Late to the party, but I'm just going to jump in here

I'm understanding where you're coming from in terms of emotion and logic being intertwined, and It's really messing with my head on how I thought rhetoric was working. For the past few weeks I've been thinking of rhetoric as a hyper logical form of thought. accepted that rhetoric is all language, be it rational or otherwise, but it seemed to me that rhetoricions (as in those who identify as such, and actively and purposefully think in a rhetorical mindframe) thought in a hyper-logical manner. But then as I'm reading Grassi, he defines rhetoric "as the speech that acts on the emotions" right off the bat. Well that throws a wrench in things.

Ashton posed an interesting question in saying "does passion motivate our purpose? Or does purpose motivate our passion?". At first, I thought "well obviously it is passion that motivates our purpose right?". No. Similar to Erin's discussion of logic and emotion, I think passion and purpose can go in the order that the individual puts them in, and if we're lucky, we'll be able to intertwine them. Let me go over some examples: If we make following our passions our purpose in life, than we can say that passion came first. If my passion is say, drawing, and I work hard at developing that skill than I have made my passion into my purpose. On the other hand, Let's take my friend Phiphi (I made her up, but still, don't tell her I posted this). Phiphi always wanted to follow her passion and be an olympic ice dancer. But she met a guy, had two children, and then...I dunno dumped? As a single mom of 2 kids, Phiphi's purpose has changed. She can't follow her original passions, because her duty now is foremost as a mother. But I bet she becomes pretty passionate about her kids. In this case, I think her purpose changed, which then followed a change of passion. This is how I'm seeing this topic though, care to tear me apart? (please do!).

The other thing Ashton said that intrigued me was "can one experience passion from a objective (logical) sense?" I don't think so. I think we can approach our passion logically, but I don't think we can experience it logically. To me, passion means an emotional response, emotional drive, emotional force etc. For me to think otherwise, I'd have to be convinced that we can experience emotion logically. We can't. We can be logical in our thoughts about emotion, but the overall experience of emotion is a natural feeling. We can analyze that natural feeling, even understand it, but to experience it, I don't see it being done logically.

I'm excited to see where this goes with next weeks posts!

Inconclusive thoughts. Blame it on....logic...or emotion..?

I really enjoyed reading the two previous blog posts, they provided me with thought provoking information to jump into this blog with. As far as binaries being both damaging and restrictive and I completely agree with those statements. The human race has always had this desire to create labels and separate ideas and concepts into groups and those groups, as we know, often tend to be extremely limiting. That always seems to translate negatively into the way we think about such topics because we usually approach the topic with that limited perspective but through critical thinking we are able to come to conclusions and realize "hmm.. A and B don’t necessarily have to be separate. Is it possible that A and B can be intertwined? Can we challenge and question these binaries?"

Ashton you said, “Is emotion being guided by logic or logic being guided by emotion? I think both binaries, to some extent, exist in everything we do; I just don't know how their relationship exists in different subjects, especially in rhetoric.” I totally agree. The concept of separating logic and emotion is hard for me to wrap my head around. While I totally understand how the two work independently and co-dependently, I have a hard time examining that relationship in terms of rhetoric . I believe that logic and emotion are just fundamentally intertwined and that to try and separate them (especially in terms of a concept as precarious as rhetoric)... it just isn't working for me! (Although the fact that it’s 3 a.m. and I just got off work might have something to do with it – but I have thought about this at, you know, normal times of the day and my discomfort with the topic seems to be the same.)  

“However, I'm struggling to see logic as completely socially constructed. I don't think that a person can be completely logical and not at all emotional or vice versa.” I concur!! I think it is just downright impossible for a person to be completely logical and void of emotion and vice versa. I think in every decision we make, no matter what that decision is, both our emotions and logic will factor into our decision. Even if the decision comes across completely 100% illogical to another individual, everyone has different standards of logic and common sense.  If five people (aged, 5, 23, 47, 62 and 83) are in a hypothetical situation and asked to do the most logical thing in that particular scenario, the outcomes will obviously be extremely different among the individuals. Their decision will be based off of their personal experiences that have shaped them thus far and in turn affect how they logically decipher a situation and the emotional approach that they take on the situation.

