorials, festschrifts, and other festive occasions that celebrate someone's life. The people in the audience probably already agree that this person is great, and all the examples that show the person's greatness are not meant as points that cannot be rebutted, but rather as illustrations to make more vivid and present something that is already accepted by the audience.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><i>Model and Anti-Model </i>are set up
as examples of preference. More than just understanding, model and anti-model
are meant to be followed or shunned. For example: physics is the most precise science and should be the model for sciences and all human knowledge (claim of the positivists). "Alchemy is the exact model of what chemistry and science should NOT be like." Jesus and the devil are models and anti-models. Einstein and Bohr are models for scientists. The Athenian democracy, despite its faults, has been accepted generally as a model for modern democracies. The model seeks that which is the best representation of what a good scientists, philosopher, Christian, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Conservative, Progressive, man, woman, or child should be. The anti-model is the warning, the distortion, the thing to be shunned. The object used as a model obviously needs to be well established beforehand, but using the object as a model for what one should follow or be can be an inductive invention. </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><i>Analogy</i> Similar to an equation in mathematics, except that it does not posit the
equality of two relations but rather affirms a similitude. </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US">The basic structure of this argument is that “a is to
b, as c is to d.” The role is to clarify the theme (meta) through the phoros or
“explain an unknown relationship through another more familiar one.” One example is: "Old age is the evening of life." This is a metaphor. Perelman called a metaphor "a condensed analogy" that leaves some parts unsaid. The full structure (implied and explicit) is that "As the evening is to the day, so is old age to a whole life." One uses something that everyone experiences every day (an evening) to explain something that others (younger people) have not experienced. We do this all the time and have become so used to it that we can shorten the structure without confusing others. We can say "at the dying of the day" or "a new day is born" or "Abide with me, behold t'is eventide" and understand the relationship between life and a day. A new metaphor creates a new understanding and a new connection between ideas that were formerly understood only separately. In this sense, this kind of argument creates a new structure of reality.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-US">All these arguments are "progressive" in the sense that they create or attempt to create new structures of thought and perceived reality. However, they by themselves require some larger implicit ideas in order to be valid. Empirical results require some kind of empiricist philosophy of science. Unless there is the concept of laws of nature, there is nothing which the ball falling to the earth can prove or be indicative of. And unless there is first a theory or hypothesis, no scientist would know where to look to find proof. These theories and concepts however are not essential structures of thought but rather learned or habitual structures of thought, and these give no guarantee for validity (as the vast false structures of learned and habitual thought have proven). However, seen from the perspective of argumentation we can still say that these arguments are "effective," and currently the arguments to establish structures of reality (inductive arguments) are the most effective of all. They have a higher standing. But is this just because we live in a progressive society that values progress and movement over stability? </span></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-4114218907982553892016-04-22T05:44:00.000-06:002016-08-15T07:35:03.744-06:00Why Trump is a Tyrant<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One of the lessons the Classics teach us is that freedom is fragile. They show people an age where humanity flourished during systems of government that, for all their faults, guaranteed some basic rights and the chance for people to speak up against injustice and to dethrone tyrants. And then these free systems were destroyed from within. Frustrations with partisan bickering and selfishness led people to look for a "strongman" to set things right. For the Greek city states it was Philip of Macedon, and for the Romans it was Julius Caesar and thereafter Caeasar Augustus. For the Romans a nightmare of despots followed, with the likes of Nero and Caligula displaying some of the most depraved behavior ever shown by tyrants. Then, except for sporadic glimpses, there was no real widespread freedom over all the Western world for over 1700 years. The first democracies and republics were not killed: they committed suicide. <a href="https://www.docsoffreedom.org/readings/ancient-republics-and-european-charters" target="_blank">This is what made John Adams warn</a>: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." This was the lesson John Adams took from the Classics.<br />
<br />
Yet these societies did not go ignorantly into the long dark night of tyranny; nor, to their credit, did they do so without a fight. Demosthenes warned the Athenians and other Greek city states about Philip, and his <i>Philipics</i> are treasured today as masterpieces of rhetoric. The Athenians listened, although first when it was already too late, and took a brave last stance against the onset of tyranny. Similarly Cicero, in Rome, argued in his thirteen <i>Philipics </i>(inspired by Demosthenes) against Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius. Although ultimately unsuccessful, his speeches survived and helped fuel the flame of liberty throughout generations until freedom could rise again with the American revolution. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero" target="_blank">Cicero and Demosthenes were major influences for the American and French revolutionaries</a>. I am not sure the concept of a democracy or a republic would have survived without them.<br />
<br />
So what lesson can we learn from them now that we see tyranny and autocracy rearing its ugly head once more in Western democracies? Only this: "Beware of the tyrant!" Do not let your partisan bickering jeapordize the fragile freedoms you have. Do not let your short-sighted and selfish goals imperil the liberty of this and all future generations. Do not sell your vote and influence in order to let "our tyrant" win over "their tyrant." If there was one painful lesson the Romans had to learn, it was the "equality" of oppression and fear experienced by rich and poor under the terrible reign of the tyrants.<br />
<br />
On this blog, I have sometimes lamented the erosion of both morality and liberties in Western societies, and yet the present moment makes me more indignant and troubled than I have ever been before about the state of particularly the constitutional republic of the United States of America. In Donald Trump, a large portion of their populace seem to outdo the Roman republic in selfishness and short-sightedness. Instead of settling for a Caesar Augustus after years of civil war they skip right to a Nero in times of peace!<br />
<br />
The Roman emperors were not the high-culture snobs they are sometimes depicted as. A great many of them were base buffons, displaying and indulging in behavior that would shock even Hollywood, using their power to break every written and unwritten law, and take depravity to such absurd lengths that no honest man or woman could bear it. Nero was Donald Trump + power. If power can corrupt even good people, what will it do for someone who already<a href="http://therightscoop.com/heres-when-trump-bragged-in-his-book-about-his-multiple-affairs-with-his-friends-wives/" target="_blank"> brags about affairs with married women</a>, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2016/02/28/meet-donald-trump-the-king-of-sleaze-n2126157" target="_blank">runs strip-clubs</a>,<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-trump-rallies-violence-protests-mashup-lv.cnn" target="_blank"> encourages violence</a>, and <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-the-military-would-not-refuse-my-orders-even-if-they-consider-them-illegal/" target="_blank">promises he will commit war crimes</a> and <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/14/trump-threatens-freedom-press-elected-president.html" target="_blank">silence anyone who opposes him by changing the law</a>? Tyranny, for the Greeks and Romans was not a form of government. Tyranny was a disease of the mind, a madness. The Roman historian Tacitus writes, "How truly the wisest of men used to assert that the souls of despots, if revealed, would show wounds and mutilations - weals left on the spirit, like lash-marks on a body, by cruelty, lust, and malevolence" (<i>The Histories </i>202).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qb4b8VSyhClIRlxgzupHeYLiWaFSZuoovLjFLSO4m5eRFlyBY_iR3O69vHaCxam42LKaA5a3pOUV84zQ87DNV5yeikeuB3UGxA75OGm5PaLHRNktwaihTlEsmzaMEW2riH4sahitPLk/s1600/Trump+and+Nero.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qb4b8VSyhClIRlxgzupHeYLiWaFSZuoovLjFLSO4m5eRFlyBY_iR3O69vHaCxam42LKaA5a3pOUV84zQ87DNV5yeikeuB3UGxA75OGm5PaLHRNktwaihTlEsmzaMEW2riH4sahitPLk/s400/Trump+and+Nero.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
You may say I am exhaggerating and that Trump could never become Nero because he is bound by the Constitution and checked by the Supreme Court and Congress. Besides, there is the public that voted for him and public opinion to keep him in check. I ask you, "What bonds can control a man that cannot even control himself?" He is a slave to his whims and desires, do you think such a person will be bound by law, morality, or bonds of trust?<a href="http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-25-years-of-women-wealth-and-the-lust-for-political-power-1.10992317" target="_blank"> He who bought the Plaza Hotel to move his wife into its penthouse just so he could free up the penthouse of his casino for his mistress?</a> The only limits that can check him are the limits of possibility, and I fear that a Trump presidency will reveal for everyone just how much power the Executive Branch of government has amassed in the past hundred years. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjgRbI7yQCI" target="_blank">The constitutional limits on the presidency were made to limit the damage a "Trump" could do, but for the past fifty years at least those limits have been loosened to better fit a president with the character of a saint.</a> For all their excesses, neither Bush nor Obama have aspired to become tyrants. Pushed by their constituents they have strained the constitutional limits of presidential power, but they have never sought to consolidate that power.<br />
<br />
Here is a brief list of what Trump the Tyrant could and possibly would do as president:<br />
- <a href="https://www.reference.com/government-politics/president-appoint-e749e67de6b6e6e" target="_blank">Replace any leader of the military and any government agencies with stooges that are blindly loyal to Trump and do not hesitate to break any law to do his will</a>. The CIA, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and other departments as they currently run are impervious to oversight by Congress. Trump will then have a<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/" target="_blank"> 3 million person</a> strong army to do his bidding and punish his critics and enemies. If you thought the Obama IRS overstepped its authority, just wait for the Trump IRS, CIA, and Department of Justice.<br />
- Threaten Supreme Court Judges to rule in his favor whenever he is challenged on executive overreach. <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/roger-stone-donald-trump-delegates-convention-hotel-221586" target="_blank">His campaign is already threatening to put out the names and room numbers of Republican delegates at Cleveland who could possibly oppose his nomination to his rabid supporters </a>who are <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/delegates-face-death-threats-from-trump-supporters-222302" target="_blank">not afraid of using violence</a>. What would a "hint" like that do against the Supreme Court Judges? "Gee, Justice Thomas sure has a nice house. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." Especially when anyone who committed a crime in doing so would have the protection of the White House. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7fZ0EJL1w" target="_blank">Trump already offered to cover the legal bills for anyone who committed assault against protesters at his rallies.</a><br />
- Threaten to use the power of his NSA spies against senators or representatives who oppose his legislative agenda. He has already threatened Speaker Ryan that <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/02/trump-threatens-paul-ryan-says-speaker-will-pay-big-price-if-he-gets-in-his-way/" target="_blank">"we'll get along, otherwise he'll have a price to pay."</a> Speaker Ryan should, according to the Constitution, be almost as powerful as the president. The current situation and status of the Speaker just shows how far the US has fallen from that ideal.<br />
- <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/26/congress-wants-obama-to-ask-for-permission-to-intervene-in-syria" target="_blank">Wage war (against ANYONE he wants!) for 90 days. 90 days!!!</a> Any liberal who felt smug about Eric Holder's unconstitutional defense of Obama's Drone War should choke on that grin as he realizes what potential powers he has helped bestow on a President Trump. And any conservative who has not bowed down to the altar of Trumpism and wants to maintain <i>any</i> right to voice a protest about potential abuses by the president should feel the call to act now. These powers mean that once Trump hits the White House EVERY single man, woman, and child on this planet is a potential target. <a href="http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/03/holder-due-process-doesnt-necessarily-mean-courtroom/49509/" target="_blank">American citizens are not exempt, because Holder made that legal.</a> Children are not exempt, for <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/" target="_blank">Trump specifically said he would force the military to torture and kill the children of his enemies</a>. For someone who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0" target="_blank">takes every ounce of opposition to his will as a personal insult</a>, that category of "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-protester-isis-hoax_us_56e57d2be4b0860f99d951ab" target="_blank">enemies" and "terrorists</a>" could expand to just about anyone. (Ask Michelle Fields, w<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/29/donald-trump-mystified-by-pen-responds-t" target="_blank">hom he has accused of being a potential terrorist</a>)<br />
<br />
He is someone who sees every power and authority as his leverage to crush those who oppose him, His <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/20/roy-cohn-donald-trump-joseph-mccarthy-rosenberg-trial" target="_blank">Dad's Army of lawyers have sheltered him from the law his entire life</a>. Imagine what he will do with the Department of Justice at his disposal. If you elect him, you just gave him the world's ultimate leverage. Nothing will then be able to stop him from doing whatever he pleases with whomever he pleases.<br />
<br />
So, with the world open to his desires, the question would become: "What are the desires of this man?" His supporters freely admit and even applaud the fact that he would and could do all these things, but they justify it with statements such as this one by Twitter user @larrysr19701: "Ive survived Obama's Tyranny, so far. Im sure Trump wont disappoint." I don't care how right-wing you are: If you believe Obama is the worst tyrant to have walked the Earth then you need to read a history book. Trump supporters seem to believe there is some kind of moral quality to this man that would somehow make up for the immorality he has bathed in throughout his almost 70 year long life. Let's look at some of the personality traits he has shown:<br />
<br />
<u>Suspicion</u><br />
It is incredible how uncertain of himself this guy is. He has the confidence of a schoolyard bully who acts tough to hide the fact that he gets beaten at home. <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-says-its-very-appropriate-for-his-supporters-to-beat-protesters-at-rallies-e4397016884d#.typjd31zi" target="_blank">The protesters at his rallies, they are a personal danger to him, and encouraging his supporters to beat them up is just self-defense</a>. He sees every opposition to him as evidence of a conspiracy; he sees every loss as evidence of fraud. Name one single state that Trump has graciously conceeded to an opponent.<a href="http://winningdemocrats.com/as-his-loss-sinks-in-trump-tweets-unhinged-rant-accusing-cruz-of-fraud-tweets/" target="_blank"> Iowa? "It must be fraud, that's why I didn't win."</a> Utah? <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/4723/9-times-trump-team-falsely-accused-cruz-campaign-aaron-bandler" target="_blank">"Romney stabbed my back and Cruz cheated." Wisconsin? "The establishment and Cruz are in this together.</a>" <a href="http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/58-donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-and-counting-definitive-trump-conspiracy-guide" target="_blank">Everyone is out to get Trump according to him</a>. He is nasty to everyone and acts all surprised and innocent when there is any kind of response. But of course, as Trump is fond of saying, he's just a "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-most-baffling-moments-from-donald-trumps-washington-post-ed-board-interview/" target="_blank">counterpuncher</a>." Someone else hits him, and he hits back twice as hard. <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/4723/9-times-trump-team-falsely-accused-cruz-campaign-aaron-bandler" target="_blank">Except, Cruz had no hand in the ad that caused Trump to attack Heidi Cruz</a> and accuse Ted Cruz of adultery (without any evidence). Trump is likely to respond to a terrorist plot hatched in a Muslim suburb of Brussels with a nuclear strike against Belgium. And this guy takes ANY criticism as a veiled personal attack. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/history-donald-trump-megyn-kelly-feud/story?id=36526503" target="_blank">Megyn Kelly asks a critical question, he goes after her personally.</a> <a href="http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/michelle-fields-donald-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-tweets-attack-credibility-battery-twitter/" target="_blank">Michelle Fields asks for an apology from his campaign manager, and he labels her a liar and a terrorist.</a><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/14/trumps-campaign-continues-to-blame-disgusting-and-corrupt-media/" target="_blank"> Any news outlet opposes his policies, and he labels them corrupt</a>. This guy thinks he is so brilliant that any critic cannot be acting out of anything but bias and animosity. If in his young years his Dad's army of lawyers shielded him from accountability, now his army of devotees are shielding him from sanity. Imagine an army of intelligence agencies and soldiers shielding him from scrutiny, dedicated to take down his enemies.<br />
<br />
<u>Arrogance</u><br />
<a href="http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector" target="_blank">From the beginning Trump never had any substance on policy or solutions. His main reason for running was an ego trip. To be able to have the bragging rights of "almost" becoming the most powerful man on Earth.</a> His main argument for electing him continues to be his massive ego. Just read one of his tweets: "<a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/714581379351252996" target="_blank">News tells of massive foreign criminal gangs in our largest cities. Only I can solve</a>!" It doesn't matter what his policies or preferences are, as long as HE is in charge the decisions are bound to be good. <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/04/Debating-Deficit-Mr-Trump-Your-Numbers-Don-t-Add" target="_blank">He'll solve a 700 billion gap in Medicare and Social Security payments by clamping down on 3bn worth of "waste, fraud, and abuse."</a> <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article93020512.html" target="_blank">He'll make a gigantic wall along the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it</a>. He'll solve the <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198979/trump-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-i-got-this" target="_blank">Israel-Palestine conflict by "making a good deal.</a>" Any problem in the world, just sprinkle som magic "Trump" dust on it and the problem will fix itself. If ever there was a man who claimed to be a god.... Oh, he can get these things done, no mistake. But his cures will be worse than the original problem. He can make up the 700bn by labelling, at random, half of all Medicare and Social Security payments as "waste, fraud, and abuse." He can make Mexico pay for the wall by threatening war and annexing Baja California until they pay the wall as a ransom. He can solve the Israel-Palestine conflict by killing off 1/4 of Gaza, including the entire leadership of Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority with all their families and extended families and "collateral damage." It really is amazing what you can get done if you don't let morals get in the way. Nazi Germany were particularly good at these kind of solutions. This is the kind of scorched-earth tactics Trump has lived by his entire business life. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-doesnt-read-much-being-president-probably-wouldnt-change-that/2016/07/17/d2ddf2bc-4932-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html" target="_blank">He has not studied up on any of the issues and gets his information from cable news</a> (by his own admission). The fact that he can still consider himself fit for the hardest job on Earth tells volumes about the arrogance of this man.<br />
<br />
<u>Cruelty and savagery</u><br />
Politics and real-estate business are blood sports, there is no doubt about it, but even in those venues Trump has earned a<a href="http://ijr.com/2016/02/539800-the-7-people-and-groups-donald-trump-has-threatened-to-sue-since-announcing-his-run-for-president/" target="_blank"> reputation for ruthlessness</a>. As a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bills-specialrepor-idUSKCN0T214Q20151113" target="_blank">business practice he breaks contracts and pays contractors just 90% of the sum agreed upon in the contract</a>, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/" target="_blank">hoping they will just take that sum and not sue, since that will cost them more</a>. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-thin-skinned-donald-trump-uses-insults-threats-and-lawsuits-to-quiet-critics/2016/07/14/252ae148-1b83-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=a_inl" target="_blank">When anyone accuses him of fraud or abuse he responds by trying to destroy their lives.</a> <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-loses-libel-lawsuit-232923" target="_blank">He even sued an author for 5 billion dollars for stating that Trump's fortune was worth 3 billion, instead of the 10 billion Trump claims it's worth</a>. He is suing those who were <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trump-university-lawsuit-donald-trump-20160226-story.html" target="_blank">defrauded by him in the Trump University scam for complaining</a>. As a candidate, in the "job interview" stage of the process where people try to be their best, he has encouraged violence against protesters and Republican delegates, maligned non-rivals such as Megyn Kelly, Michelle Fields, Heidi Cruz, and <a href="http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jun/13/priorities-usa-action/pro-clinton-super-pac-ad-trump-mocked-disabled-r/" target="_blank">a disabled reporter</a>, and taken every cheap shot and <i>ad hominem </i>argument imaginable. In his personal life <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/heartless-donald-trump-cut-medical-7969146" target="_blank">he cut vital medical care to a family member, a little boy with a dangerous neurological disease, because the boy's parents were in a dispute with him about his father's inheritance.</a> The parents sued successfully, and the medical insurance was reinstated, but this clearly shows that no holds are barred against Trump's enemies. <a href="http://time.com/4247397/donald-trump-waterboarding-torture/" target="_blank">As a president he has already said he would torture and kill the wives and children of terrorists</a>. He has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/20/donald-trump-defends-vladimir-putin-endorsement" target="_blank">applauded the tactics used by Putin to stifle dissent</a> and the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432043/donald-trump-praised-tiananmen-square-massacre" target="_blank">actions of the Chinese government during the Tianmen Square Massacre</a>. If there is a low-road insult, a threat, or any use of force Trump can apply to impose his will and get away with it, he has demonstrated time and again that he can and will use it. Lord help us all if this man is ever given executive power and the sovereign immunity of a president.<br />
<br />
<u>Immorality and Avarice</u><br />
One question I and a lot of people have been asking themselves: "Why in the world does Donald Trump want to be president?" He certainly has no desire for public service, as shown by the fact that he has never run for elected office even once. He clearly is uncomfortable discussing foreign policy or any kind of policy for that matter. As far as power and pleasure goes, is there no limit to his appetite for these things? Is there anything more a billionaire could wish for that his current sack of gold does not bestow upon him? If he ever achieves it, what will this guy do with ultimate power? My mind hesitates to go there, but it has to be clear to everyone what the consequences of electing him are likely to be. Bill Clinton was an adulterer, but he at least tried to keep a facade of decency. Contrast this with someone who brags about "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3451452/Trump-says-sex-eighties-personal-Vietnam-Howard-Stern-interview-1997.html" target="_blank">sleeping with famous married women"</a> and who runs strip clubs at his casinos. Imagine a mobster family taking over the White House and you would get the idea. He would turn the White House into a brothel. This would be the image portrayed to young men in America and throughout the world. This is the lesson: "Cheat, choose the low road, hit your opponent below the belt, use any advantage you have, and you too can become the leader of the free world some day." Make Chick Hicks the hero of <i>Cars</i>, make Gaston the hero of <i>Beauty and the Beast, </i>forget all that religion, philosophy, and civilization has taught man about morality and justice: "Might is right."<br />
<br />
Immorality and avarice. These are the vices which a tyrant can exercise without restraint, and the very ability to do so constitute the lure and reward of tyranny. To have whatever one's eye lusts for, be it property, power, or people, this is the lure for the tyrant. The desire for absolute power would have little meaning for unscrupulous people if that power did not enable one to break all bonds which social position, morality, and laws would otherwise restrain. The Roman emperors would frequently display that power by taking the wives of men they had invited to the palace. Do not be surprised if Trump repeats as president the behavior he has bragged about as a billionaire. Remember the words of one of your <a href="http://classroom.synonym.com/did-john-adams-say-democracy-never-lasts-long-7843.html" target="_blank">Founding Fathers, John Adams</a>:<br />
<br />
"Those passions [vanity, pride, selfishness, ambition, and avarice] . . . when unchecked, produce the . . . effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation." How much harder then for someone who has never resisted such temptations....<br />
<br />
