Binaries within Binaries

Kelly,
I like how you tied in values and discourse community to persuasion and argumentation. It seem like you connected Ramage's identity chapter, which I believe was chapter 2, to the argument and persuasion chapters really well. When I read your blog, I remembered his concept of having an individual identity and a communal identity (or discourse community identity). The separation between them is a little blurred in that aspects of our individual make us members of certain communities and the communities that we play part in shape our individual identities. The values that shape our identities reflect themselves in the ways that we approach, present, and the evidence that we use persuade our arguments. Also, I really like how you tie motive to purpose to values, that really clicked with me for some reason.

I thought what you said about identifying with audience to persuade them was interesting, "Even if you are not a part of someone's discourse community, you still have to find some way to connect with the person you're writing to otherwise they may not be able to find what you have to say as credible, logical, or emotionally sound." I think, in most cases, yes, especially when you are considering intended audience. Some cases, especially in unintended audiences, I think can still be persuaded by the fact that the author knows a discourse community better than the reader does. For instance, I am a member of the "I don't understand science stuff" discourse community. When I read an article from one a member of the "I do understand science stuff" discourse community, the author doesn't try to relate to my lack of scientific knowledge because since he has an abundance of it, he cannot. I still can be persuaded by his scientific knowledge simply because he understands a discourse community better than I do, which makes me trust what he has to say. I think that we cannot be fully aware of who all partakes in being our actual audience, so we can try identify with who we intend to be our audience to be but our intended audience doesn't always fully include our actual audience. If we didn't intentionally identify with a member of our actual audience, it doesn't mean that the member can't be persuaded by us. If that made any sense.

I also have been interested in what makes rhetoric good or bad and have never saw it the way you have. You base the result of good or bad on values and ethics (Adolf Hitler example) which I've never thought of before. I thought of "good" rhetoric as rhetoric as rhetoric that effectively persuades by giving both sides of an argument and by reflecting one's identity into writing. I'm not really I understand what all partakes in making rhetoric "bad," but it's interesting to wonder if self motives/deceitfulness make "bad" rhetoric. Would it be "bad" rhetorical to write to an intended audience and fake the values that they have in order that they see your point as credible? Or just ethically wrong? Not really sure...that whole idea honestly is so unclear to me because if one is unintentionally be rhetorical, how does one categorize that into being good or bad?

I also wanted to talk a little bit about Campbell because a lot of what he had to say, I never thought of in my previous ideas about rhetoric. In the past, we have discussed the binaries falling into the two categories: logic and rhetoric. Campbell's article presents that within the rhetorical binary, there are two binaries...(I think I'm understanding why I still don't have a solid definition for what rhetoric is). There's the mathematical/intellectual binary and the moral/imaginary/passion binary. The intellectual binary, Campbell claim, "Results entirely from propriety and simplicity of diction, and from accuracy of method, where the mind is regularly, step by step, conducted forwards in the same track, the attention no way diverted, nothing left to be supplied, no one unnecessary word or idea introduced" (750). Awhile ago, when we were in the topics of binaries, I concluded that there is logic in being rhetorical....this intellectual binary seems to me like it consists of the logical part of rhetoric. The imagination binary Campbell describes, "Is addressed by exhibiting to it a lively and beautiful representation of a suitable object" (750). He associates this binary with persuasion...changing our audience's will. Campbell associates the imagination binary to the concept of sublime which raises admiration because we address our passions (If I understood that correctly). It is also associated to sense and expression of our "body and soul." (On a random side note, I thought it was interesting that Campbell gives masculinity to the intellectual binary and refers the imaginary binary as a "she"...just something interesting I noticed.)

Just as the rhetoric/ logical binaries fall into each other, the imagination binary and intellectual binary seem to fall into each other. "It is by the sense that rhetoric holds of logic, and by the expression that she holds of grammar" (753). Campbell claims that rhetoric needs assistance from both binaries but that the imagination binary isn't as included as the intellectual binary. I always have limited rhetoric to only one category (more of the intellectual). For instance, I never thought that their was such a thing as grammatical art or logical art....that always seemed like a paradox to me, yet it makes sense. We artfully frame our arguments, thoughts and reasons within the rules of a particular language. I was always told that if you break a grammatical rule in your writing that you need a rhetorical reason for doing so, and I think that concept is true: we approach grammar as an art, using it to convey the passions that we have in a particular way.

 I never thought of rhetoric having any association to passions but solely thinking about our audience in order that we can artfully persuade them. I'm starting to think that to artfully persuade, we need to express our values that guide our purpose in why we pose the different arguments that we do. The combination (I may have completely understood this incorrectly) of the intellectual binary and the imagination binary achieves eloquence. Campbell defines eloquence as "'That art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end'" (749). He also claims that while logic seeks truth and only regards the audience, eloquence considers both the audience and writer. I used to approach rhetoric as if it was focused solely on the audience and that writing rhetorically meant that one needed to write with the sole focus of appealing to audience. I never thought of rhetoric as also the expressing of our passions, values, and purposes in our arguments.