I guess what I’m getting at is, logic and emotions are completely contingent on the individual. While there seems to be a baseline for logic/emotions (i.e. if your dog dies, you are sad and you might even cry. That is an emotional response. Then you bury your dog, because that seems to be the next ‘logical’ step. You wouldn't just leave your beloved Fido dead in house right?!) But of course the guidelines vary from person to person. The way that individuals’ value, understand and prioritize logic and emotion when approaching a situation, such as rhetoric, is again (beating a dead horse here – I know) contingent on the user. But then that basically just leads me back into a huge circle of how do logic and emotion complement each other in rhetoric? 

Yeah....I'm still thinking

Kelly,
I found it really interesting how you are linking passion with purpose, "if I didn't have passion for what I am reading or what I am doing, then what is my purpose?" From the start of this class, I have been interested in how and in what ways intentionality is a part of rhetoric's definition because I think that having a purpose gives an object a reason and a foundation for quality. As a writer, I want to strive for quality and maybe that's the larger purpose in my writing, but your concept of passion is interesting. In a blog post a while back, I wrote about the role of the self-identification process playing into the definition of quality and I wonder if passion is a result of that self-identification process as well. What makes us passionate about what we do? I think my answer, that you have led my thinking to, is that passion is a result of the strong identification in the purpose of something. I identify in the purpose of writing (I'm shy and I communicate better and more powerfully through it) and therefore I am passionate about it. Claiming that passion requires self-identification, gives it a large amount of subjectivity....different people have different passions, based on their personality and experiences....This kind of leads me to another question that I think is worth investigating: Can one experience passion from an objective (logical) lens? Or is passion purely a result of emotion? To me, purpose seems more logical/objective because when a writer is defining her purpose, in a way, she perspectively zooms out to see the role that she wants her writing to play for those reading it. She is figuring the type of interaction she wants her writing and her readers to have. This seems like a logical choice. I'm trying to figure out which leads this....passion or purpose? Does passion motivate our purpose? Or does our purpose motivate our passion?

Anyways....I also agree with Nye about how stereotyping someone based on either binary (logic or emotion) is, what you say "damaging," and also very restrictive. I have a brilliant/engineer friend from high school that was  checking out different prestigious engineer programs at a handful of colleges and most looked down on for being a girl, even though she thinks more logically than a lot of guys that I know...and this stereotype also applies to boys being looked down on for pursuing humanities.  I guess I am also trying to figure out where rhetoric stands in these binaries that we have been continually adding to our list throughout class....in rhetoric, is emotion being guided by logic or logic being guided by emotion? I think both binaries, to some extent, exist in everything we do, I just don't know how their relationship exists in different subjects, especially in rhetoric.

I also like how you list three elements to rhetoric: purpose, intention, and argument. However, I guess I want to question your difference between intention and purpose. I think those two concepts are very closely related because we intend purpose....if we are doing something purposefully, we have to have some element of intention. I do agree that a large part of rhetoric is either intention or purpose but I would like to hear more about why you added both concepts in your definition. I was thinking today that rhetoric is purposefully using the relationship between the binaries of logic and emotion to produce a quality argument......it's definitely a working definition but I think the relationship of those binaries is important to understanding rhetoric.

I understand where you are coming from in your argument that logic is an ideological concept constructed by society. I see that with what is considered "common sense" and it is usually said that logical people have more common sense than illogical people. However, I'm struggling to see logic as completely socially constructed. I don't think that a person can be completely logical and not at all emotional or vice versa but I think that, at least from my personal experiences, people are usually one more than the other....and that is a result of their character.  I think that an emotional person can choose to be logical to guide their emotions and I think that choice to be logical is more of a step out of subjectivity to see "the bigger picture" than being so subjective couldn't let them see. You can definitely challenge that because I'm not super clear on where I stand in your argument. Thanks for making me think Kelly!

#inbefore5

I’ve finally caught up on all of the readings…. Yay!