Turn around while there still is time! Do not elect "your tyrant" to beat "their tyrant" and recognize tyranny for what it is: madness. A tyrant is in your midst and wants to be at your head. Do not allow it!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The West has lived without tyrannies for so long that they cannot imagine anymore what it is like to live under one. Words like "tyrant" are thrown around and misused as soon as there is any new executive overreach. But tyranny, in its proper sense, has an entirely different scope. There is no private property in a tyranny, nor is anything sacred. There is nothing where anyone can say, "this is mine" or "this is private." What is there then to live or hope for?</div>
As the Athenian Euripides writes:<br />
"Why should one acquire wealth and livelihood<br />
For his children, if the struggle is only to enrich the tyrant further?<br />
Why keep his young daughters virtuously at home,<br />
To be the sweet delight of tyrants?<br />
I'd rather die than have my daughters wed by violence" (<i>First Democracy, </i>Woodruff 63).<br />
<br />
Cicero, who saw the death of the Roman Republic in his time sums it up like this in his <i>The Republic</i>: "As soon as a king takes the first step towards a more unjust regime, he at once becomes a tyrant. And that is the foulest and most repellent creature imaginable, and the most abhorrent to god and man alike. Although he has the outward appearance of a man, he outdoes the wildest beasts in the utter savagery of his behavior" (50).<br />
<br />
I fear the American public will discover too late that their watered down public institutions and Constitution are woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of a tyrannical president. </div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-34174837851916340792016-01-19T04:10:00.006-07:002016-01-25T12:30:50.803-07:00Arguments and the Structure of Reality: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman, Part III<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Well, this is my penultimate (second to last) post on Perelman's system of argumentation. The remaining are "arguments based on the structure of reality" and "arguments to establish a structure of reality."</div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
These are different from the quasi-logical arguments in the sense that these do not deal with <i>essential</i> patterns of thought, but rather they deal with <i>habitual</i> patterns of thought. Some of these patterns may just be conventions of Western society and may not always be in operation in other cultures. Perelman describes these patterns as follows: “As soon as elements of reality are associated with each
other in a recognized connection, it is possible to use this connection as the
basis for an argumentation which allows us to pass from what is accepted to
what we wish to have accepted” (81). Essentially, you find structures of
reality that are already there (already accepted) and then apply them to a
specific situation. As Kenneth Burke points out, these structures may only be "natural" in the sense that a path made through a field is natural. Nevertheless, as soon as that structure or path has been made it is there as a structure that can be used to pass from A to B. <br />
<o:p></o:p><br />
Perelman divides these structures into two groups: <i>liasons of succession</i> and <i>liasons of coexistence</i>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Liasons of succession</i> show a kind of linear progression on
the same level (of the same kind), <o:p></o:p><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEy1V3_AEDAz44LaeyUSpsLhgFwpOIT1sdnSLjOw_jCtbe4A2AA34PRmZeNgIzj8BuLsTl8wainxR58gGC-DUVpTl-UNBPkkeAGSiItkfXoiUMmrBR6OmTruBLqxBIYXqK_XsAYUUoskk/s1600/liasons+of+succession.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEy1V3_AEDAz44LaeyUSpsLhgFwpOIT1sdnSLjOw_jCtbe4A2AA34PRmZeNgIzj8BuLsTl8wainxR58gGC-DUVpTl-UNBPkkeAGSiItkfXoiUMmrBR6OmTruBLqxBIYXqK_XsAYUUoskk/s400/liasons+of+succession.jpg" /></a><br />
<ul style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #252525; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial; font-size: 18px; line-height: 26.01px; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">whereas </span><i style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">liasons of coexistence</i><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"> show relationships across different levels.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKa4nEZ9ZjAzls3g0vNvh3RDpT2wfr030gflcEkynqO0-tp5mJHOy7syj3hjDQt7MHm4S5tJrGLcu5ocFjIQJ6BYcMdUoMYlMmGQ1L5a-ShOEnjpUR7BGEi9y5RpK8KuLz8zBGfQfF6c8/s1600/liasons+of+coexistence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKa4nEZ9ZjAzls3g0vNvh3RDpT2wfr030gflcEkynqO0-tp5mJHOy7syj3hjDQt7MHm4S5tJrGLcu5ocFjIQJ6BYcMdUoMYlMmGQ1L5a-ShOEnjpUR7BGEi9y5RpK8KuLz8zBGfQfF6c8/s200/liasons+of+coexistence.jpg" width="191" /></a> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><br />
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> As a matter of interest, these two structures may resemble the different structures of how men and women think. According to this psychologist, men think primarily in liasons of succession whereas women think primarily in liasons of coexistence.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rkZvLHiaHQc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rkZvLHiaHQc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<b> 1. Liasons of succession (cause, effect, fact and
consequence)</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perelman writes, “Having accepted the existence of correlations, natural
laws, or the principle that the same causes produce the same effects, one is
able to construct hypotheses within a given context and verify them with the
appropriate inquiries” (82). In other words, as soon as we believe that we have identified a reliable mechanism or relationship between cause and effect, we can use that to make arguments about what causes what and what consequences a certain action would have. One of the most common uses of this is the pragmatic argument, which has become dominant in 21st century capitalism: "If it sells then it is a good product!"<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> <b>
</b></span><!--[endif]--><b>The pragmatic argument</b> = Evaluate a fact by its
consequences<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Perelman writes, “The pragmatic argument, which seems to
reduce the value of a cause to that of its consequences, gives the impression
that all values are of the same order. It is thus that the truth of an idea
can, in pragmatism, only be judged by its effects, the failure of an enterprise
or life likewise serving as a criterion of its irrationality or inauthenticity”
(83). We call Steve Jobs a genius because he succeeded, but if he had failed then we may have called him a fool. One example of this argument can be seen below: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: This government program has been
vindicated and has proven its worth beyond question. Through it, thousands have
found employment, the deficit has been reduced, and valuable goods and services
have been provided for the citizens of our country. (fact judged by consequences)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span>One can resist the pragmatic argument by questioning its
application. A fact cannot always be evaluated by its consequences, and the post-hoc fallacy is an example of taking this too far (post hoc ergo propter hoc means "this followed that, therefore that caused this"). Correlation does not prove causation. As Perelman says, “How do we determine the indefinite chain
of consequences that result from an action, and how are we to impute to a
single cause the consequences that result most often from the concurrence of
several events?” (83)</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Just because some things happened at the
same time does not mean that the one caused the other! Yes, people were hired
during that time, but the economy in general had been recovering rapidly for
several months before. The reduced deficit is a result of the economy
rebounding, not this government program. As far as goods and services go, you
have caused several food companies to lay off workers or go out of business
because you provided for free what they sold and therefore destroyed their
market. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
One could use the same method against arguments that "Hitler led to the end of antisemitism, so we should thank him" or "pornography sells, so obviously it must be a good product," or "making drugs illegal has caused a lot of violence, therefore it is a bad idea to have drug laws." </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> <b>
</b></span><!--[endif]--><b>Means/end arguments of waste</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Perelman writes that in this argument, “Means have only a relative value because
they depend on the value accorded the end, which is considered to be
independent” (85). This is a common thread in the "ends justify the means" argument, which is common in rationalizations of unethical behavior. However, on a smaller scale, we all do this: "I am sorry I yelled at you, but I was trying to save you from being hit by the truck!" Some common forms of the means/end argument are the arguments of waste, redundancy, and the decisive. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Argument of waste</i>: “The existence of an
effective means allows us to realize a desire and gives the desire a stability
sufficient to transform it into an end . . . To avoid wasting effort in
attaining a certain end, a person will continue a project until it is completed
. . . The action, which, under the circumstances, can attain its full bearing
and should thus not be considered a waste, will thereby gain in value and this
militates in favor of its being done” (87). This is a very prominent argument in science and technology, where the potential of a theory or technology provides an almost irresistible argument for pursuing it. The best pop-culture example of this may be <i>Jurassic Park</i>: "It is technically possible to make dinosaurs. Let's do it!"<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lpuS7_NPv6U/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lpuS7_NPv6U?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
Similar arguments are leading the development in bioengineering (after the discovery of the CRISPR gene editing technology) and robotics (despite warnings from Stephen Hawking and others about the potential dangers of autonomous warrior robots). </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
It is a powerful argument because we as societies are addicted to "progress" and have seen how we have changed our societies and lifestyles by utilizing effective means to the fullest. We all use this kind of argument on a smaller scale. Here are some everyday examples:<br />
<br />
“Your brother was never good at school,
but how can you who have been blessed with such talent and intelligence not go
to college?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Your mother and I have worked for twenty
years to make it possible for you to go to school, so you better study and take
this seriously.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“How can we leave and give up now when we
finally have a good chance to succeed?”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Device
of Stages</i>: This is a form of argumentation that leads a person through many intermediate stages from refusing an argument to accepting it. Perelman writes, “When the gap between the theses the audience accepts and those
the speaker defends is too great to be overcome all at once, it is advisable to
divide the difficulty and arrive at the same result gradually” (87). This of course is common to most education courses, where a student who cannot possibly understand or agree to an abstract or complex principle is gradually "indoctrinated" or learns the steps to do so. It can of course also be abused to make people gradually accept unethical behavior that they initially refuse since it goes against their principles. I think the quote on vice by Alexander Pope is very appropriate here:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
As to be hated needs but to be seen;</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”</div>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
This "device of stages" is also found in the EU directives on the process of naturalization, where the goal is to make conservative societies gradually accept homosexuality by saturation and making it the norm rather than the exception. Sales people often use this "trick" to get people to buy what they don't want through gradual assent to smaller propositions leading up to the final assent to the sales proposition.<br />
<br />
Here is an example:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: I could never kill someone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Ok, I can understand that, you seem like
someone with a general good will for people, who would never willingly hurt
anyone. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: I am.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Are there some people you care more for
than others, somebody that you really love? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Yes, of course. My little sister for
example.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: And I assume you would do and have done
a lot for her? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Yes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Would you be willing to make
sacrifices in your life if it could help her? For example, would you donate
your blood if she needed it for an operation?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Yes, of course.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Would you lie if it could save her life?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Yes, I would.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: What if you two were home alone, and
someone broke into your house planning to murder your sister? You had a gun and
could only stop him by shooting him? Would you pull the trigger?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: And that would be the only way?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Yes, the only way to save her would be
to pull that trigger. You already said you would be willing to sacrifice a lot
to help her. So what if you have to sacrifice your aversion to killing in order
to save her life? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Then I guess I would. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: So what you are saying is that you could
conceivably kill someone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: I guess….<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Argument
of direction</i> is a tool one can use to resist the device of stages: Perelman writes that “foreseeing or anticipating
future developments, oppose the first step, fearing that it will lead to a
‘slippery slope’ that will allow no stopping and end in total capitulation”
(88). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
Here is an example:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
B: Would you be willing to make sacrifices
in your life if it could help her?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
A: Stop, I can see where you are trying to
take this. You are going to set it up so I feel selfish for not killing someone
because then I am not sacrificing enough for my sister. You know what? I am not
going to go there. I refuse to ever kill someone, period. There is always
another way out. Your hypothetical scenarios aren’t realistic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Argument of infinite developmen</i>t: This argument, often used in politics and science, professes
to consider each realization in the given field only as a stage in an
indefinite progression, usually towards some neverending quest for a utopia. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
Here is an example from the 1937 movie <i>The Shape of Things to Come</i> by H.G.Wells:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Rest enough for the individual perhaps. Too
much and too soon and we call it death. But for <i>man</i>, no rest and no ending. He must go on. Conquest beyond
conquest. First this little planet with its whims and ways, and then all laws
of mind and matter that restrain it. Then all the planets that are about it.
And at last, out across the immensity of the stars. And when he has conquered
all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be
beginning.” <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KRRXtymX50U/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KRRXtymX50U?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> <b> </b></span><b>Liasons of Coexistence (Connects realities on
unequal levels)</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<i>Act/Person relationship</i>. Do the actions define character or
does the character define the action? Whether or not we agree that this is a good argument (sometimes we call it the ad hominem argument) it is always a factor that a person takes with him or her. Aristotle referred to the credibility a person has as his or her ethos<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><br />
<!--[endif]--> Ethos: “Past acts contribute to the good or bad
reputation of the agent. The good name a person enjoys becomes a form of
capital embodied in his person, an asset it is legitimate to use in case of
need.” Also, it is in the context formed by the person that people interpret
all his acts, attributing to him an <i>intention</i>
that conforms to the idea they have of him” (93). One use of this "capital" is the argument from authority. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Argument from authority</i>: This argument is of interest
only in the absence of demonstrable proof. Common criteria for establishing
authority today are competence, tradition, antiquity, and universality. When we hear of a new discovery we first ask whether the researcher has competence to make and recognize such a discovery, and we often reject findings that seem to be going against the tradition of science or the established scientific truths. For example, many have rejected the possibility of the EmDrive working because it goes against the law of the conservation of energy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
Here is an example of the argument from authority, which would work in contexts that accept these authorities:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“As Mother Theresa said, 'If you judge
people, you have no time to love them.' We should be so full of Christ’s love
that we would not have mind or time to judge other people because of their
weaknesses.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
The main question here is the connection between a person and the acts performed by the person. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Techniques to prevent the act from coloring the
person or the person from coloring the act are <i>techniques of severance</i> and <i>techniques
of restraint</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<i>Restraint</i>: Here one may interpose time, or mention exceptional
circumstances, an unusual state of mind, social surroundings, etc. "This was back in his college days," or "this was at a time of national shock," or "that is how everyone he surrounded himself with thought about the issue in those days."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
These categories are not exhaustive nor are they always applicable. Perelman writes that “the categories developed in the
humanities . . . are constructions of the mind, tied to a distinction between
what is essential and what is accessory, accidental, or negligible” (100). It is often said that they are more useful than true, which means that they do not claim universality. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> <b>
</b></span><!--[endif]--><i style="font-weight: bold;">Double Hierarchies: </i>This is another liason of coexistence. In this argument, the relationship between two
terms in one hierarchy are judged by another hierarchy. We often talk of how there is a constitution behind the Constitution or a structure of divine or moral law that directs and gives validity to common law. Many things in our language and in our societies depend on a second hierarchy to give it meaning and legitimacy. This is often used in poetry and fiction. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
For example:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“After the grey, cold, and naked buildings
of the industrial district it was refreshing to see the rich colors of the Lake
District with its abundance of life and beautiful scenery” (describes scenery
in terms of the rich-poor social hierarchy)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Oh, I know that everyone needs work,
clothes, and food and such. But I wish we could talk about other things too,
since man does not live by bread and water alone. The spirit or soul of man
also needs nourishing you know” (needs discussed in terms of the body/soul
hierarchy).<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Here is a powerful example from <i>The Great Debaters</i> where James Farmer uses a double hierarchy of divine law/common law to argue that unjust law is no law at all. (6:49-10:00)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BiEOekObZ5Q/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BiEOekObZ5Q?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
As mentioned before, all these arguments rely on <i>habitual</i> structures of the mind, but I believe a good argument could be made that they work so well because they make use of structures that have served us well individually in a lot of decisions that we have made.<br />
<br />
PS: Can you figure out which argumentation method I just used?</div>
</div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-78694397061825993152015-09-01T07:45:00.000-06:002015-09-01T07:45:46.978-06:00A Beginner's Guide to Perelman's Quasi-Logical Arguments: Part II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
As mentioned in the last post, this is a beginner's introduction to Perelman. Hopefully, reading these posts is easier than reading his books. The arguments in the last post were all related to the principles of consistency and identity. The following arguments continue in the same strain, but it may be easier to think of them as dealing with relationships and comparisons <i>between</i> events or identities. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Reciprocity and the Rule of Justice</b><o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img src="http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI7XVbNWIAAMF5S.jpg:large" height="316" width="400" /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Is it justice of Germany to refuse debt relief to Greece when the country was itself given debt relief by Greece in 1953? Is this a case where "one good turn deserves another"? These are questions of whether or not we can equate or identify two situations with each other.<br />
<br />
As Perelman writes, “<i>In practice, the problem is to know in what case it is
rational or just to treat in the same way two beings or situations which differ
but which can be likened to each other.</i> It is thus a question of partial, not
complete identification, which is justified by the fact that the differences
are considered negligible but the likeness essential. What is or is not
essential depends upon the desired end” (65). Two methods of argumentation depend essentially upon this reasoning: the rule of justice, and reciprocity.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b>Rule of justice</b> = “Beings in the same essential
category should be treated in the same way” (66).<br />
<br />
It is considered inconsistent or evidence of bias if we treat people <i>who are essentially the same</i>, differently. This is the central argument of discrimination or bigotry. A bigot is defined as "a person who strongly and <i>unfairly </i>dislikes other people, ideas, etc." The defining question here is not the strength of dislike, but rather whether or not the dislike is "fair." The central argument over same-sex marriage is not whether or not there is <i>any</i> difference between a man and a woman getting married or a man and another man. I don't think anybody would claim there was <i>no</i> difference. The question is whether or not there is any <i>essential</i> difference between the two. Defenders of the unique position of heterosexual marriages do not claim that they don't treat the two differently, but rather that they do so for good reasons, fairly, because they see an essential difference between the two arrangements.<br />
<br />
This tension is pretty well illustrated in the two meanings of the word "discriminate." It can mean either 1. to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups, or<br />
2, to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things. Discrimination has become a devil term in modern times (a term which carries a strong negative emotional connotation), but it essentially means that one is able to recognize difference. Who decides whether you are doing definition 1 or definition 2 of the word? Again, it depends on whether the different treatment is "unfair" or unjustified, Is the different treatment based on warranted essential differences between the two things, or is it based on unwarranted, irrational bias and dislike? If you do definition 1 then you break what Perelman calls "the rule of justice."<br />
<br />
The rule of justice is the lever that people can use to point out hypocrisy and injustice. Here, the former slave Sojourner Truth uses it to great effect against a white priest who claims that women should not work because they should not have to work: </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“That man over there says women need to be
helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place
everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives
me any best place! And arn’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have
ploughed, and planted , and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And
arn’t I woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get
it—and bear the lash as well! And arn’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children,
and seen them most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my
mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And aren’t I a woman?” (Sojourner
Truth). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
But the argument is not irrefutable. For example, take a look at the argument about German debt relief in 1953: because of the elapsed time between there is no lack of arguments people can use to show that the two situations are <i>essentially different</i> and so the rule of justice does not apply. This brings us to the first potential criticism one can use to counter an argument based on the rule of justice and precedent:<br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<i><b>- The problem of the assimilation of two essentially different situations.</b></i><br />
<br />
For example, no matter how corrupt the Greek governments were when they accumulated the huge unsustainable debt loads, these debts were incurred by democratically elected governments from both sides of the political aisle over many years. How can one possibly compare that to the debt incurred by Hitler's totalitarian regime and the damages caused by WWII? I, for one, do not agree that the German people as a whole can be held as accountable for that monetary debt as the Greek people can be for their debt. As for the larger responsibility for WWII and all that it encompassed, the Germans are carrying that debt as a debt of shame, even though the Great Depression, the Versailles Treaty, and the international sentiments that furthered the rise of Fascism make it as much an international accident as the willful act of a nation.<br />
<br />
The standard refutation of the rule of justice is "you are mixing apples and oranges." Here is an example of an argument I heard on the radio in the US about protecting life for some and not for others: “You are saying that I am unjust because I
am pro-life and yet I am not opposed to the death penalty. You are trying to
compare apples and oranges! That little baby has done no harm to anyone. She
hasn’t even had a chance to see if she is going to become a decent human being.
