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?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment