Why so serious?

Kelly,

I'm glad someone else can identify with the serious man, because I'm starting to think I might be one. It's not something I'd have expected considering my major. I love writing and language, I love telling a story, and I love how everything weaves together, so I expected studying rhetorical concepts to be right up my ally. For me I think the distinction between rhetoric and philosophy has become a hangup in my mind. The lines between these thought processes are blurred, but when I try to find out where that blurry line relatively falls, the line seems blurrier still. It's as if the two are apart of the same thought process in spite of being separated schools of thought. They appear to me like twins; one dons a mask and claims difference from his brother. I think perhaps this is the reason that it feels like a fight not to reject this subject and by my own definition, become a Serious man. I'm trying not to do that though. There's the looming fear that being a serious person automatically damns me as a bad student (Pirsig did say phaedrus liked his bad students best, so maybe that's why I've always gotten along with my professors...But I digress).

Kelly, I'm impressed in how you defined the rational and narrative paradigm, and I wish I could take an equally elegant stab at it. The paradigm to me is another illusive concept. While I see it as a way of thinking that views life as a primarily story based event while remaining analytical and rational as the story forms, I'm still lost in the point of it all. This is what drives me crazy about philosophy and rhetoric, this unending spinning of concepts and ideas. I hate having questions I can't have answers to, and I find that this is a consistent theme in rhetoric.

I'd also like to mention that I'm interested in what Locke said about words not only being the signs of ideas but also the start of many. Which is an interesting thought. Considering I think in English, it seems very strange to consider what sort of thought process (if any) we could have without a language to express them. While Locke wasn't saying that these are the only roots of thought, it still felt that without language, thought wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, don't we think of children as having thoughts before they can communicate properly? Also, would we likewise agree that even though dogs don't know a human language, that they still have minds filled with unique thought?

-Jared

Rational & Narrative (& Everywhere In Between)

Hi Erin,

I tried responding to your post last night right when I saw your post, but I was way too tired. Let’s try it this time! :)

“The rational paradigm seems to be intertwined with the classical understanding through the focus on the facts and the functions of the subject. These views are not concerned with long, drawn out philosophical explanations but rather explanations that are short and to the point.”

I agree with this statement and some of the ideas you had in the rest of your piece.

Before I say my thoughts, though, I’d like to define Narrative and Rational Paradigm from my perspective. I believe that the rational and narrative world paradigms both contain different types of stories. Both stories are told and interpreted by others with different types of actions. The rational world paradigm does not make actions based on emotion but more instead with logic and an analytical mindset. Thus, the stories are created by the person (as the result of written or spoken text (or action) or are the spoken/written texts themselves) within either the rational or narrative paradigms, and those actions are considered ‘stories’ when they make sense to someone within that way of thinking.

I feel like the rhetorical man lives within the narrative world paradigm. From my perspective, both are able to understand and use ethos, pathos and logos in their appropriate situations.

The serious man lives in the rational world paradigm. The qualities we discussed in class of the serious man are classical, technology-focused, grappler thinker, analytic, after the moment, serious and scientific. I think Pirsig-N is the serious man in this book and he is seeing the world with his serious man lens. The stories he sees are the actions and the meanings he gets from those actions. For example, in his rational world paradigm, how his motorcycle works is a story to him because it is one of his values.

In class we discussed these traits that countered the serious man: emotion (pathos), empirical, casual conversation, wandering around aimlessly, going with the flow, groovy, romantic, spectator, doer, holistic, in the moment, contingent and artistic. (Not the same as the rhetorical man by the way, but I’ll get there later)

Up until now I believed that both oppositions are describing types of people in the rhetorical lens. However, now I want to add that when someone isn’t following the traits of one lens in any given moment, the person with that lens tends to describe them as the opposite (I think). For example, I believe we’re reading this book so far with Pirsig-N’s lens. To him, John is “going with the flow,” but maybe to us in our current lens, John is being normal and “human.”

In my perspective, Phaedrus fits the opposite of the serious man with his pursuit of philosophy when he moves away from the scientific lens that sees a select few “truths” in the world.