That is different from wanting to see a pedophile killer who has raped and
murdered little children die for his crimes. He has had his chance in life and
he chose to waste it and commit offenses which are worthy of death. I protect
the life of the innocent, not the guilty.” (Criticizes one category and
suggests its replacement with another more essential category)</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Second criticism: The treatment accorded two
situations that are equated with each other.</i></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
This is essentially an attempt to show that there is an essential difference, and that our behavior already implicitly recognizes that difference. Here is an example refuting the "all men are equal" thesis:<br />
“We say all men are equal, but if we really
believe that then why is there a 1<sup>st</sup> class option on airplanes? Why
are there luxury goods and low-prince goods? Why do only some of us go shopping
at Walmart while others go to Whole Foods or Trader Joe? Clearly we are not
treated as equal, so why do we go on pretending that we are equal and that
class and race doesn’t matter?”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Here another example from the movie <i>Lincoln</i> where Thaddeus Stevens uses this same objection to argue that all are not created equal:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/V7Brh9iWajc/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V7Brh9iWajc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Argument of reciprocity (equates two beings or
situations).</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
The argument of reciprocity is very similar to the rule of justice, but the focus is a little different. Whereas the rule of justice states simply that "all who are the same should be treated the same," the argument of reciprocity is more of a two-way relationship, requiring that all which applies to, for example your interlocutor, should also apply to you. For example, it is hypocritical in a discussion to expect your interlocutor to be open-minded and willing to change their mind if you are not. Likewise, one could use the example of Germany and Greece and say that "one good turn deserves another: Greece forgave Germany's debts and now it is Germany's turn to forgive Greece's debts." This argument is implicit in most equal relationships, and it is therefore a resource that an arguer can turn to when arguing that this kind of dealing with one another is just. Some examples:<br />
<br />
“I helped you when you were in trouble, so
help me now when I am the one who has the same problem that you had before.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Germans cannot complain about the
fire-bombing of Dresden when they themselves did the same in Coventry and
London and indeed did worse with the Holocaust and the Russian campaign.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
Of course, this argument also is not irrefutable. The basic requirement for this argument to work is that there is a certain symmetry between the current situation and a former one. Thus, the first method of refuting this argument is<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><i><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Show inapplicability by showing that the
symmetry is only apparent</b></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
Yes, these two situations or beings look the same, but there are significant differences between the two which warrant different behavior:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Yes, we were both in debt, but I owed 1000
dollars, whereas you owe 100,000 dollars. These two situations are
qualitatively and quantitatively different.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Arguments of Transitivity, Inclusion, and
Division</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
This class of arguments build on a kind of "geometric thinking" that is common for certain proofs in formal logic. Transitivity is essentially the postulate of the equilateral triangle, and inclusion and division has to do with the comparison of different geometrical bodies and their relationship to one another.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b>Transitivity (if a relationship exists between A
and B and B and C, then the same relationship exists between A and C).</b><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF7_ObaQhyphenhyphen7N8mx1E7noUHmSL34TQFhNsARr5OaS7SLOnZSUuABOVKsg_CEuVrBdWC2GjIDTZYPw7CukO84RAPEqz-WhJGlsT9A2HQE_bRRUWRNzvAZtVt7ST-aKa7rKXs4t_9z1JNTo8/s1600/Equilateral+triangle.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF7_ObaQhyphenhyphen7N8mx1E7noUHmSL34TQFhNsARr5OaS7SLOnZSUuABOVKsg_CEuVrBdWC2GjIDTZYPw7CukO84RAPEqz-WhJGlsT9A2HQE_bRRUWRNzvAZtVt7ST-aKa7rKXs4t_9z1JNTo8/s1600/Equilateral+triangle.png" /></a></div>
The idea of transitivity is that a consistent relationship in two links can help predict what the relationship will be in the third link. Of course, real life is seldom as simple or straightforward as that. A common argument using this form is, “Any friend of John’s is a friend of mine.” The idea is that of Euclid's geometry: "Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Here is a clip from Lincoln where he uses transitivity to argue for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and equality before the law.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DTO3xmfvaUA/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DTO3xmfvaUA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
We see some looser versions of this thinking in common arguments:<br />
<br />
“My enemy’s enemy is my friend. Anyone
willing to fight against Hitler is our ally.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“If justice is more important than
advantage, and love is more important than justice, then surely love must be
more important than advantage.” <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
"If we are equal before the law then we are equal indeed."<br />
<br />
Of course, as with the argument of "any friend of John," one need only show that these relationships are not 100% the same to undermine this argument. "Yes, John may be such a good person that I can trust anyone that he would trust, but friendship is more than trust." Or, "Stalin may be Hitler's enemy, but he is <i>not</i> our friend, though he may for a time be our ally." </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Inclusion of part in the whole</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
The essential aspect of the argument of inclusion is that something which is a <i>part</i> of a larger category <i>belongs to</i> or is <i>subservient</i> to that category, principle, or body. This is the core of arguments of patriotism, family, basically any kind of communal identity or cause that is given a higher status than the individual or smaller category. The core of patriotic arguments may be describes thus: “A nation is greater and more than just the sum of the
people who live in it, therefore sometimes the people who live in the nation
must be sacrificed for the good of the nation." Look for example at this quote from Thomas Jefferson:<br />
<br />
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."<br />
<br />
Or this quote from John Adams as he argues for passing the Declaration of Independence:<br />
<br />
"If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready…. But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.<br />
<br />
“But whatever may be our fate, be assured…that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood, but it will stand and it will richly compensate for both.<br />
<br />
Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. . . .<br />
<br />
Before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and Independence forever."<br />
<br />
Here we see John Adams subordinating himself and his life to the greater goal of a free country, the Declaration, and a glorious future that will make the trials of the present seem but a trifle in comparison.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
The rebuttal for such reasoning is one that may easily seem less noble, since it cannot claim the same degree of unselfishness and self-sacrifice that we are naturally drawn to as moral creatures. Yet, it can be effective.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><i><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Questioning inclusion can happen by showing the
presence of the present and actual over the larger concept. </b></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
An argument in this strain could say, “What is a nation? It is an abstract
concept, a gigantic myth, it is unreal. What is real is that we have each other
and care for each other. Let the big men and masses have their war. I just want
to live.” Bobby Darrin invokes such an argument in his "Simple Song of Freedom" to defuse the patriotic war rhetoric of the 1960s.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sA3Cc5-Tqfw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sA3Cc5-Tqfw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
Mr. John Dickinson famously invoked this kind of rhetoric to defuse John Adams' rhetoric and sabotage the passing of the Declaration of Independence. Though we do not have his exact words, this is what the summary record mentions (you can probably imagine how he said it): <br />
<br />
"The War will be carried on with more Severity. The Burning of Towns, the Setting Loose of Indians on our Frontiers, has Not yet been done. Boston might have been burnt to the ground."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Argument by division (includes dilemma and
arguments <i>a pari</i> and <i>a contrario</i>).</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
This argument is got by dividing a topic, body, or situation in different ways, and thereby gaining a certain effect of perspective. When it comes to concepts and categories, can choose where to divide something, so
the division is also a choice rather than something set in stone. Dividing into two pieces invites antagonism, whereas dividing into many pieces invites diffusion. Observe the difference between "If you are not with us then you are against us," and "You may support us directly, or morally, or remain neutral, or disagree with us, or actively oppose us." One directs towards clear action, while the second diffuses action since the possible relationships are harder to grasp.<br />
<br />
A common use of antagonistic thinking is the argument of dilemma. Dilemma is where two unpleasant options are
presented and we have to choose the best (or lesser evil) of them. For example,</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“There is no ignoring ISIS. We can either
fight them now when they are still disorganized and scattered, or we can
encounter them later as a consolidated power with terror cells established in
every Western nation.” (aims to force a decision)<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Observe the argument of division in this polemical political ad that builds such a strong us vs. them picture of the world that you think it's the terrorists themselves that are building a mosque in New York!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mjGJPPRD3u0/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mjGJPPRD3u0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Closely related are arguments <i>a pari</i>
and <i>a contrario</i>. Comparing one
species to the other and saying they should be treated the same (a pari) or
differently (a contrario). For example, Cicero writes, "However one defines Man, the same definition is true for all of us." (argument <i>a pari</i>). In another place he writes, "You wish to keep all citizens safe, even when those citizens are a danger to the Republic?" (argument <i>a contrario</i>). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Weights and Measure, and Probabilities.</b> These are arguments about the important and the probable, which are notoriously subjective categories. We often use these methods when we
make arguments of comparison that are assumed to have an arguable basis. Of course, the choice
of comparison assigns the weights. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
When we
compare two things, we automatically place them in a hierarchy relative to each
other. One is placed higher whereas the other is devalued. The effect of
comparisons is often more to impress than to inform. Here is an example:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“Everything was better before. You could
expect people to be decent and care about each other. Now, we hardly even see
each other as we walk down the streets with our heads in our iPhones. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
A weight one can use is called <b><i>"Argument of sacrifice."</i></b> In the absence of an
objective standard, things are judged only by the value people attach to them. For example, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“We don’t know what the purpose of the
Stonehenge was, but we can tell from the effort it took to bring these stones
all the way here that this was important for whoever built this.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
or<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“We have come too far, we have sacrificed
too much to give up now.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b>-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Probability (final category)</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
When we talk of arguments of probability, we are not necessarily referring to the use of statistics. Rather, we use certain patterns of expectation that come from human experience and help us assign preference and probability. For example, we prefer many rather than few options, certainty over
uncertainty, the known over the unknown. You may hear advice to take a certain kind of education because "then you leave more options open to you." All those options may be wrong, but we generally think that the sheer number of options available increases the chance of making a good choice. The same goes for valuing the certain over the uncertain. Before the Challenger launch, this argument was made on this basis:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
“So there may be some risk of losing a
flight if we launch, but there is certainty of losing money if we delay the
launch.”<br />
<br />
This tendency is also why we value metrics so much, and why we often make the measurable important rather than making the important measurable. It feels good to have something we can be more certain of in our hands.<br />
<br />
Perelman adds a warning to these arguments of probability:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br />
“All these techniques presupposed the
reduction of a problem to only one of its aspects, noncalculable but capable of
evaluation in terms of frequency. But this reduction can lead to the disregard
of other possible essential aspects” (80).</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-78990126078498686932015-04-20T14:03:00.001-06:002015-04-21T03:49:17.742-06:00Philosophical Rhetoric: A Beginner's Guide to Perelman's Quasi-Logical Arguments, Part I<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
When I first read <i>The New Rhetoric</i> by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, and later <i>The Realm of Rhetoric</i> by just Perelman, I was struck by how elegantly these books describe the kind of arguments that are being used all around us. The second realization, was that this system, for different reasons, is often not used in areas where they could provide the most help. Part of the problem is that these books are sometimes seen as difficult or inaccessible.<br />
<br />
Therefore, I have tried to make a "beginner's guide" to the system Perelman describes in <i>The Realm of Rhetoric</i>, beginning with his classification of what he calls "quasi-logical arguments."<br />
<br />
<b>Quasi-Logical Arguments</b><br />
As far as I can tell, he calls them quasi-logical because they resemble formal logic, but are not as restrictive. More than anything, what we are dealing with here seem to be essential patterns of thought when we try to deal with a concept in some way (53). Perelman had a background in formal logic as an analytical philosopher, but he found that system to be too restrictive (for example, there was no way in that system to argue about what the meaning of justice should be). These, loosely defined, are "logical" patterns of thought that still do not pass the over-rigid test of formal logic. The point is that Perelman saw these as valid methods of reasoning, and felt it would be a mistake to overlook their effect just because of an over-rigid definition of logic.<br />
<br />
<u>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Contradiction and Incompatibility</u><br />
In formal logic, as in math, you can prove a system to be nonsense if you can find a contradiction in the system. This is not the case in general argumentation. In argumentation, as in life, one can allow for nuances which show that it is just an apparent contradiction rather than a real one (54).<br />
<br />
In real life, what we really experience are not contradictions but incompatibilities which force us to choose in a conflict which rule will be followed. It is the fear of ridicule or disrepute which makes us try to avoid incompatibilities in our statements, and which makes us try to resolve them once they appear (55). The standard example, may be the charge made in the 2004 election that "John Kerry is a flip-flopper." This historical campaign ad shows how incompatibilities can be exploited to invoke ridicule against an opponent.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pbdzMLk9wHQ/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pbdzMLk9wHQ?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
A version of arguments of incompatibility on stereoids is called "autophagia." An <i>autophagia</i> is when a rule is incompatible with the conditions or consequences of its assertion or application. If you prove that this is the case you <i>retort</i> the former argument.<br />
<br />
Here are some prominent examples of how retorts have been formulated by pointing out autophagia:<br />
<br />
Positivists famously have stated that, “To be meaningful, a proposition must be either analytical or empirical.” This claim was made by A. J. Ayer and many other prominent positivists. To this a critic can simply respond (and many have): “Was that statement you just made analytical or empirical?” Ayer's statement is a statement of definition or preference, but there is nothing analytically or empirically verifiable about the term "meaningful proposition" that gives it the meaning Ayer is endowing it with. In other words, Ayer is himself breaking the rule that he wants everybody else to follow! The very assertion of a rule of preference violates his rule against assertions of preference. <br />
<br />
Similarly, the postmodernist may claim, "I have just discovered that all knowledge is subjective and everyone just sees what they want to see." But the critic can answer, "If all knowledge is subjective, how can you make a claim to know what everyone else sees? And how could you discover anything? Aren’t you also just seeing what you want to see? Perhaps only your knowledge is subjective." The claim that "all knowledge is relative" requires a perspective that is able to view knowledge somehow from the outside, from an objective vantage point. The philosopher Ray Bhaskar has argued for example that in order to even consider such a point as Thomas Kuhn's "incommensurability," you automatically imply the existence of an objective reality outside of the incommensurable theories of science.<br />
<br />
Here are a few simple examples you may have heard:<br />
A: Communication is impossible<br />
B: Then why are you talking?<br />
<br />
A: I’m not talking to you!<br />
B: You just did.<br />
<br />
Philosophers love to use this method to "catch" others in faulty thinking. This sketch illustrates the principle of autophagia in philosophic rhetoric:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tu3v87_97Hc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tu3v87_97Hc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
So how does one solve an apparent incompatibility? Perelman mentions a few common strategies, though I am sure there are more.<br />
<br />
-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Escape from contradiction comes by interposing time<br />
<br />
We recognize that the world is in flux, and so are our beliefs, values, and perspectives. Therefore, by interposing time we can show two incompatible statements to actually be compatible with a changing world and people who develop and grow. We constantly hear that the views of politicians "have evolved." That is an attempt at explaining apparent incompatibility by interposing time. Here are a few more examples:<br />
<br />
A: You said that we didn’t have to worry about Russia, but now you say we do have to worry?<br />
B: Well, back in 1994 we didn’t! Things have changed.<br />
<br />
A: You said that Germany is the most evil country in the world, and now you praise them?<br />
B: Yes, but that was during the Second World War. It is a totally different country now.<br />
<br />
-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Insist on the situated nature of the decision<br />
<br />
We are human enough to realize that people make different situations when they are differently situated. The situation looks different on the ground than it does from space, we excuse a colleague who is frustrated on the day after his mother died, we condone some criminal actions perpetrated under situations of intense stress or fear. This is why insisting on the situated nature of a decision can be effective. Some examples:<br />
<br />
A: Do you agree with what this platoon leader did?<br />
B: I leave to the soldier on the ground to decide what action the situation requires.<br />
<br />
A: You claim that you believe in law and order, but in 1998 you pardoned a murderer.<br />
B: It was a young boy who saw his friend get beat half to death in front of him. In that situation I did not feel the mandatory sentence fit the crime.<br />
<br />
-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Hide the incompatibility<br />
<br />
Of course, this is the least robust method, since all it takes for it to fail is someone to find the incompatibility and point it out. Still, if the incompatibility can remain hidden then one may never have to deal with it. All political parties are a walking incompatibility since they try to be a home for people with very different beliefs, personalities, and statements. We ourselves are walking incompatibilites since we have all done things that another part of ourselves would never do. Millions are spent every year to hid information that would expose incompatibilites about candidates, parties, companies, etc. But once this effort is exposed, the result is devastating. Nothing is more glaring than a lie to cover a lie.<br />
<br />
<u>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> Definition and Analysis</span></u><br />
To give a name to something is actually an argument. That is clear in the example of “He is a RINO (Republican in name only),” but less clear in statements like “a human is a rational animal” or “this was an accident” or even “I am a student.” Still, these are arguments, not simply statements of fact. This is the case because a definition chooses some aspects and leaves out others. Yes, the person may be a student, but what he studies may be how to break into people’s cars. It is because terms are not defined once and for all that we have to make an argument for them.<br />
<br />
For example, “Equality does not mean that there is no difference between people, nor does it mean that we should not treat people differently based on our relationship with them. How could we? Equality rather has to do with a fundamental respect for people, and that before we know anything else about them we see them as being just as deserving of that fundamental respect as we are.” This is one definition of equality. There are other definitions, some that seek economic metrics for it, others that are more philosophical. Still, the nature of the word "equality" means that anytime people are talking about it they are implicitly making an argument for what the word means or should mean.<br />
As Perelman writes, “Every time an idea can be defined in more than one way, ‘to define’ comes to mean to make a choice” (62).<br />
<br />
For example, Jeb Bush said that illegal immigrants/undocumented immigrants (whichever term you prefer) bringing their kids illegally to USA constituted "an act of love." That is one definition of the act. The video below is making an argument of definition to oppose that definition and replace it with its own.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/76FUJGEtdkk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/76FUJGEtdkk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Analysis<br />
<br />
Perelman writes that, “All analysis is directional, for it aims to make certain expressions interchangeable by leading the audience toward conceptions that conform to what the speaker has in mind and by setting aside what different interpretations another person might want to give to the statements being analyzed” (63). By making definitions we make some arguments, but the interpretation of the implications of those definitions are also arguments. Bertrand Russel wanted to claim that statements had an implied fact content, but Perelman argues that Russel is very selective in choosing exactly what implied fact content he claims the statement has in real life. Indeed, the very question of fact content does not come up in the statement itself before Russel discusses it. Just because someone says "the King of France" does not mean that France necessarily has or had a king. A statement doesn't have to have any factual correlation to the real world, as Russel claims it does. I might just as well have said "the King of Goose Egg." So when someone says they are only "doing analysis" remember that they are actually "making an argument for what this should mean." Here are two examples "analyzing" the same situation based on two definitions of the same population:<br />
<br />
A: We are a nation of laws and do not reward lawbreakers. Illegal aliens have broken laws and are therefore criminals. If we reward people who break the law then we by implication make the law something that does not matter. It is an invitation to lawlessness. (analysis of term illegal alien)<br />
<br />
B: We are a nation of people and we treat people as people, not like animals. Undocumented immigrants are people just like us, since we are a nation of immigrants. The only difference between them and us is a piece of paper. If we remove that disparity, we can restore them to the dignity that humans deserve. (analysis of term undocumented immigrant).<br />