Both Nye and Grassi mentioned that the rhetorical experience works with things like images, metaphors and pathos unlike logic. Logic includes rationality, facts and objectivity. One thing I noticed upon completing Nye was that I think that rationality and reason are just ideological constructed points of view. The ideology of logic can never be an actual pure point of view because people who pursue logic are still interacting with other people in order to acquire their knowledge. In other words, how can one hope to achieve the absolute truth if the truths they are receiving are through the conversations with other people in their various discourse communities? Without interacting with people on some level (whether written or spoken), how can they achieve their absolute truth?

When people try to be objective, they have no pathos because they’re emotionless. However, if they believe in what they say or do, how can they be passionless? I say this because at one point in our readings (I dunno which one), it was mentioned that if you are feeling emotional, then you cannot think rationally/logically. However, based on my own experience, I would argue that logic can never be in a pure form. Whenever I’m analyzing or thinking deeply about what I’m reading, I am being logical in my pursuit of knowledge. However, when I’m feeling anxious (as I did last night and this morning in an attempt to get this reading done), I don’t analyze nearly as well or come up with any connections/ideas. When I push aside those emotions to concentrate, I am still using pathos because if I didn’t have passion for what I am reading or what I am doing, than what is my purpose? Why does pursuing or thinking about knowledge even matter?

I think logic is damaging when we say it is how a person should behave or act in a given instance. For example I think it can damage women  and/or put them at a disadvantage as Nye pointed out. One thing that stood out to me was that women are tied to the concept of “feminine” and how no matter how hard they try to imitate men in terms of masculinity, they will never achieve the equality they desire because logic is a concept that is created and used dominantly by men.

And I was thinking, if women truly wanted to be equal to men, I think it has to start with the language and how we interact with each other. Interactions/activities with other people is how we create meanings in words & ideas, including the concept of logic and its tie to rationality. If we find some way to change that language and how we define the words, then we can perhaps reach equality/take away the masculinity within logic.

A-logical reasoning I think (but not sure) would look like facts, objectivity, reasoning, rationality, dialectical, mediating and demonstrative. Also, I was thinking that it would not be conversational. While I was catching up on my readings, one of them (Aristotle, I think) seemed to point out a distinction between dialect and rhetoric. I wondered if maybe what makes rhetoric, rhetoric is if there is purpose, intention and argument.  If there isn’t a conversation between texts, there would probably not be a purpose or an argument in those texts between two or more people. If I were to choose an example of what this would look like, I think maybe it could look like a conversation (or a dialect, rather) between two furbies because there is not mutual understanding or a purpose between the two creatures.

                                 
The last question of the prompt asked what stacks the deck to favor logical responses. I feel like this goes back to my previous idea that reason/logic/rationally is an ideological construct created by society. In other words, I feel that depending on a person’s view, the logical response is whatever the person (audience/writer/speaker) wants it to look like in a given situation. I think that there really is no “pure” logical response, but I think that maybe the ideological logical/rational traits can be more acceptable/appropriate in certain situations (like figuring out a problem) than more metaphor/pathetic type responses and thus, I think maybe what stacks the deck to favor logical responses depends on the purpose and the argument of a given situation. 

Searching for unattainable answers and other thoughts

Ashton, Kelly and Jared have all brought up wonderful points to which I can relate, ponder and attempt to discuss as well.  I agree with what Kelly and Jared have said thus far regarding the ying and yang symbol, it really does provide a (I almost just wrote “it serves as a quality example..” but caught myself!) for the relationship between quality and reason. They are intertwined and due to the nature of the topics themselves, I don’t think they can ever be separated. I enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions on how Pirsig attempts (or doesn't attempt ) to be a black and white thinker. I think it is clear that Pirsig knows the truths he is searching for will never be black and white, he really does know that, but it seems as if he is eternally in denial of this knowledge, and thus drives himself insane trying to narrow the rainbow of definitions (or lack thereof definitions) into two concrete black and white sections. Pirsig wants to create an approachable, accessible and tangible ways to categorize such topics in his head and the answers he is looking for are ultimately unattainable.

Also, I know this post is supposed to be mainly in response to Jared’s, but after reading Kelly and Ashton’s I just couldn't stop thinking about what Ashton said,  “I think that it is also important for our values of quality to always be challenged and improved. They should always be more of a working progress than a set in stone definition because experience changes us and how we perceive the world.” I really do agree with this sentiment and I know we have discussed it in class before but I think that as critical thinkers the best things we can do for ourselves is to allow for molding. We need to allow our definitions, truths and thoughts be constantly open to new ideas, concepts and change. 