In my blog response to Jared last week, I discussed the possibility that serious man has ethos and logos whereas the rhetorical man has ethos, pathos and logos. However, now I want to make another adjustment. I believe that the serious man does not realize they are performing rhetoric because they do not subscribe to that way of thinking. Every human being performs rhetoric when they do something with a purpose that results in some sort of action (or story, depending on the specific meaning with get from the action). I still believe that ethos and logos are traits of the serious man, but the serious man is still performing ethos, pathos and logos when they communicate with other people based on the reactions they earn from other people (frustration from Chris etc). The serious man may value ethos and logos much more than pathos (at least Pirsig-N might), but they still have pathos as one of their values because they are passionate enough in their values toward their lens/ways of seeing the world. (Plus they can feel anger, but perhaps cannot relate/reason why?

I need to say this though: I can definitely see how I’m a serious man in some moments of my life because at the beginning of the text when I tried to analyze this book, I thought Persig-N’s behavior was normal/appropriate. Sometimes I thought how he treated Chris was appropriate as well. However, when I snapped out of that mindset, I thought about Pirsig-N as a human being, I realized how unkind he was being in my other lens. For example, I wouldn’t have thought that Chris had a mental illness. I would have assumed he was just a kid who wanted attention from his father. If I was Pirsig-N, I would have tried to be kind and let him have breakfast for dinner instead of letting him go to bed hungry. I would have tried to be understanding/relatable and ask him how he was doing on the trip etc.

Okay, I admit, I’m the serious man a lot. When I get into an analytical mindset, I’m not very receptive to other people’s emotions. It doesn’t really click to me. I can be impatient and non-sympathetic, depending on my mood/mindset. Almost always, though, when I go on a walk or have some time to transition from that mindset, I realize how unkind I may have been and then I try to make amends with that person. I’ve often thought that I need to find some way to strike a balance between being too analytical and just being human when I talk with people when I’m in the middle of analyzing something because I understand that it can turn people off.

All in all, I’m a very loving person and I try to be understandable, but a lot of the time I just lose sight of my emotions and how I affect other people when I try to be analytical/ask questions/play with ideas. (Like this post, I suppose. I apologize.)

Also, I want to say that I think that Phaedrus & Pirsig-N are perhaps two different lenses that the author uses to see the world. I wonder that if we merge those two lenses together, we may get Robert M. Pirsig. (I predict that we’ll see that merge at the end of the book, but we’ll see)  

Lastly, as referenced earlier, I do not believe that the rhetorical man is the same as Phaedrus by the way. I’m starting to wonder if perhaps the rhetorical man are people in everyday life who can be a Phaedrus or a serious man form moment to moment. For example, Robert M. Pirsig is the rhetorical man because he has both the serious man and opposite of the serious man within himself (as do I when I realize my analytical mindset and my non-analytical mindset).
                                                             

Narrative classical

Narrative and rational paradigms are uniquely intertwined to the '"classical" and "romantic" ways of knowing. As Pirsig said, "A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself," (73), which makes me see the classical understanding as very clear cut, rational take on an individual’s surroundings. The romantic understanding, on the other hand, "sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance," (73). The rational paradigm seems to be  intertwined with the classical understanding through the focus on the facts and the functions of the subject. These views are not concerned with long, drawn out philosophical explanations but rather explanations that are short and to the point. The narrative paradigm on the other hand has much more freedom than the rational/classical views. Narrative paradigms, in my opinion, seem a little more complex. Narrative paradigms have the ability to complicate a situation more than rational. With narrative and romantic paradigms the focus could be buried in the embellishment and nuances of the narrative. With my comprehension of narrative paradigms thus far, I cannot see how narrative and classical views are intertwined. However, I do see a few similarities in the romantic and narrative views. Romantic and narrative views are more subjective than classical and rational. These views give the user much more flexibility and a wider range of motion when constructing thoughts and ideas.

The similarities and differences between people in the classical/rational and narrative/romantic mindsets would obviously become crystal clear when these different groups work on projects. For example, I think that if a group of rational/classical people were given a project to describe something, they would have very similar results all around. The results would be fairly clear cut and to the point, focusing only on what really matters. If a group of romantic/narrative minded people were given a project I think they would all come to varying conclusions that are somewhat similar in the values that they are entrenched in.

         

My comprehension of romantic and classical worldviews and narrative and rational paradigms has a ton of room to grow, I think it is a little narrow as of now. I am eagerly anticipating to hear what others have to say on the subject so I can gain new perspectives on the subject.