<br />
Arguments of incompatibility and definition work because of basic and almost universal patterns of human thought. Most people yearn for consistency (which is why incompatibilities are so frustrating and confusing) and for a clear concept of identity (which is why definitions are so powerful). These desires may be but symptoms of our overarching desire for order. Consistency and stable identities make our world more manageable, and we trust what we can easily comprehend. As John Dewey writes in <i>Art as Experience</i>:<br />
<br />
"Order cannot but be admirable in a world constantly threatened with disorder—in a world where living creatures can go on living only by taking advantage of whatever order exists about them, incorporating it into themselves. In a world like ours, every living creature that attains sensibility welcomes order with a response of harmonious feeling whenever it finds a congruous order about it" (13).<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"><br /></span></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-64472040804766794012014-08-02T14:34:00.001-06:002014-08-21T16:20:11.764-06:00Can Neuroscience Make You A Great Leader?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"Take much of what you have heard about how the best executives make decisions. Now, forget it." This is how <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> hails the new findings from neuroscience in their article <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579461722158151180" target="_blank">"Inside the Executive Brain"</a> by Andrew Blackman. Neuroscientists have revolutionized what we know about good decision making (according to the neuroscientists themselves anyway). So let's take a look at what these people have found and want to teach, and how they want to teach it. Are they really discovering new things or are they just reinventing the wheel? What have they discovered and what may they have missed?<br />
<br />
<b>Lesson 1: Deadlines can make people less creative</b>. Pardon me, but this isn't really brain science is it? Oh, right, it is. Is anyone really surprised when they hear that people aren't the best at thinking outside the box when they are stressed and just have to get something done? At least for my wife and me, that is when we hit survival mode where we just have to get it done in the simplest way possible. Mistakes are made in such situations. According to Blackman, "Richard Boyatzis - along with another colleague Anthony Jack and others - has found that a tight deadline increases people's urgency and stress levels" (R1). Really? Wow, I never would have guessed that. Seriously, you needed to use "sophisticated machines to map what's going on inside the brain" in order to figure that out? I don't even want to know how much that study cost.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaXEebNhliEf0D1eeKxDxTOiSvNbcukCrkoPanebi_IPHk8SSK7gbigcoqASeel-49F0O7f0hkEQpUxjGmq0aa127pG6n_9m9pq9DzeqVgu9S6Q8warvxEGPEt6Asyfb5GfBR1tuq6WUI/s1600/creativity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaXEebNhliEf0D1eeKxDxTOiSvNbcukCrkoPanebi_IPHk8SSK7gbigcoqASeel-49F0O7f0hkEQpUxjGmq0aa127pG6n_9m9pq9DzeqVgu9S6Q8warvxEGPEt6Asyfb5GfBR1tuq6WUI/s1600/creativity.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Anyway, the part of the brain that is activated is the "task positive network" which works on problem solving but does not come up with original ideas. Who knew? "The research shows us that the more stressful a deadline is, the less open you are to other ways of approaching the problem." Yes, that's when I shut all the windows, close myself to everyone, and just attempt to barrel through the problem. It leads to people not even seeing the box they are thinking inside. The solution, they say, is to teach employees to meditate more, which some were able to do before the whole tyranny of deadlines was imposed in the first place...oh well.<br />
<br />
<b>Lesson 2: Fear and anxiety lead to bad decisions.</b> Wow, didn't see that one coming. Evidently, people who live in fear of losing their job or company tend to expect the worst and act accordingly, thereby often self-sabotaging or avoiding opportunities which may have saved them. Well, here's my comment:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtMgF_OqNNnRxDnmaI7NLWKkTr5vDd4IHIWB6atNUJXmSlrHSVhWqMTwvz1ffbLUDevGdE02Ue_fMGiS8l6y7h9YTKE6pC-lvbXsbgOVqVfxvc1ImF19BvqveWL1DzLcZJs9859seN4P0/s1600/captain+obvious.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtMgF_OqNNnRxDnmaI7NLWKkTr5vDd4IHIWB6atNUJXmSlrHSVhWqMTwvz1ffbLUDevGdE02Ue_fMGiS8l6y7h9YTKE6pC-lvbXsbgOVqVfxvc1ImF19BvqveWL1DzLcZJs9859seN4P0/s1600/captain+obvious.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Seriously though, is this really news to anyone but <i>Wall Street Journal</i>? Anyway, Srini Pillay, founder of the coaching firm Neurobusiness Group says the answer is <b>not</b> to avoid fear and anxiety, since they are apparently inevitable in modern workplaces. "The solution lies not in trying to avoid it, but in learning to accept it. It is important to be aware that your response is likely to be an exhaggeration." In other words: EMBRACE YOUR FEARS! </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitOkc6XZqbsr0CbH13mq1JQLgy-Q8bFRVwYSD0cuIMHh7U8VZYabmyKqfVZoXv39hOdvZKoVldwTupHuX-wf-hH7vYeT_qbH_zvESt97_oA6glkn8fG7l275BaqR9pXGhzr3BMsbqMy9E/s1600/fear.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitOkc6XZqbsr0CbH13mq1JQLgy-Q8bFRVwYSD0cuIMHh7U8VZYabmyKqfVZoXv39hOdvZKoVldwTupHuX-wf-hH7vYeT_qbH_zvESt97_oA6glkn8fG7l275BaqR9pXGhzr3BMsbqMy9E/s1600/fear.png" height="282" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Though he mentions that "consciously countering it by reframing an issue in more positive terms, can also be effective." (Instead of calling it a market meltdown, think about calling it a market waterfall! Ooh, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now ;)<br />
<br />
<b>Lesson 3: Good leaders look past facts and lean more on emotions and intuition than logic</b>. Ok, here I am actually learning something, although I am not too surprised. After all, there is a reason why number crunching by itself does not lead to good decisions and why we need people rather than machines in leadership positions. Researchers gave a bunch of management scenarios to experienced executives and scanned their brain as they were analyzing. What they found surprised them. According to Blackman: "They expected to see a lot of activity in the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain known for its involvement in things like planning and logical reasoning. There was activity there, but different areas of the brain were dominant - those involved in social and emotional thinking." This disparity increased in those who were known to be the best decision makers.<br />
<br />
Of course, part of the reason is that leaders have to consider the emotions of those they are leading. David Rock, director of the research organization NeuroLeadership Institute says that "A lot of strategies that go wrong are because managers haven't thought through what happens when it hits people" (R2) and many leaders have problems shifting between the analytical number-crunching and social modes of thinking. In other words, they have gone to business school to learn all about finance and <b>numbers</b>, and as leaders they struggle to relearn what they once knew about <b>people</b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzDZ4Di844aRdECbPUhKRN4giemBtJnZ5WwyR0tDA7GJhVVY8yZgU7_dYFqHRZVnPR8Fn_Mvk6xCp7QYwDLAguv-x6FM_CqeabwvyKwjW3fBH4WJlLqEzgqSLPfUU132FrnV-ju-TP5Io/s1600/notastatistic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzDZ4Di844aRdECbPUhKRN4giemBtJnZ5WwyR0tDA7GJhVVY8yZgU7_dYFqHRZVnPR8Fn_Mvk6xCp7QYwDLAguv-x6FM_CqeabwvyKwjW3fBH4WJlLqEzgqSLPfUU132FrnV-ju-TP5Io/s1600/notastatistic.jpg" height="267" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
A tip from Matthew Lieberman, professor of psychology at the University of California, is "simple reminders" like sticky notes to remember not to get too caught up in numbers and analysis. Getting quite advanced here, isn't it? <b>Meditation, embracing fear, and putting up sticky notes to remember to think about people.</b> I can definitely understand why these consultants and researchers are paid millions of dollars for their absolutely invaluable advice and insights.<br />
<br />
<b>Lesson 4: Good leaders are positive. </b>Evidently, although some people somehow think you have to be a jerk to get things done, "the data says that's just not true" according to Dr. Boyatzis. So now he can stop abusing his research assistants while thinking he is doing them a favor, I guess. I can't believe how surprised Blackman sounds when he is writing this! He writes, "The best leaders, it seems, are good at motivating people with things like encouragement, praise and rewards - thereby creating a strong emotional bond and sense of purpose among employees." Wow, business gurus have finally realized that you need to be nice to people to get them to work for you. Isn't this just basic common sense? There is a reason why memes like these are so common:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvYv2so8-Je7_CKKj3PybqmyODGTbThrqhvY2uXJ1mjtI5FcKXUUsWU97buLBRIBMIWVEZf-_FPSX2l7gn2xyuU97zpOgHEFLmyB5eROxa8PUf6bEX-uBURu53R3wtVkEpAVf1xfj-Uhg/s1600/bad+leader.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvYv2so8-Je7_CKKj3PybqmyODGTbThrqhvY2uXJ1mjtI5FcKXUUsWU97buLBRIBMIWVEZf-_FPSX2l7gn2xyuU97zpOgHEFLmyB5eROxa8PUf6bEX-uBURu53R3wtVkEpAVf1xfj-Uhg/s1600/bad+leader.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>What is the point? </b>you may ask? Have I written this article just to make fun of researchers in general and perhaps neuroscientists in particular? Actually, I find this research to be valuable. Yes, it often confirms things that we already know, but it adds the weight of science and numbers to common sense. There is an increased credibility when research like this has been done, credibility which has more power to inform policy than "common sense" does. It is one thing if you have read it in a book by the likes of Dale Carnegie, and something else if it has been "proven" by science. If you have a boss who has bought into some kind of new management craze and requires tighter deadlines, puts people more on their toes, prefers number crunchers to people who are socially intelligent, and says that being negative and tough is "just his style," you now have numbers and research of your own to convince him or his superior that his approach is mistaken.<br />
<br />
However, I <b>do</b> have an axe to grind against some of the neo-positivistic thinking which goes into a lot of this research which says that everything that is important can be measured and quantified. This, I think, becomes most clear of all in the feeble and vague solutions they propose for these problems: Meditate, what kind of meditation? Not all meditation is productive. Embrace your fears and become aware of them? How exactly do you do that? Put sticky notes up to remember people? Right, because all we need to change our behavior and way of thinking is <b>another reminder </b>in a world full of checklists and notification devices.<br />
<br />
Most absurd of all, Doctor Waldman at Arizona State University wants to train good leaders <b>by making them watch TV! </b>Yes, you read it right. He claims that "We are right on the cusp of being able to assist leaders to rewire their own brains." You see, they have found that good leaders have what they call "inspirational leadership" which they define as "the ability to articulate a vision that inspires people and makes them buy into your strategy. Not only can these people see the big picture, but they can put that picture into words and impart it to others." In other words, a good leader needs to be a good speaker and communicator.<br />
<br />
This was the goal of the entire tradition of teaching <b>rhetoric</b>, with successful outcomes shown in people like Pericles, Cicero, John Adams, and Winston Churchill. They learned through exercises, principles, and practice to analyze a matter, find a good solution, and then to articulate good arguments and reasons for this course of action. Some of the core skills and practices involved articulating the larger principles at stake, showing their connections to the case at hand, and making the perspective vivid and compelling. In fact, the humanities and a humanistic approach is especially suited to this training (as I argue <a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.com/2012/01/catch-vision.html" target="_blank">here</a>).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaxEADegTnOlfcs-_tU2X88lfImeJI5xnsubjlxxl78UTJdD2Hp50cU634lLSV88X93m8d7_AP2NAYS1ebxa8Ih_VEtJoug3l2Zav4FGUCsRQ5Ykz1sSaRYLWOUdFmdnielXc_e4JJbwo/s1600/roman+school.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaxEADegTnOlfcs-_tU2X88lfImeJI5xnsubjlxxl78UTJdD2Hp50cU634lLSV88X93m8d7_AP2NAYS1ebxa8Ih_VEtJoug3l2Zav4FGUCsRQ5Ykz1sSaRYLWOUdFmdnielXc_e4JJbwo/s1600/roman+school.gif" height="230" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
According to Waldman, I guess they have been going about it in the wrong way. The real way to teach leadership is through <b>neurofeedback</b>. Here is how it works: You make people watch a movie while you are monitoring their brain activity. "If the people aren't displaying the desired brain patterns, for example, the screen they're watching may go fuzzy. When they do display the right brain patterns, it becomes sharp again. Gradually, people's brains learn to follow the patterns that are positively reinforced." Come on! They think the brain will reprogram itself simply by "giving it a cookie" when it is doing the right thing? Even dogs' brains aren't that mechanistic! I know, I have trained several. With this "brainwashing" activity they really think that they will train people's brains to "make those visionary-leadership connections naturally - and, with any luck, make it easier for them to inspire people more easily."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIba3qvjtn4hGQvKm1I5vf17KMVslBVkTST4MmNasokpLj5xAQsY3vb1YGqdoJJEe1P1lM-958WwrNxgl3xPxixvNuEwuKrU0XA7LCJ4PAHFqfwj3XHepvVV7ODxadUSpKcpdy5q11gmM/s1600/brainwashing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIba3qvjtn4hGQvKm1I5vf17KMVslBVkTST4MmNasokpLj5xAQsY3vb1YGqdoJJEe1P1lM-958WwrNxgl3xPxixvNuEwuKrU0XA7LCJ4PAHFqfwj3XHepvVV7ODxadUSpKcpdy5q11gmM/s1600/brainwashing.jpg" height="209" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Wow, who knew that to become a visionary inspirational leader all you needed to do was to watch a TV which goes fuzzy when you think the wrong way. If only Cicero, Churchill, and Martin Luther King Jr. had known this! To think of all the hours, years, they spent listening to and giving speeches, studying the concepts, listening to people and trying to understand them, and then to find out that all they needed was a little bit of reprogramming through neurofeedback. Well, good luck Dr. Waldman. Of course, he says that neurofeedback still needs more research before researchers can be sure it will work in developing leadership ability. Guess who is going to fund that research, and guess how likely it is that he will be a recipient of government grants, stipends, and research fellowships in order to carry on with that research.<br />
<br />
Have you heard the saying "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? In some ways it makes sense that if you have a machine like the fMRI-scanner which records activity and connections, the solution seems to be to rewire those connections which happen to be the problem. Yet the mind is more than just a ball of wires. I think it would be appropriate to end with a word from Kenneth Burke. He predicted that positivists will be blind to the non-mechanistic elements of human nature and reality. “The quasi-scientific reductionist theories, with their caricatures of perfection, will not only never see it in the first place, but will be so constructed that they never even miss the loss” (301). While looking for the secrets of leadership through the methods of neuroscience it seems like it is also possible for researchers to become blind to other aspects of what it means to be and become a good leader. As Kenneth Burke would say, "It's more complicated than that." Leadership is not developed in a day, and despite the short-cuts these people are promising, it takes patience, passion, and natural ability. Becoming a good leader is a lifelong pursuit. </div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-70401747646056361392014-06-24T05:42:00.003-06:002014-06-24T05:44:35.284-06:00Putin's Strategy of Inaction and The Rhetoric of Doubt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Putin has shocked and puzzled the world by his actions since the Winter Olympics in 2014. People were shocked by his brazen invasion of the Crimean peninsula, but they have been even more puzzled by his fantastic claims and his support of stories about the invasion of Crimea and the subsequent violent uprising in Eastern Ukraine. We are supposed to believe that all who oppose Russian dominance in Ukraine are fascists; that this fact endangered the lives of Russians living in Crimea, even though not a single incidence of violence has ever been recorded prior to the invasion; that Crimea was in fact not invaded at all, but that some Russian speaking Ukrainians suddenly acquired armored vehicles, military uniforms, tanks, machine guns, sniper rifles, and a clear chain of command in order to spontaneously resist the "Ukrainian nationalist threat." It is said that the first victim of war is the truth, but this takes dishonesty to a new level. The stories aren't even consistent, but rather they change with whatever the situation requires. Phony and rigged referendums are just the top of the iceberg. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmzGhql6xi9r13XfpR0R3DplyUqqN1mBV7V8kFOMSYuhktnqU7cy2oIAX8gCo3hiBGgD_pNKpQLtySMR0o-xNPy03x3hbHOlDlWiTIOa-BlbjJrZPjizyryxehuxmhy11TL1iCwvp3GLA/s1600/Crimea.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmzGhql6xi9r13XfpR0R3DplyUqqN1mBV7V8kFOMSYuhktnqU7cy2oIAX8gCo3hiBGgD_pNKpQLtySMR0o-xNPy03x3hbHOlDlWiTIOa-BlbjJrZPjizyryxehuxmhy11TL1iCwvp3GLA/s1600/Crimea.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Of course, a large part of the explanation is that Putin needs a story to tell his own countrymen in order to justify his actions. His followers have performed a lot of revisionist history lately, writing Russian history books for education which claim that Stalin's mass executions and labor camps were just "a natural consequence of the difficulties of holding together such a vast and diverse country" and portrays the fall of the Soviet Union as one of the worst tragedies and mistakes of the 20th century.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmApF4tdyWNIeMAy-t8AU2Y6OZHldqLtz2FWJeH4BmCjTcdoBabu89_RmwwKe-MXTLiygvWJ8Y_oH0DzVJZTIYHsNmH7wB71-MBNR5w0UJTnONwzkZkVjpr2omvjuzjIqsNIvalnhgrc/s1600/Russia+media.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmApF4tdyWNIeMAy-t8AU2Y6OZHldqLtz2FWJeH4BmCjTcdoBabu89_RmwwKe-MXTLiygvWJ8Y_oH0DzVJZTIYHsNmH7wB71-MBNR5w0UJTnONwzkZkVjpr2omvjuzjIqsNIvalnhgrc/s1600/Russia+media.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As a former director of the KGB he also understands the use of disinformation and propaganda for external purposes, but what actually is he hoping to achieve?<br />
<br />
Putin learned well the lessons from the Iraq War and Syria's use of chemical weapons: An act of war is judged by its justification, and the justification is based on what one could call "actionable intelligence" which convey a clear narrative which warrants a reaction which is appropriate or at least is esteemed to be so by common wisdom. The Iraq War has been condemned mainly because there were no weapons of mass destruction and so the act of war was not justified. The narrative by which an act of war was seen as potentially justified has proven to be false. Fuel is added to the fire when one learns of the faulty intelligence and the flimsy evidence which were used as the basis for the decision to go to war.<br />
<br />
Thereafter, the public became increasingly skeptical of justifications for war and scrutinized more carefully the reasons and the evidence given by governments who wanted to do so. "Do we really know for sure that this is what happened? Are there other factors which give these facts a different explanation? Is this really the best course of action and a fitting response?" This was clearly displayed in the public backlash against David Cameron when he lost the vote for use of force to punish Syria for using chemical weapons. Barack Obama felt the same heat from Congress and public opinion. Where was the evidence that chemical weapons were used? How do we know for sure that they were used by Assad's forces? Who issued the order to use it? You claim they have been used by Assad's forces before? Why should we act now when we did not act then?<br />
<br />
The opposition did not succeed in disproving that Assad used chemical weapons, but when your goal is not action but <i>inaction</i> you do not have to prove your point. All you have to do is to sow doubt about the narrative and the facts the other person is using to justify their push for action. In any argument aimed at effecting <i>action</i>, the rhetor has to take the audience along the <i>four stases</i> (discussed and elaborated in <a href="http://intelligenceofpersuasion.blogspot.no/2012/11/classical-rhetoric-and-2012.html" target="_blank">this</a> post) of fact, definition, quality, and procedure. The audience need to feel they can be pretty confident that they know what happened or what the situation is, what it should be called or what kind of category it fits into, what quality it has (how good or bad it is), and that the proposed action or procedure is the appropriate one according to the facts, definitions, and qualities of the situation in question. Here the defence arguing for <i>inaction</i> has the upper hand, since they do not have to refute all the evidence: all they have to do is muddy the waters a little bit to create room for uncertainty and doubt. The one arguing for action has to defend all the four stases, whereas the one arguing for inaction can choose to attack any one of them. If he can win even one of them he has won the battle and inaction ensues, as any veteran saboteur of planning meetings knows. (just as a side note, this is also why the justice system inherently favors the defense. Not guilty is the default position as long as guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk2hGL38MBhpbwsKjWnIUWBCciNlUnS4d4q9XYeI04q0HGkU8Nicyj1wP7ayixu2wzyKhaAXbRG8VuwL8JfdO-V0FNP35K27v9_7Mh9__clFiMOwZNHFVs6Z0AK5AZZKmnjILXfjRABV8/s1600/Crimea-caricature.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk2hGL38MBhpbwsKjWnIUWBCciNlUnS4d4q9XYeI04q0HGkU8Nicyj1wP7ayixu2wzyKhaAXbRG8VuwL8JfdO-V0FNP35K27v9_7Mh9__clFiMOwZNHFVs6Z0AK5AZZKmnjILXfjRABV8/s1600/Crimea-caricature.png" height="227" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is what Putin is doing with his rhetoric of doubt. What happened in Crimea? What do we call it? Was it an invasion? Well, no shots were fired, and the action did have the assent of some local government officials. So then it was an annexation? Ok, but that just means that one country took over another. It is not as clear how we should react to an annexation. We know what an invasion is, with all its negative connotations of aggression and war, but what does really an annexation mean and what is the appropriate response to such an action? Support of local government officials and the referendum further makes the case a difficult one to classify. A similar pattern is repeated in Eastern Ukraine, where the so-called "rebels" now have acquired Stinger missiles to shoot down airplanes. Did they get that from used army supply shops as Putin claims? Meanwhile, Russia escalates and then de-escalates their military presence on the border in order to give the pretense of "wanting to keep the peace" while at the same time watching out for its interests. The hope is that the rest of the world will tire and be confused and inactive long enough for Russia to gradually increase and strengthen its hold of the region.<br />
<br />
This is the political equivalent of chess with a silent war fought on the stages of international diplomacy as well as through arms supplies, subversion, espionage, and open display of military force. Gradually, the world may learn to tolerate and accept a reality which just a year ago would have provided widespread outrage and the threat of nuclear war. And Putin gets to enjoy his prize with impunity.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcBNp7XABLl9IJRSjKVa_sAM4bBnZYuqKLTerP8gokBs4cuZDt6L0oPlu_Wold7Ko50RS7FlQhBZa2Y5m6LQZ6tcQtutu6S3jjUcRyDRhB0GNksz6lFe1OBxadGhAKz3U7VSCAJHM7nfI/s1600/Putin+I+Want+Ukraine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcBNp7XABLl9IJRSjKVa_sAM4bBnZYuqKLTerP8gokBs4cuZDt6L0oPlu_Wold7Ko50RS7FlQhBZa2Y5m6LQZ6tcQtutu6S3jjUcRyDRhB0GNksz6lFe1OBxadGhAKz3U7VSCAJHM7nfI/s1600/Putin+I+Want+Ukraine.jpg" height="320" width="232" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-55775969141146298022014-05-28T15:12:00.002-06:002014-05-28T15:14:07.278-06:00The Orator and the Mechanic: Images of Rhetorical Practice in De Oratore<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
What do you need to know to change the world?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH5l27aJtXpB2dqKHJjCvvJdUTURS8vA39YDkFaUkk5fiSbYsqKU7ZhGLkaL3S1uEZd5brjnm0OpF5RaKzlpq5LLBUjO_dg4lz6iW6_vRAn4pBxH_9cwfYrrjHTsY70_98zSLWJ7S6T7g/s1600/martin-luther-king2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH5l27aJtXpB2dqKHJjCvvJdUTURS8vA39YDkFaUkk5fiSbYsqKU7ZhGLkaL3S1uEZd5brjnm0OpF5RaKzlpq5LLBUjO_dg4lz6iW6_vRAn4pBxH_9cwfYrrjHTsY70_98zSLWJ7S6T7g/s1600/martin-luther-king2.jpg" height="276" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I am not the only one who has asked that question; it has been the central quandary for many philosophers, politicians, reformers, and preachers for most of the recorded history of thought. As Richard Weaver writes, we are all "born into history, with an endowment of passion and a sense of the <i>ought</i>. There is ever some discrepancy . . . between the situation man is in and the situation he would like to realize. His life is therefore characterized by movement towards goals." We want to make the world better, and make life richer, fuller, and more worth living. How do we do that?<br />
<br />