The idea of fluidity and perspective has always been a focus of mine as I work to improve myself as a writer and critical thinker and as we shape these ideas in this class I am reminded of how important it is.  I think that we all have something to learn from Pirsig. He is a complex fellow, but his overall desire to know the truth and to come to the best possible conclusion available is inspiring. I admire (in a weird way of course) the lengths he goes in the name of rationality and knowledge. 

2am ramble rant. But I did my homework. *self high five*

Both Ashton and Kelly brought up Pirsig as a black and white thinker, but I don't think that's the case. I think black and white is merely his starting point, or a beginning tool he uses to analyze conflicting or contrasting ideas. Because Pirsig is so analytical, I can't picture him truly seeing things in such a narrow minded way. Rather than thinking in terms of black and white, I argue that he thinks in black, white, and every shade and color. To me, Pirsig seems to search for blurred lines, for the unclear, and he aims to bring the subject into focus. He's searching for truth and analyzing every facet of potential answers. The problem with this is that it continues to send Pirsig into rhetorical loops, and unsatisfying answers. I think that's what drove him crazy. In my attempt to understand him, I'd say Pirsig is someone who likes to be control. He's not power hungry unless that power is knowledge and insight. To top it off he seems very determined and stubborn. So when Pirsig gives every rhetorical thought his complete dedication and is left with little more than he started with, I think that attacked his ego, and his ego caved in on itself.

I really like your use of the yin and yang to describe quality and reason's relationship. This was an easy bandwagon for me to jump on because upon reflection the two aren't that different or alike, but can be seen as a part of one broader idea. But what exactly is that broader idea? Rhetoric?

It was really satisfying to finally read the afterword and forward and I had a weird connection with the line "Degeneracy can be fun but it's hard to keep up as a serious lifetime occupation". Pirsig is talking about hippies here, and it resonated with me because it was ultimately very relatable. I took it as a quality of life statement. It seems from this that there is an inkling of longing to run off and be a hippy for Pirsig. He thinks it'd be fun, but it's not a lifetime occupation. Considering hippies just floated around and talked about life (....and did a lot of substances...) I imagine the idea appeals to a less rational part of Pirsig, but his fear of degeneracy(what he sees as a non-quality life) reigns him in. Like Pirsig, I was reminded of my own fear of degeneracy and how my view of what a quality life is has changed my course. Without this fear, I wouldn't be a student. I'd be a drag queen. Seriously. Doing drag impersonation comedy is my favorite thing to do. However, doing drag is my degeneracy. It's not a stable career, it's not something my parents would be excited about, and it's also not too likely to pay the rent. So I'm here. I'm putting my passion second searching for quality. A life where I can be secure, and safe in my approach to my dreams. Pirsig wanted to think rhetorically about the world, but he didn't become a hippy (I seriously think hippies are kinda the most rhetorical people ever) he became a professor in search for quality. I'm not sure if this realization really offers much to the conversation, but it gave me a personal revelation about my choices. Rhetoric: changing one life at a time.

I also have a lot to say about Pirsig's rhetorical meanings on death, but I'm tired and not in the mood to think macabre thoughts. If I'm awake for class tomorrow I'll try and share. ;) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Why are z's a representation of sleep? I have never met a single person who made buzzing sounds in their sleep.

Yin & Yang of Quality

Hi Ashton,

I like what you said here:

“I think that there is reason in quality and quality in reason. It doesn't seem reasonable to only pursue reason without also pursing quality and I think that not using any sort of reason to pursue quality would have a negative effect on that quality. While Pirsig's binaries are helpful to me in understanding contrasts that exist in thinking, I believe that this binaries are interconnected and by themselves, cannot really function.”

I agree with you. You know, suddenly I’m reminded of the yin and yang symbol. Without one element of that symbol, the other cannot function. I seem to remember that this idea of dualism tied back to words in general. For example, without the word "night," "day" cannot exist. And the existence of those words (as I'm reading more and more about Discourse and discourse communities) come into existence because of interactions/conversations among people within the same Discourse. (-- at least I think I'm remembering that right)

In relation to what you said, at the very end of this reading, I surmised that quality is rhetoric.