Intentionality

Erin,
When I read your post, it made me think of the question that we brought up in the first (or perhaps second) day of class of intentionality. You claim that performing rhetoric is inevitable, as does Fish in his article. It seems that you and Kelly claim that the difference between the rhetorical man and serious man is that the rhetorical man is using rhetoric intentionally...which I agree with.  I think one problem that is created by Fish's two categorizations of people (serious and rhetoric), with his statement in mind of the inevitability of rhetoric, is that these categorizations propose two divisions of rhetoric: intentional rhetoric and unintentional rhetoric. If Fish is correct in claiming that everything is rhetorical, then being purposeful isn't a part of the definition of rhetoric. Before this class, I saw purpose as a huge aspect of rhetoric, but it makes more sense that rhetoric is the conversation between the maker (writer, artist, etc.) and the audience. The conversation doesn't have to be intentional to be a conversation.
You had a line in here that made me think that perhaps intentionality is correlated with the quality of rhetoric, "A rhetorical man on the other hand would put much more time and thought into such an issue, and I think they would come up with a rather creative solution." It seems that if intentionality is part of the quality of rhetoric, then a definition of "good" rhetoric is rhetoric performed with purpose. Someone performing rhetoric with purposeful awareness, definitely is performing rhetoric differently than someone who isn't. You bring up a point in your second paragraph of the rhetorical and serious man approaching a topic through a different lens. I agree that intentionality creates a different lens in one's method. The rhetorical man invests more thought into how they are approaching their writing than the serious man, who, to me, is solely concerned in what they are going to say in his/her writing.
I wouldn't consider unintentional rhetoric as bad rhetoric. I think someone can persuade without meaning to be artful in their persuasion. However, I would also say that the rhetorical man has more advantages in being intentional in his/her persuasion because I would consider purpose an important tool in creating quality rhetoric. With intention as a tool, a writer invests significant meaning into different aspects of a text, that make it a text. It also gives the writer a stronger focus on his/her writer when creating a text. Being intentional as a writer, is investing purpose to engage and persuade an audience.
I'm not 100% clear on where intentionality plays into rhetoric, but I do think that it is worth thinking about. Right now, I see it as a tool but not a necessity to be rhetorical.

Rhetorical man VS serious man

So, the "serious man" and the "rhetorical man." I think my opinion is a mix of Kelly and Jared. I think the serious man is not aware that they are using rhetoric in their everyday actions. I like what Kelly added about the "serious" person heavily utilizing ethos and logos over pathos. I imagine the rhetorical man would heavily and purposefully integrate ethos, pathos, and logos, with a heavy emphasis on pathos. A serious man would approach a problem and try to find the most practical, to the point solution. A rhetorical man on the other hand would put much more time and thought into such an issue, and I think they would come up with a rather creative solution.

I also see where Jared is coming from about the serious man as well, maybe the user is aware of rhetoric but they just do not approach rhetoric through the same lens at the serious person. If the serious man is aware of rhetoric but chooses not to see it, this may be interpreted as ignorance by some but others may see this as just a utilization of a different mindset. 

As we all obviously know, everyone uses rhetoric in everything. Serious men, however, have a different awareness level of how they use rhetoric than the rhetorical man. Regardless of if they know recognize the concept of rhetoric or not, the end point is that they do not choose to consciously integrate such concepts into their life. Rhetorical men on the other hand obviously do the exact opposite, and fully embrace the many niches of rhetoric. As Jared said, he believes rhetorical men are the eloquent thinkers and reason based, and I can understand where he is coming from with that statement. I also noted what Kelly said about the serious men, not even thinking to utilize pathos. I agree with that as well, it seems to me that serious men are trained to approach situations in a very specific way that does not quite include emotion.

So with that being said, I’m going to steer this in a slightly different direction and say that I think if you pulled a serious man and a rhetorical man in to read these blog posts, they would both approach the situation extremely differently (obviously). The serious man, in my imagination, would scoff at not only the topic of the posts but also the way we have drawn out and nitpicked at the issue. A rhetorical man would be much more likely to enjoy the topic and read into the different thoughts we have expressed, forming deep intellectual and creative thoughts while reading. Those are my thoughts on the rhetorical man and the serious man thus far. 