Well, one central element is that we cannot do it alone; we need help from others. In order to help, they have to be persuaded through words that the endeavor is worth it. That is why Weaver goes on to claim, "It is largely the power of rhetoric which influences and governs that movement" towards goals. So what do you need to know to get others to enlist in such a cause? Is it enough to know which buttons to press, how do make people feel certain emotions or get certain desires? Will marketing and style do? What about the larger ideas about human nature and what builds and moves societies, what some people may call philosophy, what about them?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkVUaZ67TT8SSvd2XzsaP5JbAdagutXXdoCNEeC06o7XxOLQ-xlSMVPravHQ9eigjud3FXlVuu6rQXcK914m4cNlkbgZtp-iIIdubDH_RuytIPdNtzz3h6be1Q1s41xMMq_VzO-Bqgh-g/s1600/cicero.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkVUaZ67TT8SSvd2XzsaP5JbAdagutXXdoCNEeC06o7XxOLQ-xlSMVPravHQ9eigjud3FXlVuu6rQXcK914m4cNlkbgZtp-iIIdubDH_RuytIPdNtzz3h6be1Q1s41xMMq_VzO-Bqgh-g/s1600/cicero.jpg" height="320" width="248" /></a></div>
<br />
Marcus Tullius Cicero plays out this dispute elegantly in his dialogue between Crassus and Antonius in <i>De Oratore</i>. At the outset of <i>De Oratore</i>, Cicero references an important disagreement with his brother Quintus on the nature of eloquence: Cicero espouses that "eloquence is dependent upon the trained skill of highly educated men" whereas Quintus says "it must be separated from the refinements of learning and made to depend on a sort of natural talent and . . . practice" (290). These competing views (high education vs. practice) are then fully played out in the ensuing dialogue between Crassus and Antonius, yet they are not as far apart as they seem. The central argument is based on different perspectives of a similar idea: Crassus is normative and describes a "lofty ideal" of the Orator (320), whereas Antonius is descriptive and performs the Socratic work of defining and delimiting the strict boundaries of oratory (311). As such, it is logical that their definitions of the issue will be conflicting, with Crassus pursuing the greatest eloquence and Antonius cutting the craft of the orator to its barest minimum. What we see playing out in the dialogue is an artful display of an argument on the stasis of definition, where Cicero is able to instruct us about the nature of eloquence and oratory, and their roles in society from both idealistic and descriptive perspectives.<br />
<br />
One of the main disagreements is about what and how much the orator needs to study in order to become an orator. Antonius limits the sphere of an orator to the law courts and public debates (311), and claims that although the orator may "taste" much which belongs to other fields of knowledge, he does not need to acquire it as his own (312). Philosophy in general is especially useless, since such ideas and precepts espoused by the likes of Plato are too far removed from reality to be of any utility (320). The one possible exception here is Aristotle, whose theory may be useful to more advanced students of rhetoric (326) but not to novices. What an orator needs is to be attuned to "the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and hopes of his fellow-citizens and of any men whom on any issue he would fain win over by his word" (313) since the oratory needs to be adapted to the ears of the audience (326).<br />
<br />
Crassus, on the other hand, argues that an orator should seek after knowledge widely, since eloquence without it is empty (292) and cannot achieve excellence (294). Especially philosophy which deals with human life and manners must be mastered by the orator (299). Nor is oratory restricted to law courts and public debates. Oratory brings people together, creates and sustains civilization, law, and order, and brings pleasure and safety: "the wise control of the complete orator is that which chiefly upholds . . . the safety of countless individuals and of the entire State" (293-294). It is also the general art to which every specialist must come in order to convince people and gain consensus and support for any cooperative venture (298). As he concludes towards the end: "an orator cannot have sufficient cogency and weight if he lacks the vigor that public speaking demands, and cannot be adequately polished and profound if he lacks width of culture" (339). As for rhetoric, the education of the orator, they both agree that it is not an art in the strict "Greek" sense, but that it still has utility and value (309). The Isocratean tradition is clearly the most useful to rhetorical novices, but Aristotle and some other philosophers may have occasional helpful points to offer (338).<br />
<br />
In my opinion both perspectives have value: Antonius' "mechanistic" perspective is helpful in order to settle the boundaries of rhetoric as an academic field, and Crassus' views show the potential reach of oratory which "embraces the origin and operation and developments of all things" (338). Oratory, as Crassus defines it, is the only way leadership can be practiced in a democratic society, and it is often the only way people can change the course of the world.</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-65519928120334754752014-04-01T11:58:00.000-06:002014-04-01T11:58:39.990-06:00What I Want My Daughter to Know<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Reading "The Solitude of Self" by Elizbeth Cady Stanton had a great impact on me, partially because it spoke of a principle which is central to my philosophy of life. Cady Stanton was a female rhetorician who really kick-started First Wave Feminism (which was directed towards getting the vote for women). She has been criticized for using racial language when she gave reasons for why women should have the vote before black men did, but even Frederick Douglass respected her highly and wrote, "After her--silence."<br />
<br />
This speech was given when she was already firmly established and respected as an advocate for women, and it is a piece I would class together with the greatest masterpieces of philosophical rhetoric next to "On the Peace" by Isocrates and "The Dream of Scipio" by Cicero. Her premise is simply stated: "We all have to be responsible for our own lives." Women cannot depend on a man for her happiness or protection alone, just as no other person should be wholly dependent on anyone else for the rest of their lives. I have heard and I believe the saying that "If a person cannot be alone with nature and be satisfied, that person is not happy with themselves." It is the same in matters of love. Though I am a huge believer in the importance of relationships and families, these relationships alone cannot define your worth or who you are. As Cady Stanton writes, "The isolation of every human soul, and the necessity of self-dependence, must give each individual the right to choose his own surroundings."<br />
<br />
What then of all the talk during her age of the "weaker sex?" The talk of sheltering woman from the fierce storms of life is the sheerest mockery, for they beat on her from every point of the compass, just as they do on man, and with more fatal results, for he has been trained to protect himself, to resist, and to conquer. Such are the facts in human experience, the responsibilities of individual sovereignty. Rich and poor; it is ever the same, each soul must depend wholly on itself."<br />
<br />
She makes it quite clear indeed that women may pass through more travail than men do in life. "Whatever the theories may be of woman's dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life, he cannot bear her burdens. Alone she goes to the gates of death to give life to every man that is born into the world; no one can share her fears, no one can mitigate her pangs; and if her sorrow is greater than she can bear, alone she passes beyond the gates into the vast unknown . . . ."<br />
<br />
Everyone needs a center, a focus of their being which they can call their own and which is not defined solely in relation to other people. It is this center they must rely on in the bitter and lonely moments of their life, and it is this center which may provide a security and a joy which no other source can take away. This must be the same for men and for women. The lack of nternal value leads to a constant struggle for external value, and all external value in the end will be nothing more than shadows and dust by itself.<br />
<br />
Do not live in constant fear of what other people can give or take away. Do not wait for someone to slay your dragons or fight your demons. You are who you are, and that by itself is enough.</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-84360208718228686302014-02-19T22:29:00.000-07:002014-02-22T09:15:07.689-07:00What's Not To Like About A Tyrant?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You'd think that this would be a closed case in a country founded as a reaction to tyranny, with a people whose very Constitution is based on a suspicion of government and trust in individuals and the choices of the people, where "freedom" and "liberty" are discussed and honored more often than just about any other concept. Yet, when you see not one, but two presidents applauded for promising to abuse and overstep executive authority in a State of the Union address, when you see government agencies and bureaucracies used to stifle dissent, and when you see massive surveillance of the press, opposition groups, and in fact the entire population, all of which happens <b>without any public outrage</b>, you start to wonder.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwvKpXlrMLSjpM4VEFCbbB-j9oQhJIxjm607QZG-63Slb5zhyVB03HFd0-fjHr0EKaZzs4OoktPd1oN-1wXPqLiErLxO6RKf-XQxp7lRY74RwMr3NdAe6aCY5e9hFD8J0gHMeP9h_EZP0/s1600/big-brother-1984.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwvKpXlrMLSjpM4VEFCbbB-j9oQhJIxjm607QZG-63Slb5zhyVB03HFd0-fjHr0EKaZzs4OoktPd1oN-1wXPqLiErLxO6RKf-XQxp7lRY74RwMr3NdAe6aCY5e9hFD8J0gHMeP9h_EZP0/s1600/big-brother-1984.jpg" height="237" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the old rhetoric schools of Athens and Rome, one of the rhetorical exercises given to advanced students was to rhetorically "slay a tyrant" by using something called the "topos of a tyrant:" In a measured invective, the students would lay out <b>the six vices of a tyrant</b> to remind their audience what it meant to be free from tyranny as well as to move them to action against a budding tyrant or tyrannical tendencies in their society. The freedom they had to exhibit this exercise was a good indication of the actual freedom they actually enjoyed in their societies. Two rhetoricians, Secundus and Maternus, were put to death by Caligula and Domitian when they performed the topos of the tyrant as rhetorical exercises at a festival. I guess they did too good of a job, and the tyrants got a really good look at themselves. The topos of a tyrant is an exercise I think we could profitably adopt in our society, as a safeguard of liberty and a ready weapon against tyranny. In this post, I'll try to explain the exercise and give a model you can use and spread as you choose. So, here goes: Let's slay a tyrant!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2OQVQtBUvJ69NHbKOfEYB-bY53jhV35bIBwQGJtJ_KrtyhtWCBUHfhKa3YicC_u88VjB-pUc_uqu_QEAxVJMpD5m8phh9EqoN_12jF87RS4vQPbGyB300ydu61fugljHkr5GFkuBURLM/s1600/Thomas-Jeffersons-Quote-on-Tyranny-300x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2OQVQtBUvJ69NHbKOfEYB-bY53jhV35bIBwQGJtJ_KrtyhtWCBUHfhKa3YicC_u88VjB-pUc_uqu_QEAxVJMpD5m8phh9EqoN_12jF87RS4vQPbGyB300ydu61fugljHkr5GFkuBURLM/s1600/Thomas-Jeffersons-Quote-on-Tyranny-300x300.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
First, a little bit of theoretical groundwork to define what I mean by tyranny. Paul Woodruff has the best description I have seen so far in his book <i>First Democracy</i>: "The idea of tyranny is among the greatest gifts we have from ancient Greece, because it nails down a vital way to think about freedom. The ancient Greeks realized that there is a kind of government that destroys people by dividing them, while it diminishes their leader by clouding his mind. The leader may be a <b>person </b>or a <b>group</b>, and tyranny may rise in what is <b>nominally a democracy</b>. Like a disease, tyranny is recognized by its symptoms. These symptoms are the features of political leadership that the ancient Greeks most feared. And the Greeks were right to fear them. If you observe any of these symptoms in your leaders, be wary. A plague could be on the way, and it could fatally weaken your freedoms:<br />
1. A tyrant is afraid of losing his position, and his decisions are affected by this fear.<br />
2. A tyrant tries to rise above the rule of law, though he may give lip service to the law.<br />
3. A tyrant does not accept criticism.<br />
4. A tyrant cannot be called to account for his actions.<br />
5. A tyrant does not listen to advice from those who do not curry favor with him, even though they may be his friends.<br />
6. A tyrant tries to prevent those who disagree with him from participating in politics" (66-7).<br />
<br />
Any of these look familiar? Ask yourselves, when did the US last have a president who did not start campaigning for reelection from day 1 in office? When last did it have a president who followed the Constitution and refrained from fighting illegal wars? When last did a president voluntarily disclose and admit to a significant failure without being forced to do so? When was ever a president successfully impeached or held accountable for his actions? I'm not talking about losing an election or stepping down like Nixon, I mean impeached and prosecuted for crimes. Only two presidents (in over 200 years) have <b>ever been impeached</b>, and <b>none </b>have ever been convicted. And not because of lack of either crimes or evidence, I can assure you. Besides, the US president has what is called "sovereign immunity," and according to the US Attorney General's Office "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" (i.e. "ya can't touch him"). Concerning point 5 and 6, do I even need to list examples? Didn't think so. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZLJfd0n9UrfghQNquD-YFSwsR0bKX5SgDUVLEx0x681EzBHVtzhBms5kqPea8dq-i02EogzqXoPPbjeEtHn1xKdetC8iuK6tmlCYkFbtTJNsFEuG2wlWX8HwqvKySr26oA_V_Itn0MyQ/s1600/impunity-kibaki-full-image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZLJfd0n9UrfghQNquD-YFSwsR0bKX5SgDUVLEx0x681EzBHVtzhBms5kqPea8dq-i02EogzqXoPPbjeEtHn1xKdetC8iuK6tmlCYkFbtTJNsFEuG2wlWX8HwqvKySr26oA_V_Itn0MyQ/s1600/impunity-kibaki-full-image.jpg" height="247" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
So why is this so bad? Why does it matter for example if the NSA is spying on Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter)? I have had university students actually say "as long as you don't do anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" If that's your attitude, why bother with any restraint at all. Why even care about having checks and balances. Have we forgotten that almost everyone who has been given absolute power has actually used it? The results have not been pretty. The rhetoric schools outlined six vices of the tyrant to help people keep this in mind. They are <b>cruelty, savagery, suspicion, arrogance, immorality, and avarice. </b>The student would then explain and amplify those vices by giving descriptions, examples, and stories. I will provide a brief outline, but you can easily fill in examples of your own.<br />
<br />
<b>Suspicion: </b>A tyrant can have no real friends, for he knows that his power is illegitimate and is only supported by force. As a result, he is constantly suspicious, even of those who want what is best for him. He believes the slightest rumor of a threat against him and sees every talented individual as a challenge to his power. As Euripides writes,<br />
"When the people govern a country<br />
They rejoice in the young citizens who are rising to power<br />
Whereas a man who is king thinks them his enemy<br />
And kills the best of them and any he finds<br />
To be intelligent, because he fears for his power" (Woodruff 63).<br />
<br />
Every tyrant has needed informants, secret police, and surveillance. In our days the thought police have taken the role of the bodyguard as the vanguard of tyranny. The ancients recognized that a tyrant first asks for a bodyguard because he knows he will need protection from his people and the power of force in order to carry out his crimes. In our days, the tyrant first seeks intelligence about dissenters and the ability to spread an atmosphere of fear and distrust among his subjects. It is always defended with a need for "security," but too late do the people realize that the security he was talking about was <b>his</b>, and the threat was <b>them</b>. This is a necessity, for a tyranny of one over many can only endure by the oppressive fear created by a police state, splintering everyone into their own shell of terror, never knowing who is watching or listening.<br />
<br />
This is a scene from the movie <i>The Lives of Others</i> portraying the real surveillance practices of the DDR.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/iu-NJA4Y1RI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<b>Cruelty and savagery:</b> A tyrant relies on terror to silence opposition, and the fear of the citizenry must be kept vivid by regular demonstrations of power and cruelty. Thus, it is not a question of whether or not a specific victim <b>deserves</b> this treatment because of any action on their part. Rather, display of cruelty in itself is a goal, and so-called crimes against the state are often mere pretenses in order to organize these displays. This is one subject which I believe the recent UN report on the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/07/opinion/lee-stanton-north-korea/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7">North Korean prison camps</a> makes vivid enough. To give a more historic example, Tacitus describes the murders committed by Emperor Tiberius after he had seized complete power: "Frenzied with bloodshed, the emperor now ordered the execution of all those arrested for complicity. It was a massacre. Without discrimination of sex or age . . . there they lay, strewn about - or in heaps. Relatives and friends were forbidden to stand by or lament them, or even gaze for long. Guards surrounded them, spying on their sorrow, and escorted the rotting bodies until, dragged into the Tiber, they floated away or grounded - with none to cremate or touch them. Terror had paralyzed human sympathy. The rising surge of brutality drove compassion away" (209). This is the goal of cruelty, to paralyze human sympathy and drive away compassion by terror and brutality. This is the hollow existence of a people living under tyranny.<br />
<br />
<b>Arrogance: </b>Along with being a vice, arrogance in some ways is a necessity for a tyrant. How else can he defend asserting his will contrary to the wishes of his subjects? He needs to believe that he is above them. He needs to make himself in some ways a "superhuman," almost a god as the Roman emperors did. His reign serves as a sign of devotion to his massive ego. Raised on a throne of power above everyone else, he looks down upon the puny humans below him as little more than animals with haughty disgust. They are there for his enjoyment and use, and serve no higher purpose than that. The Greeks believed this frame of mind above all the other vices show tyranny for what it is: a disease of the mind. For under this self-delusion the tyrant has to hide his knowledge of his weaknesses, frailty, and guilt. Tacitus writes, "How truly the wisest of men used to assert that the souls of despots, if revealed, would show wounds and mutilations - weals left on the spirit, like lash-marks on a body, by cruelty, lust, and malevolence" (202). The tyrant seeks confirmation of his superiority over mankind, and finds it in abuses of power. He seeks confirmation of his superiority to divine law, and finds it by breaking every sacred bond and violating everything deemed inviolable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTtJ1D3UcKQWNF6_4NbCeEaOLy_Wc5iAr9q3cW36ZzkDTZPx_GhEZMv669RnKuc0ZnZGcWN_2O6ipJG0uTtB7yniMEwkfMgaRj7duMVOaS-5Pg9NPJlsbstu1OnlEfj-lck6CqDotVlDE/s1600/king.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTtJ1D3UcKQWNF6_4NbCeEaOLy_Wc5iAr9q3cW36ZzkDTZPx_GhEZMv669RnKuc0ZnZGcWN_2O6ipJG0uTtB7yniMEwkfMgaRj7duMVOaS-5Pg9NPJlsbstu1OnlEfj-lck6CqDotVlDE/s1600/king.jpg" height="306" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Immorality and Avarice: </b>These are the vices which a tyrant can exercise without restraint, and the very ability to do so constitute the lure and reward of tyranny. To have whatever one's eye lusts for, be it property, power, or people, this is the lure for the tyrant. The desire for absolute power would have little meaning for unscrupulous people if that power did not enable one to break all bonds which social position, morality, and laws would otherwise restrain. The Roman emperors would frequently display that power by taking the wives of men they had invited to the palace. Nero made it a hobby to display the most depraved behavior imaginable. Tiberius had his soldiers throw the richest man of Spain off a cliff so he could confiscate his money. There is no private property in a tyranny, nor is anything sacred. There is nothing where anyone can say, "this is mine" or "this is private." What is there then to live or hope for?<br />
As the Athenian Euripides writes:<br />
"Why should one acquire wealth and livelihood<br />
For his children, if the struggle is only to enrich the tyrant further?<br />
Why keep his young daughters virtuously at home,<br />
To be the sweet delight of tyrants?<br />
I'd rather die than have my daughters wed by violence" (Woodruff 63).<br />
<br />
Yes, freedom from tyranny is worth fighting for. Cicero, who saw the death of the Roman Republic in his time sums it up like this in his <i>The Republic</i>: "As soon as a king takes the first step towards a more unjust regime, he at once becomes a tyrant. And that is the foulest and most repellent creature imaginable, and the most abhorrent to god and man alike. Although he has the outward appearance of a man, he outdoes the wildest beasts in the utter savagery of his behavior" (50). Remembering the first tyrant slayer of Rome, he writes that "he became the first in this state to show that, <b>when it comes to preserving the people's freedom,</b> <b>no one is just a private citizen</b>" (49).<br />
<br />
It is the duty of every citizen to guard against tyranny and from becoming tyrants ourselves. A whole generation is growing up now which has never experienced the world before the Patriot Act. Massive surveillance which has never before been experienced in free societies is a fact of life. Throw off this yoke and destroy tyranny and all that resembles it. Nip it in the bud before it can grow any further. We do not want to progress down this road. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3tuQ5lmiQAZehvRW4xaGmSHYs7GOcR4t7TY887VDrrrtSakVQxZZlsvshBkiFKrrsaY_rk5Rd5pQWTr1CicuGNKtoj81i9volka-2C1RpsdN5Ytc0W6k76nlFKYDXqiT7PSqdELbG570/s1600/Ben+Franklin+on+Liberty+and+Security+05182009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3tuQ5lmiQAZehvRW4xaGmSHYs7GOcR4t7TY887VDrrrtSakVQxZZlsvshBkiFKrrsaY_rk5Rd5pQWTr1CicuGNKtoj81i9volka-2C1RpsdN5Ytc0W6k76nlFKYDXqiT7PSqdELbG570/s1600/Ben+Franklin+on+Liberty+and+Security+05182009.jpg" height="220" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-71258206764914812942014-01-23T08:17:00.001-07:002014-01-23T08:35:37.945-07:00"Closer at Hand, and Fiercer": Fear Appeals and Resonance in Alexander Nevsky<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"></i>In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alexander Nevsky</i>, Sergei Eisenstein uses
a scene from Russian history as a historical analogy to prepare the Soviet
Union for a defense of their homeland. In doing so, he sets up the drama of an
agonistic ritual between good and evil where patriotic Russians are placed on a
moral pedestal whereas Germans and dissenting Russians are denied all
legitimacy. Eisenstein exploits the potentialities in this drama for fear
appeals and resonance in order to instill an attitude and prepare the Russian
people to respond to a potential call to arms against the Germans. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/M-w5GWpiV3I?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alexander Nevsky</i> portrays a social
movement where a large ethnic group, the Russians, unite in the purpose of
becoming an independent nation. As Stewart, Smith, and Denton mention in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Persuasion and Social Movements</i>,
"Social movements are organized from the bottom up with leaders that
emerge as the movement develops and sees the need for leaders with unique
abilities" (6). It is established early in the film that the dream of
Russia is one shared by almost all Russians, which is perhaps made clearest by
the chorus chanting, "We'll never yield <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our Russian</i> land. We'll crush every invader." Then, as the
rich merchants of Novgorod argue that "we can buy our safety," Olga
Danilovna again invokes the dream of Russia, asking, "You would sell away
Russia?" A merchant replies, "Where is Russia? When did you ever see
such a thing?" indicating that Russia at this time is not an undisputed
institutionalized fact. It is still an uninstitutionalized vision which only
has life as a social movement. Yet the dream of Russia wins the argument and
the voice of the collective calls for Alexander Nevsky to become the leader of
the movement. The film ends with the institutionalization of the social
movement as Alexander proclaims, "Russia lives!" effectively
transforming the social movement into a social movement organization. By using a
story from their own history, Eisenstein could display a war against the
Germans as a consistent pattern of behavior for Russians, rather than an
aberration. Thus tapping into what Daniel O'Keefe calls the "general
desire for consistency" (23). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The quest
for Russian independence is portrayed as a moral struggle between good and
evil, where this movement alone "constitutes an ethical, virtuous,
principled, and righteous force with the moral obligation to act in the name of
and for the good of, the people" (15), with exaggerated "strength,
unity, and intellectual and moral legitimacy" (16). Strangely enough, a
quasi-Christian agonistic ritual between the good, the evil (including the
Germans and "second Judas" Russians) is invoked to motivate a
population in defense of a Communist state. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/pXr0m7SaGvs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Eisenstein
makes liberal use of what O'Keefe describes as "fear appeals" in
order to move people to action (226). The threat severity is the highest
imaginable ("They're beating and killing everyone they encounter . . . They're
torturing women whose sons and husbands fought against them"), as is the
threat vulnerability ("we poor people, we face death under the Germans").