Before I begin that though, I’d like to ask (anyone really): Why did quality drive Pirsig-N insane? I didn’t quite get a satisfactory answer from the afterword and the introduction and didn't quite catch on in the body, but I guess I’ll give an updated guess here: I think the reason why he wanted to pursue quality was because it wasn’t a clear cut in the middle. In other words it was neither all the way subjective nor all the way objective. He wanted to understand what made quality, quality. However, after talking with his philosophy teachers, he realized there were no right answers for that word, and when he realized he tried to define the undefinable, he caved.

In essence I think that while he was trying to run away from quality, he was also trying to run away from rhetoric because I think that rhetoric is neither all the way subjective nor objective, but a combination of the two.

In thinking about his choice to run from quality/rhetoric, he made a value change, and the interesting thing about that is that values are apart of quality, which is also an interaction between subjectivity and objectivity. Because he made his actions based on a value, he really wasn’t running too far from quality to begin with because he was still performing rhetoric when he chose to perform his actions based on his values.

And he was still performing rhetoric when he tried to make the vacation a motion instead of an action because they went on that trip with a purpose/goal to sight-see places and visit MSU.

Even when he tried to be neither impartial nor partial, neither objective or subjective, he was  still making that value choice that in part shaped how he interacted with other people. Because of his desire to be neutral, he stopped conversations and the overall relatability that Chris and other people would find meaningful. Chris wanted that interaction, that closeness, but Pirsig-N didn’t want to give it to Chris and because of his values, Pirsig-N could not see or understand why Chris was upset or sad a lot. (I’m not even sure he knew fully at the end to be honest)

The sad part of all of this for me is, if Pirsig-N didn’t change his ways at the end, he would not only have lost Chris, but he would have lost everyone else around him. I wonder if one needs to utilize the subject-object dualism in order to form conversations that are meaningful to not only them, but to other people as well and to get them to perform the actions that they want them to (such as get Chris to go on the bus home).

And because of all of this, I wonder if perhaps Pirsig-N really is serious man because he really doesn’t know he’s doing rhetoric even though he is.   

I feel like if he wanted to avoid quality/rhetoric, then he should just disappear and be no one who does not impact or shape the world in anyway by interacting with other people. However, I feel like that’s relatively impossible unless he lives in the woods (or an unknown island) far away from civilization … But … perhaps he would still be doing rhetoric when he eats, sleeps and survives because they’re purposeful acts of survival. They may be biologically driven, but if one gives into biology, would they then be rhetorical? Or would they not be rhetorical because the only audience he would have are animals who cannot find meanings in his language?

A parting side note: Also, Ashton, I got the same thing out of the reading when it came to experiences and values. Sometimes I wonder what holds me back from shaping and reshaping my values in some situations. Is it because of pride? Is it because of fear of punishment? Is it because I value protecting myself more than anything in the world? It's interesting for me to see how psychology and rhetoric can come in contact like this :). 

Binaries and Their Limitations

I think that when Pirsig splits the world into these binaries it limits one to only one or the other. One is hip or square. Romantic or classic. Reason or quality. It gives me a sense that the world can only be black and white and that it disregards all of the shades in between. I think that there is reason in quality and quality in reason. It doesn't seem reasonable to only pursue reason without also pursing quality and I think that not using any sort of reason to pursue quality would have a negative effect on that quality. While Pirsig's binaries are helpful to me in understanding contrasts that exist in thinking, I believe that this binaries are interconnected and by themselves, cannot really function.

In chapter 26, Pirsig identifies numerous grumption traps and one that relates to my idea of the interconnection that exists within these binaries is the "truth trap of yes-no logic" This truth trap provides only two options: yes or no, this or that, one or zero. Pirsig claims that there's a third option which he calls Mu which means "no thing." Rather than choosing yes or no, Mu chooses outside of those two options. It answers what cannot be answered by just yes or no. Pirsig claims, "Yes or no confirms or denies a hypothesis. Mu is the 'phenomenon' that inspires scientific theory in the first place!"