The choice to be rhetorical,....and emoji's? Jared's random tangents

Kelly, We talked about your line about the Serious being unaware that they are performing rhetoric, and I spun off of that to say that perhaps the Serious are those who don't care that they are performing rhetoric, or rather, that they are unwilling to acknowledge it. The reason I said that is that I think we can choose to be or not be rhetorician. I'm imagining a slew of protests from the class to the effect of "No, we are all practicing rhetoric whether we like it or not, and a rhetorician is one practicing rhetoric". What I mean by this is the right to choose rhetorician as a title, and to choose to think in the rhetoric mindset. People can choose not to participate in our rhetoricious ways (yeah I made up the word rhetoricious, you can tar and feather me for it). I also totally agree with your theory of John being a Serious representation in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and I think this supports my argument as well. What makes us label John a Serious person? John chooses to have his bike fixed by "professionals" even though he knows he could learn to fix it himself, in a similar fashion as I think the Serious person may leave being rhetorical to the professionals. Sure they still practice rhetoric (just as John is still a practicing biker) but they choose not to think about the subject further. Ignorance is comfortable. With that being said, I'm still perplexed by what lessons in rhetoric this novel has to offer. Other than being made of rhetoric, I'm still a little unclear on how to interpret it as a rhetorical analysis. While of course I see the connection to John being a Serious person and Robert the more philosophical (or I suppose rhetorical one) I feel strained to see further connections. I'm not even sure if I would have seen that as a connection had it not been pointed out, so I continue to wonder "Am I missing something?" I hope that didn't feel like I was trying to tear up your argument, because I wouldn't of had anything to build off of if it wasn't for your theory. I'm kinda piggy-backing off of your hard work and intelligence in attempt to be an intellectual parasite. ;) <-------(super random tangent, emoji's are rhetoric and arguably a part of our language at this point, so nobody judge me for using one. :P.....or two. ALSO, Based on Fish's discussion of how rhetoric has built cities and stopped wars etc. through the use of reason and eloquence, I'm starting to think of rhetorician's a bit like reasoners and eloquent thinkers. Anyone have any thought on this? -Jared

Rhetorical Man & Serious Man

Before I dig into the specifics of the prompt, I’d like to say who I think the “serious man” and the “rhetorical man” are. I feel like the serious man is someone who is not aware that they are performing rhetoric. They believe that there is an ultimate truth and one true way to go about any solution or thinking of how things are. They do not think about language beyond what they have been conditioned to believe. The rhetorical man, however, looks more closely at language and understands that “truth” means something different for different people. There is no universal truth or understanding that somehow sidesteps the constructed truths among different disciplines, and so they work on forming conversations with other people within and outside their way of thinking.

This may be a bit of tangent (but a trait of rhetorical man I suppose), but when I read a Discourse article last semester, it talked about different conversations among people in different disciplines/Discourse communities as well as people within the same Discourse community. Persig’s book made me wonder one thing: Is a purpose of rhetoric to help ease conversations between different lenses and to perhaps improve communication between people of different mindsets with respect to their varied situations?  

And if that is a purpose of rhetoric, can finding common values among different lenses establish a type of common ground in which can help make transfer of information easier during times of conflict?

As I think about that last paragraph, I’m immediately struck with a thought: I wonder if John from Persig’s reading could represent the serious man and the narrator could represent the rhetorical man. I suppose I make this distinction between the two people in the text because the narrator seemed to have a very rhetorical/multiple lens/Discursive language whenever he would try to explain things to other people. His son commented on how strange his language was in relation to everyone else and occasionally he had to restrict his way or talking (or discourse) for John and Sylvia when he felt that his explanations were too much for the situation. Also, the narrator made a comment about how John was not willing to see the rationality behind maintaining his motorcycle and because of that mindset, I wonder that could provide further evidence for what he could be the serious man in this book.

In terms of people in my own experience that could follow the serious man and the rhetorical man  … I cannot think of anyone other than instructors or myself (to some extent I think …) for the rhetorical man and so I think will speak more broadly about the rhetorical man in my life. I think the rhetorical man are people who have made the rhetorical turn. In other words, they are aware that they are actors and/or people who help get something to happen through their actions. In this instance, I think the rhetorical man could be any one of us at the end of this course. On the contrary, I think the serious man are people who do not understand the purpose of rhetoric and/or are not thinking critically about language and its relationship with the audience. I believe those people could be my non-writing major friends. They understand what they’ve learned as “truth” and probably don’t understand that other disciplines may have a different way for classifying what they’ve been taught. I think the people who are between serious man and rhetorical man are the people who are just entering this rhetorical lens of the writing major (e.g the people right now in class). They do not yet understand the basics of rhetoric or its purpose, but they’re being immersed in the language and are beginning to put the pieces together.