Ashton and Kelly, I found both of your posts extremely relatable. To begin, I totally agree with your first paragraph Ashton. It seems as if the relationship between an individual identity and a communal identity within discourse communities are inherently intertwined. I do not think the two can ever be fully separated, because, as you said, they have direct effects on each other. One is not possible without the other and vice versa.

As far as the 'identifying with the audience to persuade them section' ... I also belong to the "I don't understand science stuff" discourse community. This semester, I made the mistake of enrolling in a 400 level WGSS class which is heavily tied to psychology. As you can imagine, I have an extremely hard time comprehending the papers we read in that class. And when I say a hard time, I mean a hard time. Like a 'pulling my hair out' type of time. I felt as if the author wasn't even trying to appeal to the reader, but then I checked myself (before I wrecked myself) and remembered that I am not an expert in this discourse community and therefore I do not understand the layout/methods/lexis etc. So of course I don't get it! However, I still believe the authors arguement, because as you pointed out we "can be persuaded by his/her scientific knowledge." I think the knowledge (whether it is actual knowledge or just the readers assumption) of the rhetor seems to be one of the most influential ways in which any author appeals to their audience. We assume that if someone has had their work published in a reliable publication, then their work is true and therefore we can allow them to persuade us that "Ramen isn't good for your health" (...it's a bad example I know, but somehow that's where my mind wandered) because they back up it with 'facts' that they have scientifically proved. And of course, the author writes for who he intends to read it, but alas, a much larger crowd than the intended audience will likely read it. Therefore, we rely on the presumed knowledge and expertise of the author to persuade us. 

 Hmm... Hitler's rhetoric. I guess I have always viewed Hitler as a terrific rhetorician. It feels wrong to type that but after all...he did change the world forever didn't he? To persuade an entire community into believing something so extreme means that either the people are incapable of thought, orrr the more plausible solution: the speaker knows what he is doing. And he's doing it damn well. And of course, we are led to believe that Hitler really thought his actions were right/moral/correct so he did not think he was leading people astray right? I think it is impossible to make the argument that if the rhetor is using rhetoric for bad then it is bad rhetoric. Because bad and good are all relative. Of course, (almost) everyone you meet will believe Hitler's usage of rhetoric was pure evil, but people cannot claim that it is a fact that Hitlers rhetoric was evil. And regardless of the motive behind the rhetoric, at the end of the day his rhetoric was extremely successful because people believed him. Because definitions of bad/good are all relative, it seems impossible that we could ever even begin to attempt to separate rhetoric into two such definitive categories. 

So now that I have rambled on unnecessarily long .. we come to Binaries.. I can see how the rhetoric and logical binaries combine, and how the imagination and intellectual binary seem to as well. As Ashton touched on, I can understand how both binaries work together. Although I too would have assumed just logic was used at first, I now understand how a more creative, artistic role plays into this. But to be completely frank, these binaries are still confusing. Who knows, maybe I'll understand one day or at another time that is not 3 a.m.