If I understand this correctly, dualistic thinking is usually thought by the serious man while capturing Mu is usually done by the rhetorical man. However, the binaries of a rhetoric man versus a serious man are a product of the grumption trap of dualistic thinking. I agree that there is a disharmony between these binaries (quality has a lot of different aspects of it than reason does), however, I don't think the solution is completely separating them into different categories. What if harmony exists in figuring out how to use the relationship between the two binaries  in a way that results in beauty? I think that one binary can have more weight than the other in producing this beauty, but I don't think that one binary can stand by itself without at all involving the other. For an example, if I am choosing to write rhetorically, one important aspect as a approach my Word document is the perception that I want from my audience. Writing to please one's audience is rhetorical in that I care about my work's quality and the quality of thought that it stirs within my audience. It is also a logical choice because if I am writing for an audience, it doesn't make sense to not think about them while I write. If I use reason to pursue quality, I think I would be more successful than only utilizing one of those binaries in my writing.

Pirsig is successful in that he provokes thought in his audience of how these binaries exist and their relationship with each other. His book has challenged me to think beyond dualistic thinking and has made me question why I write and what I am writing for, especially in terms of quality. I think, like what Kelly stated earlier, that quality is subjective. As writers, an essentiality in what makes us successful writers is finding out what our quality is to us and learning, through our experiences and who we are, why we believe in our subjective definitions of quality. I think that it is also important for our values of quality to always be challenged and improved. They should always be more of a working progress than a set in stone definition because experience changes us and how we perceive the world. Pirsig exemplifies this concept in his (to me, rather odd) old way of thinking that he labels Phaedrus and how questioning what he believed changed how he saw the world and himself. In relation to Chris (who I feel insanely bad for), the lesson of his relationship with Pirsig has taught me is to not miss out on experiences to question our values, but to let experience be an essential part in shaping our values. Pirsig missed out on so many father-son experiences because he was so wrapped up in his thoughts and his questioning of his thoughts. Since one cannot go back in time, past experience isn't redeemable. Food for thought :)

What Gives Quality?

Kelly,
I like your claim that the definition of quality isn't black and white because it is a term that is subjective and contextual: based on one's values, mindsets, environment etc. I agree with this because I think that a large part of quality (definitely not all of it) is the effect that an object has on a subject. The same object will have different effects on different people because this effect is received by the subject according to who he/she is. I think this applies with Jared's truffle example: even though he doesn't really like truffles, he still sees them as having quality. Truffles do not have a positive effect on Jared, but he sees them as having quality because he likes the positive effects that truffles have on other subjects. I think my definition of quality is too simple to cover all that quality is but it also doesn't limit what quality can be. I think that quality is the interaction between an object and subject that is beautiful.....but then what is beauty?
Pirsig describes objects with quality as having some self identifying factor that the creator has with his creation and that the audience has with the creation as well. I think that beauty has some self identification in a part of what it is, but I definitely don't think that self identification covers all that it is....kind of like quality. However, I do see Pirsig's definition to be true in a lot of contexts in my life. I see an object as having more quality if it moves me. This movement can be emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, etc. I think that self identification isn't the only aspect of quality because I don't identify with almost anything purely scientific (It's just not my thing) but I still see certain research in that field as having quality. I think that maybe I more identify with the passion that certain scientists have for their research and the amount of effort, thought, and time that they invest into it. I also have friends going for science-y majors and I love when they get excited about something that provides them with passion...in this example, it would be some scientific discovery or research. Soooo....maybe when a subject doesn't identify with a certain object, they still see that object as quality because they either identify with the creation of the object or they identify with the self-identification process that it has on other audiences? I haven't fully thought that out...obviously.
 I do think it's worth considering "what gives an object an essence of quality?" because as writers, we are creators. If writing rhetorically, we create opportunities for our readers to create thoughts, opinions, emotion, for themselves. I think rhetoric answers the why and how questions of that creation process. How will I give my writing  more ethos to my reader and why do I want my reader to know my credibility? I think why Pirsig (even though he does go too deep into the topic) is so invested into finding a definition of quality is because as any artist, the end goal is quality. I think that quality is a large part of what rhetoric is. As a writer, I approach my writing in a way that I want it to create a quality experience for my reader. I think the reason why quality drives Pirsig nuts, besides the fact that he overthinks everything, is because as rhetoricians we are striving for something that we cannot even define.
I agree with Jared that Pirsig does over think this concept but I do think that it is one that any artist should not overlook. However, I think that if we overthink the definition of quality, like Pirsig, then we miss out on making quality moments in our lives. Pirsig is so deep into thinking of rhetorical binaries, quality, etc. that he is missing the opportunity to create a quality experience with Chris. So I believe that their is a balance of how much thought we should invest into quality. We should understand its importance, what it means to us personally and what we are creating, but I do think that if it is analyzed too much, it defeats its purpose.