Meanwhile, Alexander guarantees the response efficacy ("We will beat them
by spring!"), and the display of clumsy but brave Russian soldiers shows
that everyone can contribute ("even a sparrow has a heart"). An
alternative to war is impossible in this zero-sum game: The bishop proclaims
that "All who refuse to submit to Rome shall be destroyed," as
children are thrown into the fire, while Alexander explains that the Germans
are "closer at hand, and fiercer" than the Mongols. "And they
cannot be bought off by tributes." This is a fight where there can only be
one winner. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The real
genius of this propaganda film is having Alexander establish Soviet foreign
policy as the centuries old law of the land. By anchoring this military
doctrine to the esteem of a national hero, Eisenstein effectively convinces
people to change their attitudes by relating the change "to something in
which the persuadee already believes" (34), creating resonance with his
audience. In addition, Eisenstein fills the film with Russian proverbs,
effectively connecting the current Russia with the past. The government
supported this connection with visual symbols like the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Order of Alexander Nevsky</i>, a military decoration reinstituted in
1942.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
By
displaying the war of 1242 as an analogy to the situation in 1938, Eisenstein
is able to use fear appeals and resonance to move the Russian people to war and
suppress dissent. The attitude he tries to instill is perhaps clearest when Alexander
proclaims even defeat an act of treason, "If we had lost, Russia would
have never forgiven us. Tell that to your children. If you forget it, you will
all be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a second Judas</i>. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A traitor to the Russian land</i>."
This is internal persuasion, aimed at Russians to instill militant patriotism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-57162662245402031582013-12-14T13:43:00.000-07:002013-12-14T21:17:12.886-07:00Symptoms of a Disease: Mass Suggestion and Arguments of Sign in Robert Welch's Conspiracy Theory<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Conspiracy theories are everywhere today, in entertainment, politics, economics. You can even sense their shadows in organizations which are supposedly as far from the fringe as you can get. Democrats believe Republicans are accomplices in the great conspiracy of the rich financiers against the poor and the middle class, and Republicans accuse Democrats of supporting a statist agenda towards control and tyranny over the American people. Both sides assume the others are alligned with a small cabal of powerful elites who are silently dictating the development of the world towards a hellish future. There is plenty that could be said about these theories and their effect on public discourse (for example creating the assumption that everyone but you has a sinister hidden agenda for what they do). But why do these arguments work in the first place? Why are some audiences so eager or ready to accept arguments often based on the most flimsy evidence? Here is one prevalent conspiracy theory (which has recently had quite a Renaissance of interest on the web) which I analyzed using Toulmin's The Uses of Argumentation. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/u9VRUU0uz1I?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
In "If You Want It Straight," Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, sets forth his theory about how the United States of America is threatened to its core by an almost ubiquitous Communist conspiracy. Welch relates a fantastical foundation myth for this conspiracy and interweaves its history with almost every significant political event of the last two hundred years. Then he gives what I think is a central clue to the construct of his argument and its potential appeal to an audience: "As we move down the years . . . and you find these items from the past meshing so neatly into a total design with the present pattern which you already recognize, most of your doubts about the earlier history will probably disappear." 1968, the time when he is broadcasting this message for the first time, is a very disorienting time in America. There are riots, protests, assassinations, and a great amount of civil unrest. In the middle of such disorientation, people often seek explanations. Welch offers one in this broadcast. In doing so, he uses mainly what Toulmin calls substantive arguments of sign to prove the "fact" of the Communist conspiracy, and relies on an implicit motivational argument to encourage Americans to resist the Communist campaigns. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
"In arguments from sign, the data consist of clues or symptoms" (49). It is an inductive process where certain clues are interpreted as symptoms of an attribute possessed by a "person, object, event, or condition." By themselves, the data do not give a clear meaning, but the warrant "interprets the meaning or significance of these symbols" (49). As such, it works well with methods of mass suggestion such as those used by Welch. Welch claims he is displaying a complex mosaic, and does so by suggesting that just about every progressive initiative in the entire USA is a part of a Communist conspiracy. My model shows how his techniques may play out with his contemporary audience, focusing on the backing they fill in for him. (Key: D=Data or information which is already accepted, C=Claim or what the arguer wants to get accepted as truth, W=Warrant or the qualifying element which interprets the data and connects it with the claim, B=Backing or the support the argument find in existing attitudes, documents, laws, established values, etc.)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnN0_c1Rm1LqB17hRC5zJJSElXWvgA4OlEpdSCvR9VDhbsTVQjRTSIJeIDdkCXkVWxwL1GDG-f2ccwJKdklzkQnk32L6Hdsz9dltf2pangbhBBR5HbTYceiXnntd6C8JmpAuFpWsTdP6s/s1600/Welch+Argumentation+Map.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnN0_c1Rm1LqB17hRC5zJJSElXWvgA4OlEpdSCvR9VDhbsTVQjRTSIJeIDdkCXkVWxwL1GDG-f2ccwJKdklzkQnk32L6Hdsz9dltf2pangbhBBR5HbTYceiXnntd6C8JmpAuFpWsTdP6s/s640/Welch+Argumentation+Map.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
The first argument builds upon an assumption about the international Communist movement. Earlier in the broadcast, Welch provides a history of Communism and how it has spread through social protest, agitation, and armed revolution. He claims that this past is symptomatic of the Communist modus operandi and predicts that they will attempt the same in the US. With this claim, he is not doing much more than repeating the warnings of the US government and educational institutions from propaganda like Red Nightmare. Linking his arguments to this background provides him with all the backing he needs to proceed.<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
In a second argument from sign, Welch mentions all the social upheaval and unrest in the 60s, including race riots, protests, the hippie movement, the sexual revolution, as well as black rights, Hispanic rights, and women's rights, and reads it as clear evidence of a Communist conspiracy to take over the US. The data is probably on most people's minds in this turbulent period, so it makes sense that he would have resonance with some people. The logical "leap of faith" it takes to see all these movements as symptoms of a Communist master plan makes this argument one that is less likely to be accepted. However, it does fit with the narrative established by the government about the Communist conspiracy, and it resonates with the impression perpetuated about Communists as devious and stealthy. This may be a field-dependent argument, which can only work with people who believe in the Communist plot and have reactionary sentiments towards the rapid change which is occurring in the US.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></span></div>
The third argument is an implicit motivational argument about how undesirable such Communist rule would be for Americans. Welch states from early on that this conspiracy threatens "your liberty and the very lives of you and your family in the near and quite foreseeable future," and keeps referring to the results of the Communist plot which will "destroy American civilization so they can rule over the ruins that will be left." The data says here that "US citizens need to resist progressive efforts to remain safe from Communism," and it builds upon the "fact" established previously about the nature of international Communism and the Communist origin of the social upheaval currently taking place in the US. This motivational argument is an evaluation of those facts based on the emotions of fear and anger, and the value of self-preservation. As shown in my model, all of these arguments can only work if the audience can supply the backing of an established attitude and belief about Communism and Communists. Without this backing, the model falls apart and the argument deteriorates to incomprehensible mass suggestion and threats. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-23726665900904061162013-09-25T16:10:00.002-06:002013-09-25T16:27:03.287-06:00A Warning From Ancient Greece About the Curse of Empire<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i style="text-align: left;">"All those who come before you on this platform are accustomed to assert that the subjects upon which they are themselves about to advise you are most important and most worthy of serious consideration by the state. Nevertheless, if it was ever appropriate to preface the discussion of any other subject with such words, it seems to me fitting also to begin with them in speaking upon the subject now before us.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i style="text-align: left;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-Dnbfjq0a_Rh0XudNhy-tN_y1VaQk5LtD5QWqM0J1UoRVVUfUxHAPGkfzfTcDuxpCKyJWTDFKJzk6uRIiXfoHTqlnMSFOevWIar8a9iCYQ4cOoDwaEpnWAdm-jG997BdSbpc5UzmHxqA/s1600/felton_isocrates.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-Dnbfjq0a_Rh0XudNhy-tN_y1VaQk5LtD5QWqM0J1UoRVVUfUxHAPGkfzfTcDuxpCKyJWTDFKJzk6uRIiXfoHTqlnMSFOevWIar8a9iCYQ4cOoDwaEpnWAdm-jG997BdSbpc5UzmHxqA/s320/felton_isocrates.jpg" width="230" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>For we are assembled here to deliberate about <b>War and Peace</b>, which exercise the greatest power over the life of man, and regarding which those who are correctly advised must of necessity fare better than the rest of the world. Such, then, is the magnitude of the question which we have come together to decide." </i><br />
<br />
This is how Isocrates introduces his speech titled "On the Peace." It is a sober piece of writing, with a more subdued tone than most of his other speeches. Isocrates is speaking from his own experience. His family and property was devastated during the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, and he has seen Athens rise from that devastation only to again entangle themselves in wars and intrigues. Now, after another serious defeat, Athens is seeking for peace. Isocrates sees this as the moment where he can lead Athenian foreign policy down a different track than they have been on for the last 50 years: He wants them to give up the disastrous <b>dream of an empire</b>.<br />
<br />
In doing so, he realizes that he is speaking from a disadvantaged position. The speakers beating the drums of war have an easier case to make than the ones who urge for peace. One can appeal to pride and ambition, whereas the other can only appeal to humility and harmony: <i>for the former put into our minds the expectation both of regaining our possessions . . . and of recovering the power which we formerly enjoyed, while the latter hold forth no such hope, insisting rather that we must have peace and not crave great possessions contrary to justice, but <b>be content with those we have—</b>and that for the great majority of mankind is of all things the most difficult.</i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
The psychosis of empire carries with it a recognizable symptom of invincibility: <i>For some of us appear to me to be over zealously bent on war, as though having heard, not from haphazard counsellors, but from the gods, that we are destined to succeed in all our campaigns and to prevail easily over our foes. </i>Similar sentiments were expressed recently about the inevitability of success in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, showing us that although we are far removed from the Athenians in time, human nature has not changed that much.<br />
<br />
Isocrates claims that (1) security, (2) material well-being, (3) harmony and unity within the nation, and (4) esteem and respect abroad would be conditions in which Athens would be most happy. <i>Now it is <b>the war</b> which has robbed us of all the good things which I have mentioned; for it has made us <b>poorer</b>; it has compelled many of us to endure <b>perils</b>; it has given us a <b>bad name</b> among the Hellenes; and it has in every way overwhelmed us with misfortune. </i>On the other hand, if Athens were to keep their peace treaties and covenants, Isocrates claims that they would be secure, trade would increase, Athenians would be united in a common project of improvement, and <i>we shall have all mankind as our allies—allies who will not have been forced, but rather persuaded, to join with us, who will not welcome our friendship because of our power when we are secure only to abandon us when we are in peril, but who will be disposed towards us as those should be who are in very truth allies and friends.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
In order to secure this lasting peace, one thing has to happen: Athens has to stop trying to dominate everybody: <i>For I, for my part, consider that we shall manage our city to better advantage and be ourselves better men and go forward in all our undertakings if we <b>stop setting our hearts on the empire of the sea.</b> For it is this which plunged us into our present state of <b>disorder</b>, which <b>overthrew that democratic government</b>1 under which our ancestors lived and were the happiest of the Hellenes, and which is the cause, one might almost say, of <b>all the ills</b> which we both <b>suffer ourselves</b> and <b>inflict upon the rest </b>of the Hellenes.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
What is this empire? Why have all nations sought after it? And why is it so destructive to whoever holds it? Isocrates says that "all the world lusts after this power" and they have "waged wars to obtain" it.<br />
<br />
The empire is based on force, and therefore goes contrary to the principles of the Hellenes, since <i>we recognized the principle that it is not just for the stronger to rule over the weaker</i>. Athenians were raised with a hate of despots and a love of democracy and equality. Yet, as we often do, they failed to translate the principles of their domestic policy into their foreign policy. Isocrates sees this inconsistency of principle, and he seizes on it. He begins by denouncing the conditions of the tyrant: <i>Is it not true that when men obtain unlimited power they find themselves at once in the coil of so many troubles that they are compelled to make war upon all their citizens, to hate those from whom they have suffered no wrong whatsoever, to suspect their own friends and daily companions, to entrust the safety of their persons to hirelings whom they have never even seen, to fear no less those who guard their lives than those who plot against them, and to be so suspicious towards all men as not to feel secure even in the company of their nearest kin? </i>Isocrates is here stating a common sentiment among the Athenians. It was the terrors of tyranny which made them turn to democracy in the first place, and the bloodbath caused by the brief reign of The Thirthy reiterated those lessons to his own generation. Then he makes the connection: <i>while you consider the power of a despot to be harsh and harmful not only to others but to those who hold it, you look upon the empire of the sea as the greatest good in the world, when in fact it differs neither in what it does nor in what it suffers from one-man-rule. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrkeB0ZrhHLnY0ZFM5N7WbMHbtYMg_eKLy1gd7rnW74k21qaxZnorm2oDBrK_JgQxR9wjvU55pyOSuep-DUuzLc-mC7Pt3eymB2ziWjTYJMqLzgS3n6Sc0RvzC529_01wLKrH5lWeUlqo/s1600/nero.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrkeB0ZrhHLnY0ZFM5N7WbMHbtYMg_eKLy1gd7rnW74k21qaxZnorm2oDBrK_JgQxR9wjvU55pyOSuep-DUuzLc-mC7Pt3eymB2ziWjTYJMqLzgS3n6Sc0RvzC529_01wLKrH5lWeUlqo/s320/nero.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>So what is the lure of empire? Why have Athenians and others been willing to ignore their own principles in order to obtain it? The answer is, because it can satisfy the most basic desires for quick wealth and power: <i>it turns the heads of those who are enamored by it, and that it is in its nature like courtesans, who lure their victims to love but destroy those who indulge this passion. </i>But when did Athens cease to lead and begin to dominate? They were given the hegemony or leadership over the Hellenes because of their valor and wisdom in the war against the Persians. It is not leadership which causes evil, Isocrates points out, but rather unbridled dominion. The Athenians of that generation were chosen to rule, but <i>those who came after them desired, not to <b>rule</b> but to <b>dominate</b>—words which are thought to have the same meaning, although between them there is the utmost difference. For it is the <b>duty of those who rule</b> to make their <b>welfare</b>, whereas it is a h<b>abit of those who dominate</b> to <b>provide pleasures for themselves</b> through the labors and hardships of others. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
This is a state which is contrary to virtue and nature, which is why Isocrates prefaces the next part of his argument with a grave warning: <i>But it is in the nature of things that those who attempt a despot's course must encounter the disasters which befall despotic power and be afflicted by the very things which they inflict upon others. And it is just this which has happened in the case of Athens</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
An empire is a deception. It is not what it seems: <i><b>what we call empire</b>, though in reality it is misfortune, is of a nature to <b>deprave all who have to do with it</b>. </i>The empire is a licence and arrogance based on physical strength which tempt all men to abuse the power they have been given: <i>anyone can see that those who have been in the strongest position to do whatever they pleased have been involved in the greatest disasters.</i> Athens itself reached a point where <i>before they knew it, they had filled the public burial-grounds with the bodies of their fellow citizens.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOLzE0YFxIHZzfIKZptqXSCX5IBTjBcX-gv_5aEaAchAVl5fyZ_WQLxL8PsA9Ayfj_wgta5umjaT_CFTjPVuy3RMLegQuj0T0ug3LboHPbR3GWPrA5cGjmxIsvaO0tNMAyvmMJMX8k6Rw/s1600/arlington_national_cemetery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOLzE0YFxIHZzfIKZptqXSCX5IBTjBcX-gv_5aEaAchAVl5fyZ_WQLxL8PsA9Ayfj_wgta5umjaT_CFTjPVuy3RMLegQuj0T0ug3LboHPbR3GWPrA5cGjmxIsvaO0tNMAyvmMJMX8k6Rw/s400/arlington_national_cemetery.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Isocrates uses the history of Sparta to illustrate this principle:<br />
<br />
<i>"And we ought not to emulate those who hold <b>despotic power</b> nor those who have gained a <b>dominion which is greater than is just</b> but rather those who, while worthy of the highest honors, are yet <b>content with the honors</b> which are tendered them by <b>a free people</b>.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>We have a most convincing proof of this. For <b>imperialism</b> worked the ruin not only of Athens but of the city of the Lacedaemonians (Sparta) also.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>For in place of the ways of life established among them it filled the citizens with injustice, indolence, lawlessness and avarice and the commonwealth with contempt for its allies, covetousness of the possessions of other states, and indifference to its oaths and covenants. In fact they went so far beyond our ancestors in their crimes against the Hellenes that in addition to the evils which already afflicted the several states they stirred up in them slaughter and strife, in consequence of which their citizens will cherish for each other a hatred unquenchable.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUSEBI2aeYB9_bnYhpXcYBSEhtcqdssWjUqlEFSn2agy4_FhSjBkiW8KCw_txb2F3iKiz0MFYDr_2ckYlVqMYwynlGPabe2QRg4H8cuj7-d2Sx281IoTHXArXitHR1MgIAGtWWnd_3N0E/s1600/hl-spartans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUSEBI2aeYB9_bnYhpXcYBSEhtcqdssWjUqlEFSn2agy4_FhSjBkiW8KCw_txb2F3iKiz0MFYDr_2ckYlVqMYwynlGPabe2QRg4H8cuj7-d2Sx281IoTHXArXitHR1MgIAGtWWnd_3N0E/s320/hl-spartans.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>They first became subject to the dominion of their present ills at the moment <b>when they attempted to seize the dominion of the sea</b>, since they were seeking to <b>acquire a power</b> which was in no wise like that which they had before possessed.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Because of the <b>arrogance which was bred in them by that power</b> they speedily lost the supremacy both on land and sea. For they no longer kept the laws which they had inherited from their ancestors nor remained faithful to the ways which they had followed in times past.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>For they did not know that this licence which all the world aspires to attain is a difficult thing to manage, that it turns the heads of those who are enamored by it, and that it is in its nature like courtesans, who lure their victims to love but destroy those who indulge this passion.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>anyone can see that those who have been in the strongest position to do whatever they pleased have been involved in the greatest disasters, ourselves and the Lacedaemonians first of all. For when these states, which in time past had governed themselves with the utmost sobriety and enjoyed the highest esteem, <b>attained to this license and seized the empire</b>, they differed in no respect from each other, but, as is natural in the case of those who have been depraved by the same passions and the same malady, <b>they attempted the same deeds and indulged in similar crimes and, finally, fell into like disasters.</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Isocrates summarizes the moral of the story with this brief sentiment: <i>If you will go over these and similar questions in your minds, you will discover that <b>arrogance and insolence</b> have been the cause of our misfortunes while <b>sobriety and self control</b> have been the source of our <b>blessings</b>. </i>It is urgent that Athenians realize this truth <i>for a<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> man who is godless and depraved may die before paying the penalty for his sins, but states, since they are deathless, so</span>on or late must submit to punishment at the hands both of men and of the gods. </i>And time is running out for Athens. A mighty enemy, Philip of Macedon, is amassing a great army in the north. His greedy eyes are looking south towards the scattered, divided, and leaderless Greek city states that he is planning to subdue into his empire. When his armies came, Athens led the fight against them. But because of their arrogance and intrigues, they had as many Greeks fighting against them as were fighting with them. Thus ended the independence of the Greek city states, and with it, the brief light of democracy.<br />
<br />
What can we learn from the mistakes of Athens? The evils of empire have shaped our world increasingly since the 1700s. The atrocities of the colonial powers still haunt us and manifest themselves in a world divided between victims and conquerors. The colonial war was a major contributor to World War I and the revived imperial ambitions of Germany, Italy, and Japan helped trigger another one. Following that, the US and USSR each formed empires of influence and force, leading even the US to commit crimes and outrages which they had formerly decried and stayed away from in international politics. The US currently has a crumbling empire. More despised and feared than loved in large parts of the world, and not always undeservedly so either. Deep trails of blood in South America and the Middle East have followed American foreign policy. In deed the US have often acted outwardly as a dictator, while struggling to maintain a democracy internally.<br />
<br />
Is it possible for the US to lead rather than dominate? These concluding words of Isocrates may still be applied in our days. The first advice he gives is to choose good leaders and representatives who do not hunger for war and easy money.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The second way is to be willing to <b>treat our allies just as we would our friends</b> and not to grant them independence in words (only) . . . and not to exercise our leadership as masters but as helpers, since we have learned the lesson that while we are stronger than any single state we are weaker than all.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i>And the third way is to consider that nothing is more important . . . than to have a <b>good name</b> among the Hellenes. For upon those who are so regarded they willingly confer both <b>sovereign power and leadership.</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i>For no other of the states will dare to oppress them; on the contrary, they will hold back and studiously avoid aggression when they see the power of Athens on the alert and ready to go to the aid of the oppressed.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i>If the foremost states resolve to abstain from acts of oppression, we shall have the credit for this blessing; but if, on the other hand, they attempt to oppress others, then all who fear them and suffer evil at their hands will come to us for refuge, with many prayers and supplications, offering us not only the hegemony but their own support.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i><b>it is a noble enterprise for us, in the midst of the injustice and madness of the rest of the world, to be the first to adopt a sane policy and stand forth as the champions of the freedom</b> of the Hellenes, to be acclaimed as their saviors, not their destroyers, and to become illustrious for our virtues and regain the good repute which our ancestors possessed.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQnyC-HakIue4g1gP_gL8Oc7TVuUqFwxPcqf6L42FpBArYMw2-GaJNOrnyqsYpfg0wq2A1fE-lRuVdRfSKMB6IX4e1aro38B1WJbneTVJfvrM4dKfzMgB_R7YRkcLfAPgEg_gsKy3jTVc/s1600/respect-give-it-to-get-it.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQnyC-HakIue4g1gP_gL8Oc7TVuUqFwxPcqf6L42FpBArYMw2-GaJNOrnyqsYpfg0wq2A1fE-lRuVdRfSKMB6IX4e1aro38B1WJbneTVJfvrM4dKfzMgB_R7YRkcLfAPgEg_gsKy3jTVc/s320/respect-give-it-to-get-it.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>For if we really wish to clear away the prejudice in which we are held at the present time, we must cease from the wars which are waged to no purpose and so gain for our city the hegemony for all time; we must abhor all despotic rule and imperial power, reflecting upon the disasters which have sprung from them; </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
<i><b>This, then, is the kind of leadership which is worth striving for.</b></i></span></div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-84265633015483101212013-09-13T20:05:00.000-06:002013-09-13T20:30:31.735-06:00How Orson Welles Faked Public Knowledge in "War of the Worlds"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
On Halloween 1938, Orson Welles' Mercury Theater on the Air performed a dramatized version of H.G. Wells' <i>War of the Worlds.</i> Within 16 minutes of the broadcast, over one million Americans believed Martians had landed in New Jersey. Throngs were calling their local police and fire departments, volunteering for service in the war against the Martians, a man returned to his house to find his wife holding a glass of poison, claiming it was better to die this way than being eaten by the Martians, people in Boston reported being able to see the flames from the Martian heat ray on the horizon. The effect surprised Orson Welles and his fellow actors more than anyone. Below you can see his attempt at making sense of the situation and his apology for the consequences of his broadcast.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/uuEGiruAFSw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
How was this possible? How could an otherwise educated and intelligent public become so utterly convinced by such a fantastic story that they let that conviction guide their actions and override their senses?<br />
<br />
In “Rhetoric and Public Knowledge,” Lloyd Bitzer defines public knowledge as “a fund of truths, principles, and values which could only characterize a public” and that a public which has such knowledge “is made competent to accredit new truth and value and to authorize decision and action” (68). Essentially, public knowledge becomes a framework out of which we can judge new truths and values. A public also has a set process by which new knowledge is accepted, or “a power of authorization through which some truths and values are accredited” (68). This process, or method, is a kind of rhetoric. “Rhetoric generates truths and values previously unknown to the public” and it “serves as an instrument with which to test public truths and values and justify public means and ends” (68). It both generates and tests truths in a generally acceptable way.<br />
<br />
The reason Orson Welles’ broadcast <i>War of the Worlds</i> was so effective in altering the “public knowledge” of its listeners was because it successfully made use of the rhetorical process by which normal truths were introduced and established in the public of that time to introduce and establish a fiction. Perhaps the most pervasive method in this process was the use of phony representatives or spokesmen.<br />
<br />
In the rhetorical process to introduce and test public knowledge, Bitzer writes that spokesmen are like prophets (74). We could therefore say that Welles effectively manipulated public knowledge by using false prophets to proclaim a false truth. On one level, there was the medium of the radio itself. As a widely disseminated and highly regulated medium, the radio in 1938 possessed an authority as a receptacle and fountain of truth which few of this age can imagine (Cantril xii). This authority is transferred to the radio announcer, who, without possessing any other credentials, is instantly believable as the transmitter of facts. The credibility of the radio as a source of information is even mentioned in the play, where the radio relinquishes control to serve the army since "radio has a responsibility to serve the public interest in all situations" (Welles).<br />
<br />
Next, there is a long list of representatives who speak for the most prominent institutions granted authority to validate truths. As Bitzer writes, "public speakers and audiences . . . stand in for publics" as when "an eminent scientist . . . speaks for science" (73). Professor Pierson becomes the representative of the voice of science in the play, confronting fantastic claims with skepticism (8, 10) and triangulating his observations with those of other scientists and empirical evidence (6, 10), until he is convinced and validates a new truth. In stating this new truth, he acts in his capacity "as a scientist" (Welles) proclaiming with the authorization derived from what we know as "the agreements of experts or of elite persons" (Bitzer 76).<br />
<br />
When this truth is summarized by the announcer, he focuses on the process of its discovery and validation: "Incredible as it may seem, both<i> observations of science</i> and <i>the evidence of our eyes</i> lead to the inescapable assumption that those strange beings are the vanguard of an invading army from the planet Mars" (Welles). Other public acknowledgments follow from other institutions authorized to validate new truths for the public: the National Guard, military, and finally Secretary of Interior all support this new and terrible truth. This perception of reality is also validated by the masses of people reportedly fleeing from the aliens: "Highways to the north, south, and west are clogged with frantic human traffic" (Welles).<br />
<br />
Now, what of all this "knowledge" is <b>public knowledge</b> as defined by Bitzer? If it were real, the Martian invasion would not have been public knowledge in this sense, but rather "<b>private knowledge made general</b>" since it would have existence independent of a public (84). Public knowledge has no existence or at least looks different outside of a public. The public shapes knowledge when, "Purely factual conditions experienced by the public come into relation with shared sentiments, principles, and values that characterize persons not as individuals but as members of the public: and the power of participation transforms those factual conditions into the public's personal facts" (85). <b>Personal facts</b> here means facts which have been colored by emotions and perceptions. In 1938, the factual condition of voices speaking over the radio was transformed into something meaningful when it mixed with the public perception of the radio as transmitter of truth and recognition of titles (which do not exist in the absence of a public) giving the voices authority to establish new truths. This mixture transformed the factual conditions (voices heard on the radio) into the personal fact of a public that said Martians were invading USA.<br />
<br />
Bitzer writes, "the public is the ground and the authority of all of its personal facts, which count therefore as part of public knowledge" (85). The Martian Invasion in 1938 was an evanescent personal fact of the public. One could say that it was truly public knowledge, since it had absolutely no existence independent of a public. Though systems of public knowledge are faulty and can be tricked, as shown in this instance, we need such systems in order to know things together, which is the necessary foundation for any kind of communal action. Hopefully, such glitches in the system make it clear to us that even these systems have faults, helping us to be humble and vigilant in testing what we know as a society and how we come to know it. Just because the voice you hear on the radio self-identifies as an expert, it doesn't necessarily mean the he or she is anything more than one voice and one opinion among many.<br />
<br />
Here is the full broadcast. Masterfully executed, even by today's standards<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xs0K4ApWl4g?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-68038129690720945352013-08-20T14:17:00.000-06:002013-08-22T10:21:11.242-06:00The Five Dysfunctions of a Democracy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I have just been reading <i>The Five Dysfunctions of a Team</i>, by Patrick Lencioni. While I was reading it I realized that the principles discussed in the book are not really limited to management or executive teams at all. They are principles of democratic deliberation, and help explain why this process sometimes fails or becomes corrupted or unproductive. Of course, I realize that this is a complex topic that I will have to simplify in order to fit it in a blog post. This post contains my thoughts about how these concepts can be applied to address failures of modern democracies to engage in productive decision-making deliberations.<br />
<br />
First, what are the five dysfunctions of a team? Well, they are not five separate dysfunctions as much as five effects which stem out of a lack of trust and escalate to different levels. This figure explains it best.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpB9G4zr7QW9zidNRUNuUVr8x-SC5AHWf8CtkMrdHMl4NTDP8jVACuXie-q1gpOa4fhyphenhyphenDTbDnXsgnw3INBf7wng2CpLmckFLtIesLANU47MCRl4Ghy9Vttk2-RsxRnppbvW20nSvpkkks/s1600/5dysfunctions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpB9G4zr7QW9zidNRUNuUVr8x-SC5AHWf8CtkMrdHMl4NTDP8jVACuXie-q1gpOa4fhyphenhyphenDTbDnXsgnw3INBf7wng2CpLmckFLtIesLANU47MCRl4Ghy9Vttk2-RsxRnppbvW20nSvpkkks/s400/5dysfunctions.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Lencioni writes, "In the context of building a team, <b>trust</b> is the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, and that there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group" (195). Of course, this does not translate well to democratic politics. What I would say is that <b>trust</b> in a democracy is built on confidence in the deliberative and reasonable ability of a democratic population. A belief that most people do want the best for themselves, their families, and their communities, and that it is possible to address touchy subjects or controversial topics without starting a civil war.<br />
<br />
A good example of a controversial topic in Europe is immigration. It is a favourite topic of populistic politicians from the right or conservative side of the aisle. Intellectuals and parties closer to the center or left like to discard these people and their supporters as "racists, fascists, and Nazis," thereby effectively signaling that they are a no-count crowd who cannot be taken seriously in public debate, and they should be silenced using all "democratic" bullying means and tactics available. We can look at Sweden as an example. As one journalist wrote, the statements in Sweden about inherent unity and coherence have become more shrill as the actual presence of difference and discord has become more obvious. It has come so far that almost one fourth of the electorate have voted for a party that the media have branded as insincere and unfit as participants in the public debate <a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Frykten-for-Sverigedemokratene-7109741.html#.UgjSAJLXqSo">http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Frykten-for-Sverigedemokratene-7109741.html#.UgjSAJLXqSo</a> Meaning that a significant part of the population is ostracized from the process. This fear seems to me to be the manifestation of an absence of trust in the electorate and their ability to reason.<br />
<br />
This absence of trust logically leads to a <b>fear of real debate or fear of conflict</b>. Ideological debate should be vigorous and passionate, and it should be inclusive. The issue should be addressed, rather than trying to make a value judgment about the person defending or propagating a certain stance with <i>ad hominem</i> arguments (attacking the person who discusses an issue to discredit his/her point of view). In Sweden, words like "communist," "racist," "fascist," are used publicly in some of the most read newspapers, and seem to dominate the public discourse. Despite this, there is a seeming harmony among the political establishment and the established media that immigration is not a problem in any way, and it does not need to be debated. A large portion of the population seem to disagree. Any person highlighting difference and disunity is easily made out to be the proponent of difference and disunity. Real debate and conflict leads to a solution which is not compromise (it does not try to please everyone), but it is a solution which the group can agree to because everyone felt that they were listened to and that their argument was seriously considered. Without an inclusive debate, the result becomes artificial harmony. We pretend like we agree, but inside we are boiling.<br />
<br />
The real problems from this become more visible at the next level. Because there was no real debating of the conflicting opinions, and all sides were not heard equally, there is <b>no commitment</b> to the solution that won. Thus, policies are not enforced, social programs are undermined, and any initiative decided on in this way, while trying to mend the social fabric, actually ends up tearing it further apart. Many participants start feeling like they are not a part of a team, a community, or a nation, but that they are stuck together with people they fundamentally disagree with and cannot communicate with. More battle lines, groups, and subgroups form. The people become more disgruntled and grasp for anyone who can articulate their frustrations and anger.<br />
<br />
This again leads to <b>Avoidance of Accountability</b> and low standards. Especially, it leads to low standards of public discourse. Arguments deteriorate to shouting matches. Degrading remarks and labels become the norm. Groups and subgroups talk within their groups and reinforce each other's stereotypes and prejudices without engaging opposing or even slightly differing groups. There seems to be less and less of a common foundation that anyone can agree upon. Why respect the democratic process for gaining power if that system favors your enemy? Why obey the rule of law which is enforced by your enemy? Why do anything unselfishly or give up anything when it only gives your enemy more resources and power? And gradually institutions, systems, and conventions, built up by debate and agreement over centuries until they are taken for granted, slowly grind down and deteriorate.<br />
<br />
The consequence in a business is <b>Inattention to Results</b> with Status and Ego as the only driving motivations for any action. In a society, the consequences can be much more severe. There is now no more national agenda, since nobody can agree on anything. Instead, we have the Hobbesian war of "everyone against everybody" with small groups all clamouring for power, success, and domination against all others. At this point one can hardly even speak of a nation. Rather there are tribes, clans, and parties trapped within artificial boundaries, forced to live close to people they hate and despise. As Paul Woodruff writes in <i>First Democracy</i>: "Without harmony, there is no democracy . . . Without harmony, the people have no common interests. What could 'government FOR the people' mean, if people are so badly divided that there is nothing that they want, together? Without harmony, government rules in the interest of one group at the expense of another. If harmony fails, many people have no reason to take part in government; others conclude that they must achieve their goals outside of democratic politics altogether, using money, violence, or even the threat of terror" (81). <br />
<br />
OK, so now I have painted the scary picture which can be the result of deficient democratic deliberation or rather, a lack of trust and debate. So how can these deficits be remedied? We have these deficits to some degree in all democracies and national as well as local deliberative bodies. Well, Lencioni has a whole list og exercises and ideas for how these can be overcome, and those who want them all can read the book ;) Here is a quick list of some:<br />
To overcome <b>absence of trust:</b> share personal histories, invite members to be critical of their participation in the deliberation process and mention one way in which they contribute and one way in which they most hinder good deliberation, create situations where cooperation is essential for success.<br />
To overcome <b>fear of conflict</b>: mine for buried disagreements and shed the light of day on them (call out sensitive issues and encourage people to work through them rather than avoiding them), create a setting where the road out goes through and not away from the conflict.<br />
To overcome <b>lack of commitment</b>: dare to give up the ideals of consensus and certainty. Create smaller and safer environments where groups can make decisions together, agree on what has been agreed upon and should be communicated, and then increase the level of complexity.<br />
<br />
A good start though would be to open up the debate. Let people share what they believe and feel without attaching a lable to it. People with valid concerns must be listened to if they are supposed to feel that the deliberation process has any kind of legitimacy. You don't have to agree with them, but try to understand them at least! How did they get to where they are today? What are some things you can agree on? Try to listen to their stories. Trust that they are just as intelligent as you are, and they probably have reasons for what they do and what they believe. If that could happen locally and nationally, that would be a great first step. Immigration, as many other touchy subjects, is filled with uncertainty.<br />
<br />
Though some experts and politicians may claim to have all the answers, nobody knows what limiting or expanding immigration will lead to in a country. Nobody knows for certain whether a country will become richer, happier, and more accepting or whether it will disintegrate into different societies living after different laws with different languages hardly agreeing on anything. There are definitely precedents for both in history. Except for USA few Western nations have had the kind of demographic shifts and movement of peoples they experience today. Nobody knows if the integration process could be improved, or how. Nobody knows the best road to go forward for certain. In <i>First Democracy</i>, Paul Woodruff writes, "Athens had developed a system of decision making that presumed the fallibility of everyone concerned and compensated for it through open debate on an adversarial model--a model that works only if both sides are free to speak. Besides debate, what could the Athenians have done without knowledge?" (175). We can rely on so-called "experts" or oracles. But they cannot be trusted with things they cannot know. "Far better to submit such issues to debate and resolve them with a vote . . . adversary debate, followed by a vote, is a rational way of handling murky issues--better than tossing coins . . . and far better than letting the leaders pretend to have so much knowledge that we can let them make decisions on their own" (175). </div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-34568173376494030702013-07-09T15:47:00.001-06:002020-09-24T01:42:52.602-06:00What Is the Difference Between Rhetoric and Manipulation?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I think there is a clear practical case to be made for rhetoric: since it is becoming more interconnected the world depends increasingly on good communication, therefore anything that makes an individual communicate more clearly and persuasive is obviously a benefit to that person. But what is the ethical argument for rhetoric? Why would a person with high ideals and democratic sentiments (as I would like to think of myself) study such an art? This is one of the oldest questions in Western thought actually, so I do not expect to solve it in one blog post. But these are some thoughts I have on the subject:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first problem in making that argument is definition. Rhetoric is often, though mistakenly, used to describe the deceptive practices of some politicians and salesmen, and Plato once accused it of being "flattery" with no intrinsic ethical value (though he is more positive about it in later dialogues). In other words, if rhetoric was a person, it would be seen as a scoundrel, a deceiver. So how do you defend a scoundrel? Well, you can't, because a scoundrel per definition is indefensible. What you do is show how that label or definition is misplaced, and that another definition is better. Rhetoric is concerned with <b>persuasion</b>, but what is mislabeled as rhetoric is really <b>manipulation:</b> "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious and deceptive." Though a person who persuades and one who manipulates may have the same end in mind, the <b>process</b> is different (as I will show later in this post). The end does not justify any means in rhetoric, because, as most honored rhetoricians have observed, the means of influence can have implications which are more severe than the influencer ever dreamed of.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, every definition depends upon some other definition. What does it mean that something is ethical? Rather than subscribing to a specific theory of ethics, Kantian or otherwise, I will work from a definition of ethical as something which <b>promotes ends</b> which are commonly held as good or favorable to individuals and society, and while doing so adheres to a common code of <b>acceptable behavior</b>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Plato argued in <i>Gorgias</i> that rhetoric is unethical because its end is power, which is not necessarily good for everyone, and it achieves this end through flattery, which is dishonest and prevents good judgment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZqAeH7coZRsIBjU918VdGMGlZZ3cJXNHyIClFAjRW2SJQ7q4Z6LuOwAMnpVikRTbyWkXWScss9ls2OoIx7loIgqQbP1pOqPM9I1vqJ1j1t2H9w76j3Ni1tNlDW3C8HQDB2CPQ6XzxGF0/s1600/unartistic+persuasion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZqAeH7coZRsIBjU918VdGMGlZZ3cJXNHyIClFAjRW2SJQ7q4Z6LuOwAMnpVikRTbyWkXWScss9ls2OoIx7loIgqQbP1pOqPM9I1vqJ1j1t2H9w76j3Ni1tNlDW3C8HQDB2CPQ6XzxGF0/s320/unartistic+persuasion.jpg" height="320" width="275" /></a></div>
<br />
The immediate ends of rhetoric, according to Isocrates, are <b>persuasion</b> and <b>judgment</b>. How can persuasion, which is a method of power or influence, be ethical? Well, one may as well ask how any kind of power or influence can be ethical. We have to use methods of power and influence on each other, since that is the only way we can function as a society. People don't think the same way, and without a method of aligning thought, attitudes, and actions, even temporarily, any kind of communal living would be impossible. To have a society, people actually have to agree first that they are a part of a society. Therefore, though methods of power always have a sinister potential, persuasion should be evaluated in comparison to the alternatives for aligning thought.</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVqU8-AmUwPHxRI0pdgVB_zNtlgJi3oZh7Cd8GX9rW-E_XQV_x0DyK7txSXuo1xx2uihUfz2lDvOV_df7MSZGFFOWH5-dcU6WdclIW6hqnzioF1hXoQ0C4ku0fAMyC5Fmn_wkvttGRH8M/s1600/rhetoric+or+violence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVqU8-AmUwPHxRI0pdgVB_zNtlgJi3oZh7Cd8GX9rW-E_XQV_x0DyK7txSXuo1xx2uihUfz2lDvOV_df7MSZGFFOWH5-dcU6WdclIW6hqnzioF1hXoQ0C4ku0fAMyC5Fmn_wkvttGRH8M/s400/rhetoric+or+violence.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think a good starting place is this description from Bryan Garsten's <i>Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment</i>: "Persuasion in the strict sense identifies a way of influencing that is neither manipulation nor pandering. The speaker who manipulates his audience so as to bring them to a belief or action without their consent, as Kant thought orators moved men 'like machines,' has not persuaded but coerced. In contrast, the speaker who merely finds out where his audience itches and then scratches there, as Plato thought pandering Athenian orators did, has not managed to change his listener's minds at all. To truly persuade people is to induce them to change their own beliefs and desires in light of what has been said. Though we speak of 'being persuaded' in the passive voice, we recognize the difference between being persuaded and being indoctrinated or brainwashed; the difference lies in the active independence that is preserved when we are persuaded" (7). Persuasion is never complete when an orator has finished speaking. It includes a process of internal deliberation and evaluation which enlists all of our rational, emotional, and deliberative faculties. As Garsten goes on to write, "An orator does not coerce; he merely puts words into the air . . . mental digestion is a process over which we can exercise some control. We reject arguments that seem far-fetched or suspicious. Being persuaded is not the same as learning, but it is related. When someone sits back and decides, 'All right, you have persuaded me,' he is not merely describing something that has happened to him. In spite of the grammar, he is describing something he has done" (7).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rhetoric is the art of "finding the available means of persuasion in any given situation" and since persuasive speech is not powerful enough to <i>coerce</i> and persuasion is not achieved through mere flattery, rhetoric cannot be reduced to pandering or manipulation. Rhetoric depends on individual judgment, and thus it respects agency. Manipulation, on the other hand, tries to make use of automatic responses, neurological pathways, and mental reflexes to change one's mind <i>without detection</i>. A perfect "victim" for a manipulator will never know what hit him. The mechanism of persuasion is much more overt, and it involves choice.<br />