Values & Creativity

Hi Jared,

I completely understand your viewpoint. No, I don’t think your definition of quality is wrong. However, I do believe it is based on your values, beliefs and overall mindset and that those values don't mesh with the definition that is valued by other mindsets.

You said that maybe you are incapable of thinking rhetorically. I disagree. We’re all capable of thinking rhetorically, but maybe something deep within you is resisting that ambiguity because that resistance is based on an inner value you have.

Personally, I understand why he said that quality is undefinable because to me that word has different meanings for different people in different contexts. There is no universal quality because we all have different values, beliefs and mindsets, and different situations for which it is used. And people who are in the same Discourse have the same meanings for words depending on the situation that they're in. You may not identify with this way of thinking, but that's okay -- It'll probably happen eventually :).

I understand your frustration though – I don’t really understand why he was so hung up on “quality” and not other words that can hold different meanings for different people (like revision for example). At first I didn’t quite understand why it drove him crazy, but then I realized that maybe it was because that word wasn’t as black and white as he was used to and because it contained a window for looking at creativity (and perhaps feelings).

When I thought about that, I began to think about definitions of words and how we attach specific meanings to the words that we do. For example when we define what a word is, we’re placing it into a category. When we place it into a category, we’re being logical/rational. I wonder if maybe all words contain elements of ethos, pathos and logos. For example, perhaps the word “ice-cream” creates intense euphoria for a person because that is the meaning they get from it. They’re also putting it into a category when they interpret that word in order to get a specific meaning from it. In terms of ethos, I wonder if in order for a person to define a word in a certain way, they must find it credible in order to do so.

I wonder if maybe certain discourse communities interpret words using ethos, pathos and logos in the same way because the words they use and the actions they perform link with certain values/passions/beliefs.

And I had a thought while reading that last section that I wanted to discuss here:

Is the reason why “serious man” is called serious man because he’s not creative? I suppose I was thinking about how Phaedrus was trying to teach his students to think outside the box in order to learn instead of having to be told what specifically to learn. It also made me think about how Pirsig-N was so driven by rules and wasn’t into straying from rigid methodology.

When one is “creative” is that when they use ethos, pathos and logos when interacting with other people (and/or their audience) in order to promote knowledge building with themselves and other people through conversations? If one simply tries to follow "the rules" to get to an answer without trying to be creative, will that hinder persuasion with the audience? Is that why Pirsig-N was un-able to reach/connect with his audience? (For example, he was reluctant to do anything against logic/ration  -- He seemed to disregard that bending the rules could promote bonding with his son and/or get him to think differently about that particular task) Because of these two questions, I wonder: are all texts (written & spoken) creative when the writer tries to perform an action to engage/persuade the audience to act in the desired way?  
  

Aren't we over-thinking this?

To begin with I think Persig is terribly over-thinking quality and unnecessarily complicating the term. Right off the bat I thought "heck I can define quality, what's the big deal?" So before I get too far into Persig's drawn-out and inconclusive ramblings, I'm going to take a stab at defining quality for myself.

Quality: A descriptive term that indicates that something excels at it's function.

That wasn't so hard was it? What worries me is that while I read through chapter 20 and was able to follow what Persig meant by quality being undefinable, I never quite believed him. Am I incapable of thinking rhetorically about the meaning of quality? Curious to see how else quality has been defined, I plugged it into google and the first definition I found was "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something" and I don't see fault in that definition. Am I missing something? I encourage anyone to try and tear apart mine or google's definition, because I do want to know what all of the fuss is about.