<br />
This appeal to judgment or agency may be one of the most democratic aspects of rhetoric, which may make it ethical in a society which values argument rather than force as a method of influence. As Kenneth Burke writes, "Persuasion involves choice, will; it is directed to a man only insofar as he is free" (50). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca elaborate this point: "The use of argumentation implies that one has renounced resorting to force alone, that value is attached to gaining the adherence of one's interlocutor by means of reasoned persuasion, and that one is not regarding him as an object, but appealing to his free judgment. Recourse to argumentation assumes the establishment of a community of minds, which, while it lasts, excludes the use of violence. To agree to discussion means readiness to see things from the viewpoint of the interlocutor, to restrict oneself to what he admits, and to give effect to one's own beliefs only to the extent that the person one is trying to persuade is willing to give his assent to them" (55). As Dupreel writes, "Every justification is essentially a moderating act, a step toward greater communion of heart and mind." From these statements, argumentation (which inevitably uses rhetoric) is ethical because it is a method of influence which is more equal and less destructive than the alternative (violence, as shown below).</div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJdyidMrWleoMdUwYjQjHIMsvF3xL38pmLqudqVdO3NWJaC7s2nVzdOf-GYjc38wdY5dbKearNcWgOieA1Ie2NdZfRHhheZnAA5QXf63HVMewSSwdJDN6RsRt-koOx8maWXqD_jjOWQJ0/s1600/persuasion-motivational-poster-1872.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJdyidMrWleoMdUwYjQjHIMsvF3xL38pmLqudqVdO3NWJaC7s2nVzdOf-GYjc38wdY5dbKearNcWgOieA1Ie2NdZfRHhheZnAA5QXf63HVMewSSwdJDN6RsRt-koOx8maWXqD_jjOWQJ0/s400/persuasion-motivational-poster-1872.jpg" height="320" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So persuasion is better than coercion through violence, but I would go even further. This is messy territory where not all rhetoricians would agree with me, but it is my personal opinion: Rhetoric can teach us how to use more ethical ways of communicating and how to improve our judgment.<br />
<br />
It is usually acknowledged that there are two parts of rhetoric: rhetorica utens (the use of persuasive resources) and rhetorica docens (the study of persuasive resources). From Aristotle onwards, there has always been a normative element to rhetorica docens. There is, to be reductive, "good" persuasion and "bad" persuasion, good rhetoric and bad rhetoric. The best grounding I can think of for this distinction is found in the ancient often unspoken connection between rhetoric and democracy. As Tacitus writes, rhetoric needs the liberty of democracy to flourish. It was a system of learning bred and developed as a tool for and product of democratic deliberation, and that spirit remained in its traditions, topics and exercises. Good rhetoric therefore respects the constraints of democratic deliberation and considers what impact both its form and content will have on future public deliberations and indeed the demos itself. This is where there is a real difference between Hitler and Martin Luther King, even though both of them were very effective orators. In my coursework I will study Hitler in order to know what to guard against and how to debunk similar rhetoric in our society today, but I will not teach my students to talk, write, or think like him. Bad rhetoric poisons the well of public deliberation and undermines the virtues which are essential for a democracy. It prepares the way for totalitarianism. Good rhetoric supports and adheres to the basic virtues of democratic deliberation, one of the main being that you actually listen to both sides in a dispute. This normative function of rhetoric is perhaps best examplified by Isocrates and Cicero. Isocrates uses much of his <i>Antidosis</i> to teach and remind his audience about the dynamics and norms for good deliberation. For example, he warns his jury, "Those states in which an occasional citizen is put to death without a trial we condemn as unfit to live in, yet are blind to the fact that we are in the same case when we do not hear with equal good will both sides of the contest." He is warning here that if we do not hear both sides willingly and as much as possible without prejudice, our democratic deliberations may be no better than the arbitrary decisions of tyrants. Paul Woodruff writes that the intellectuals behind Athenian democracy "cultivated rhetoric and good judgment for their power in sorting out the better uncertainties from weaker ones" (176). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This brings us to how rhetoric leads to better <b>judgment</b>. Eugene Carver mentions three ways, from an Aristotelian perspective, in which rhetoric can teach, train, and improve our judgment.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQZvRWb7Ymvkpv4a-tcAEedMdv-Ox0UduU1VPAgBxiM5SYxebi_-tRTIp3KtfcUwEAakIPrR066xjNHLQgnFyKtFOji5-MZDIbFJf5Amk1XfHyEay9RwV5ES8cKFs2fNR5CLWgjWRykYo/s1600/judgment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQZvRWb7Ymvkpv4a-tcAEedMdv-Ox0UduU1VPAgBxiM5SYxebi_-tRTIp3KtfcUwEAakIPrR066xjNHLQgnFyKtFOji5-MZDIbFJf5Amk1XfHyEay9RwV5ES8cKFs2fNR5CLWgjWRykYo/s320/judgment.jpg" height="320" width="256" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
1. By judging persuasive speeches we experience an argument as an argument. Often we consider what we are being told as simple fact and do not realize that we are being given arguments which need to be evaluated for validity and acceptability before they should be accepted or rejected.</div>
<div>
2. We learn not to rely solely on antecedent opinions, or what is usually called "reputation." It becomes clearer to us that those former judgments were also the results of a form of deliberation, and it may be faulty. Things that today seem cut in stone were at one time fluid; they were deliberated and argued and there were dissenting arguments at the time which may have been valid and which may contain lessons and warnings for current problems. </div>
<div>
3. We learn that concerning persuasion on deliberative matters there are no experts. Nobody can know what the future will be like, and nobody can know for sure what a certain course of action will lead to in the future. As such, we have to make decisions based on educated guesses and conjecture, and sometimes a normal citizen can have valuable insights into uncertain choices gained from personal experience which the experts are blind to because of the nature of their expertise.</div>
<div>
Isocrates adds that the process of finding a good argument is similar to the process of deliberation that leads to good judgment, and therefore is good training: "for the same arguments which we use in persuading others when we speak in public, we employ also when we deliberate in our own thoughts; and, while we call eloquent those who are able to speak before a crowd, we regard as sage those who most skillfully debate their problems in their own minds." Most of the decisions in our everyday life we have to make by applying our skill of judgment to contingent and uncertain situations. The best of course would be complete certainty, but, as Isocrates writes, "in the next resort I hold that man to be wise who is able by his powers of conjecture to arrive generally at the best course, and I hold that man to be a philosopher who occupies himself with the studies from which he will most quickly gain that kind of insight." In other words, as Woodruff claims, "Rhetoric has more to do with setting up the conditions for good judgment than with persuasion . . . By bringing out the best points on both sides, rhetoric serves the cause of good judgment" (185). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, I guess my ethical case for rhetoric is based on my personal experience of teaching, studying, practicing, and experiencing it. Rhetoric does not overwhelm judgment. Judgment is all it can appeal to if it seeks to have any kind of power. A rhetorician meets an audience where they stand, with their experiences, beliefs, prejudices, hopes, fears, and desires, and works within their language and values to invite them to consider or reconsider opinions, attitudes, or actions. Any leader concerned about the deficits of public judgment should encourage the teaching of rhetoric and make the experience of citizen life a course in deliberative democracy. That decentralizes persuasive power, making people more immune to demogoguery which will forever be a potential evil in human societies. In the end, democratic deliberation teaches us humility. Any rhetor, no matter how skilled or thorough, in the end has to defer to the audience and say, as Isocrates at the end of his <i>Antidosis</i>, "Being assured, therefore, that I am of this mind, and that I believe that whatever you decide will be for my good and to my advantage, let each one cast his vote as he pleases and is inclined."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You have read my arguments and you have compared them with your own experiences, knowledge, and feelings. What do you think?<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3658311492243247712.post-13841871110118639032013-06-10T06:35:00.001-06:002013-06-11T05:02:37.388-06:00Childhood and Negotiating Power Structures<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Over Christmas I read a western novel called <i>North to the Rails</i> by Louis L'amour. It is about Tom Chantry, a man from the East who comes to the Wild West to buy cattle and save his future father-in-law's business. His father was a sheriff in the West who was killed in a shoot-out, and the son who grows up fatherless in the East vows he will never use a gun. After encountering several scoundrels and almost getting killed a few times he decides to revisit his conviction about guns. "All earthly justice relies on violence," he realizes. "Back East it does too, but the violence is concealed by the well organized structure of a criminal and justice system. Here, where there is no structure but that which a man creates for himself, that violence just becomes more obvious." Tom decides to buy a rifle, and once he wounds a man in self-defence his conversion to "gun rights" is complete.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPRELDrzWLqhhl2O6HLPZvaE4bPEX1KKQI-xO133nFAFKfAK6BTBaG4gHw-H0QM21K9fOSZAK9GFE2ckeqYk77yQDKjOQ_vLJHxEW0qDT03dz5M3xH7x9SHLp1DMlV4F3XDJ_5M4kzevs/s1600/cowboy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPRELDrzWLqhhl2O6HLPZvaE4bPEX1KKQI-xO133nFAFKfAK6BTBaG4gHw-H0QM21K9fOSZAK9GFE2ckeqYk77yQDKjOQ_vLJHxEW0qDT03dz5M3xH7x9SHLp1DMlV4F3XDJ_5M4kzevs/s320/cowboy.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
The book really operates as an aesthetic argument for gun rights. I could say a lot more interesting things about the process of this conversion, but for now I want to just examine the point he makes on justice and violence. Whether the violence to support justice is best obtained with gun rights or gun control is another debate which I will not address here.<br />
<br />
We have been visiting my in-laws, and it has been interesting to watch the interactions between my 2 and a half year old daughter and my 3 year old nephew. When push comes to shove, he is the strongest, and so without the intercession of watchful parents he would set the rules by superior force. However, since that kind of system creates bullies and victims of bullying, we try to enforce systems of "justice" to teach our children certain civic virtues. It is interesting to see now from the other side the arbitrariness of the systems we adults try to get children to adhere to. Each of these systems have different values which they promote, but they also set the foundations for the arguments which can be made for "justice"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKQo4K0WfYAkSEmXtpyW3_GaQqmiTS60Rb1-M_ygKJ5nEASbiHyDjmJX9p1uwdpsdwhaDJwuPoK3Q9jpQhbMBAHHZcudaJbqcP_rsFAWyl0UD5KJLYdL4fmPQ1qeHFADSyTEDVlfGGla0/s1600/first+come+first+serve.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKQo4K0WfYAkSEmXtpyW3_GaQqmiTS60Rb1-M_ygKJ5nEASbiHyDjmJX9p1uwdpsdwhaDJwuPoK3Q9jpQhbMBAHHZcudaJbqcP_rsFAWyl0UD5KJLYdL4fmPQ1qeHFADSyTEDVlfGGla0/s320/first+come+first+serve.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One version is the <b>"first come first served" (FCFS)</b> where a toy is owned by whoever picks it up first. The same system which worked for claims on land during the gold rushes or which operates now for Black Friday sales or airline tickets. A kind of "finder's keeper's" rule. We often take this for granted, yet there is no universal reason for why being fast should in any way give you a prerogative to claim a certain item. It makes moral sense because it rewards those who plan ahead and make special efforts to secure goods or services, and planning and focus are virtues which we have decided to reward in our society. It makes financial sense because it encourages early buying, which make profits more predictable, and companies value predictability. But it also puts at disadvantage people who are slower, less informed, or who do not have the resources or knowledge to plan ahead. My nephew can run faster than my daughter, and so even though they set out to get a toy at the same time, he will nearly always come first. The arguments about justice which naturally follow from such a system in property disputes are "I had it first," "I wanted it first and then she just took it to be spiteful." Also, any unfair advantage given one party in early planning or speed of acquisition are presented as unlawful manipulations of the principle. For example, one party comes early and buys all the land, tickets, or products to get a monopoly and be able to charge extortion-prices. These may seem like childish claims, but they are very frequent in disputes of property and services in systems based on this principle.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsgyLGvj7E2jeSv7yYY5xG-BZzHFGB0Pp7KpjEf_4dtJZz0OchWtgRXtucs2E35yrIAViJ4yY6f2k9ZB4TtjeWpl2ui0fjvIxP0TuZIamK2n5iEdsz9F37TTc7-4eqCDded5w4shcOank/s1600/taking-ownership.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsgyLGvj7E2jeSv7yYY5xG-BZzHFGB0Pp7KpjEf_4dtJZz0OchWtgRXtucs2E35yrIAViJ4yY6f2k9ZB4TtjeWpl2ui0fjvIxP0TuZIamK2n5iEdsz9F37TTc7-4eqCDded5w4shcOank/s320/taking-ownership.jpg" width="229" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Another version is based on <b>prior ownership</b>, favoring current property structures. Each child has certain toys which belong to them exclusively and which only they can play with. This is a typical structure with stable values, with little to be renegotiated or shared. For example, land is probably the most stable value out there, and the traditions for writing deeds on lands and drawing up boundaries is one of the oldest legal traditions in the world. It teaches the values of ownership, responsibility, and respect for other people's property. Yet there is also a glaring problem with this model: It measures value as something set in stone, and as such excludes the possibilities of sharing and creating greater value. For example, in our case, of course my nephew owns more toys in his own house, and if my daughter was never to touch any of his toys she would have precious little to play with. In the end that would make both of them unhappy. My daughter, because she can't play with all the wonderful toys (which sit there full of unused happiness potential) and my nephew because my daughter cannot play with him whenever toys are involved. So far we have settled for a limited version of this were a few select toys are exclusively owned by the one or the other, which creates some safety of ownership in the midst of the very fluctuating ownership of everything else. Arguments with this system often center around the validity and ratification of documents which prove ownership (for example, if followed without pragmatism this system would give ownership of half of California to a Dutch captain and his family, and all of USA to several tribes of Native Americans). "But it's mine!" "I got it as a present," and "This was given to me" are common arguments in such a system.<br />
<br />
A third system which tries to make the most active use of the available resources (toys) is one I would call <b>Active Usage Possession</b>. The principle is that toys are resources with capacity for fun which should be exploited to the fullest to avoid waste. This is achieved by linking ownership of a toy to active playing being done with it. "It is yours as long as you are still playing with it, but when you stop playing with it then someone else can use it." Here ownership is extremely variable, more of a <b>stewardship</b>, but the toys are used more and to greater benefit than they would be in the two former systems, so it is the one we use the most. It is also similar to the systems many governments use to grant usage of government land for extraction of minerals, oil, gas, and other resources. Usage of the land is linked to how well the company can make use of the resources contained on that land. It is also similar to the resource and power of leadership, which is bestowed on individuals as long as they can use their position for the profit of the larger group.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAuAJQaYB2B2p7KzXCKskp_ouxfdFG3eQ12dJgK6LK8_ixpocV_1em4W3EC7kjyUsdmBmwlTgNiTLfE5E6DblMd0kJP6z-5szil4r0ayw1p4Fc3LsfWQWlkJ4w1RqGeqG9AQ4ReSYG-iM/s1600/stewardship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAuAJQaYB2B2p7KzXCKskp_ouxfdFG3eQ12dJgK6LK8_ixpocV_1em4W3EC7kjyUsdmBmwlTgNiTLfE5E6DblMd0kJP6z-5szil4r0ayw1p4Fc3LsfWQWlkJ4w1RqGeqG9AQ4ReSYG-iM/s320/stewardship.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Of course, there are many obvious problems with this model. It is a nightmare to enforce it. When exactly has one party stopped using a toy? As soon as it touches the ground? When the party has moved on to another toy? When the child has left to another room? Can a child own more than one toy like this at once? My daughter one moment claims she was still playing with it just to prevent losing possession of it, and the next moment she clearly does not care about it as soon as my nephew no longer is wanting to play with it. Also, in an economy when a resource only has value as long as the other person wants it, it creates the foundation for endless contention and perpetual dissatisfaction. The lack of stability can also be very confusing, and a natural reaction is the obsessive "hoarding" which we have seen many examples of. One child continually walks around holding his or her three favourite toys, limiting mobility and the usage of their hands for other things, such as eating properly. Of course, arguments in this system circle about the quality of usage and whether usage has ceased or not.<br />
<br />
All of these are systems which only work because they are backed by the superior force of parental supervision. They are not yet ingrained enough in our children to prevent a regular violent free-for-all as soon as this force disappears for long enough. Yet, at some point, children start regulating affairs between themselves in these same terms. The rules, arbitrarily but consistently applied by parents and teachers seem to get a life of their own, and are elevated to the status of natural laws such as gravity. However, one soon learns that they are not. I'd like to illustrate this by using a childhood memory.<br />
<br />
"We were all really excited as we waited for the bus. This was the day we were going to tip the scales. This was the day we were going to change the world. Our school bus started its journey at the junior high school in town where all the cool and older kids came on. They would always occupy the very back of the bus, from which position of safety they would coalesce as a group and hurl insults and abuse on us small fry entering the bus later at the primary school. Of course they always had those seats. They came on the bus first, and so they had the first choice. Today, that was going to change. We had come up as a class to use the gym and swimming pool at their school for our PE lessons, and we had finished in time to catch the bus home. The bell had not yet rung at the junior high school, and the school buses were arriving one by one. There was ours! As soon as it opened its doors we piled in. Six of us courageously walked to occupy the bench at the very back of the bus. We looked excitedly at each other, enjoying the privileged position we had obtained. First come, first served.<br />
<br />
The bell rang, and the junior high students filed out in the schoolyard and into the buses. The voice of the largest boy of the cool gang boomed through the bus as he walked past the driver. He looked at us. At first with surprise, then with a scowl, then with a cold smirk which made us all swallow. The rest of the gang entered. Five boys and three girls in all. They descended on the seats in front of us. The doors closed, the bus started driving. Nowhere to go. The driver was blind to anything but the road. The largest guy sized us up. "Move!" he commanded. We froze. Feebly, I protested, "W-we were here first." My voice was like a little frog, and it elicited mocking laughter from the group. He thrust his hand to my neck and pushed me up against my seat, "You think you're so tough, don't you?" I shrank. We adults often forget what it is like to live in a world full of giants. Most people around us now measure roughly about the same size as we do. This guy was twice my weight and twice my height. If he wanted to, he could kill me. What followed was a 20 minute drive which seemed to last for an eternity. Threats, verbal abuse, shoves, and small punches to the stomach broke up the constant fear we felt for these giants with regular intervals of panic. One by one my classmates exited the bus as their stops came up. Mine was at the very end of the route. Soon I was all alone. I had to get out. The primary school stop came up. I decided to get out. As I walked past the largest guy he tripped me. I fell forward and hit my head against a seat. Dazed, I could make out laughing and someone smearing chewing gum into my hair. It was one of the girls in the gang. Crying, I stumbled off the bus and collapsed in the schoolyard. Someone called my mother and asked her to pick me up. I still remember weeping uncontrollably as my mother tried to get the chewing gum out of my hair. The principal told my mother what had happened, and concluded, "There's no point even trying something like that." My mind burned with the injustice of it all. So it was really all my fault?<br />
<br />
I had played according to the rules they had given me, but they never told me what rules govern when the referee isn't looking. I had believed that rules such as "first come first served" were universal and powerful enough that even bullies had to respect them. I learned bitterly that day that sometimes rules are only as good as the threat of force which enforces them. Even a guardian of these rules will often blame the victim when enforcement is not possible. "Don't go looking for trouble" becomes the creed, and any claim for "justice" is seen as a naive belief in abstract rules which do not apply in a pragmatic reality. I often make the same mistake myself. When I can't tell who is right, or if it is too complicated to change things, I often ask my daughter or nephew to just accept the new status quo, disregarding the bitter tears they cry for the stings of injustice suffered. Just about any system of justice/injustice is better than that of brute force, yet any system of justice needs to be supported by a system of force to have any defense against brute force. Violence is the shadow-system of justice, the foundation and necessary criteria for it, and that becomes evident when society descends into periods of anarchy and lawlessness. Words can gather or disband armies, but even the best words cannot stop bullets. </div>
David Isaksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986229388417452490noreply@blogger.com