When Persig defines quality as "just what you like" however, I was truly dissatisfied. I thought he was building up to some grand insight that I couldn't see myself, and was instead left with a definition that I don't agree with. My argument against that definition, is that I like a lot of unquality things, and I also dislike some quality things. For example, at the restaurant I work at we were sampling truffle infused foods like salt and honey etc. (By truffle I'm talking about the fungus and not the chocolate). I found them disgusting, but I could still appreciate their quality. There were other indicators that led me to appreciate their quality even if I didn't like this particular food. A: They are expensive, and I was previously lectured on how rare and sought after truffles are before sampling. B: All of my other coworkers absolutely loved it. So while I was gagging on the horrendous flavor, I couldn't come to another conclusion other than that truffles must be a quality ingredient. Although I suppose someone could argue that if I was left to my own devices and didn't have that context of the product's worth I would have made an opposing conclusion. That may be true, but really that's not the world we live in. My rhetorical lense is relative to my environment, which to me means that in this environment I can safely label truffle a quality ingredient.

I think the second question is really an instance of sociology. As I demonstrated in the truffle argument, I came to the same conclusion as my peers even though it was not something my taste buds appreciated. I also think my definition of quality is suited to this question. If we can recognize that something is excelling at its function than we can agree on the quality of that product. Commonly we can easily agree on what is quality and what is not because either A is obviously better than B or because of the influence of our peers. If Persig were to look at two motorcycles and one was newer, with less miles, and from a more reputable company than the other, I think he would quickly conclude that motorcycle has the higher quality. If say, at first glance both machines have a similar quality Persig might (if he were shopping in this day and age) look online at product reviews to see how others rate the quality of the machine. It's really a matter of trusting other people. If I'm unsure of something's quality, but someone I trust vouches for it, I'm much more likely to purchase that product than if I was looking at the item on my own. While this can be a scary thought process, if it were applied in a "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you?" sort of way, but I think everyone does this. We can't experience everything or have a knowledge of everything in our lifetime, and so we often look to other's experience to make our judgements. I think that's human nature.

The Logic in Rhetoric

Jared,
If there's one thing that I've learned about rhetoric, in this class so far, is that it is neither A or B and neither true or false. I think that this same concept applies to being a rhetoric man or a serious man...which creates even more blury-ness. I also think that there is some logic in choosing to rhetorical. For instance, to me it makes more rational sense to write in a way that please one's audience and challenges their thoughts and opinions rather than solely dumping information. However, maybe I think this because I tend to lack common sense and would consider myself more rhetorical. Also, rhetoric seems to challenge what is considered practical and common sense. Even so, I think maybe, even if slightly, being rhetorical is a rational choice.

In Kelly's post, she talks about how she alternates between a serious lens and a rhetorical lens, and this alternation is dependent upon her mood or the situation. This makes me wonder if it is possible to see though both lenses at the same time or it the lenses are only possible if seen through one at the time. Is the rhetorical lens purely seeing outside of the serious lens? Most of my confusion lies in where the serious and rhetorical man collide and where there is a definite distinction between the two.

When you discussed your confusion in distinctions between philosophy and rhetoric, it made me laugh because when people ask me what this class is about, my description has been, "Oh, it's a rhetoric theory class." They look at me stumped, like I have spoken a foreign language, so I say, "it's like a writing/philosophy class." It's interesting because I'm trying to provide clarity for something that I'm not clear about. I agree in that I don't know where the distinctions are, but I also think that clear distinctions do not exist. I think that's why rhetoric seems so difficult to define and why we have been reading what it means to different rhetoricians. It seems that my definition of rhetoric is constantly being challenged and redefined, which is one of the characteristics of rhetoric.

You bring up a valid question, in the midst of all this blury-ness, why does it matter? Why so many studies of rhetoric? My best answer to that is that and why I'm most interested in rhetoric is that I'm interested in the conversation that I am having with my audience. However, I know that it's not that simple and I think I'm questioning the complexities of it because it seems that everything we define in the study of rhetoric, the narrative and rational paradigms and rhetorical and serious man, becomes blurred.