Language and Paradigms
To me rhetoric is the study of how language is operated. Language being a neutral force, its the arguments that end up defining each other but I’m not certain to what degree either side in a debate has strong footing. Many people try to suggest that the subjectivity of language lies with the author who has somehow failed to express his or herself specifically enough. There is however(, in some cases also,) an issue with the perspective of the individual reader; and its this point that I find difficult to surmount. The problem would seem to require triggering in the reader a mindset equivalent or at least similar enough to your own that your arguments make their intended points clearly, but the arguments themselves are an attempt to encourage such a change; that is to say that there exists a more fundamental element that needs to be addressed before you can begin to work on a foundation to lead someone to your conclusion.
These pre-elements are in effect a lifetime of conditioning and view on knowledge that seems quite challenging to shake barring some absurdist non-sequitur such that the person’s pre-elements are incapable of following, yet remain applicable within the stream of consciousness. To give an example of the effect of such a pre-element I draw on my own conflict with the christian bible. Passages such as Matthew 11:20-11:29 in which Jesus threatens those who would not turn to him with hellfire elicit within me only a sense that he is judging and unmerciful to them, rather than compassionate and forgiving. I’ve developed over time in a way that I currently find passages of this kind to sour the source. Aside from it likely being counter productive in swaying someone to his cause it also would seem to ask you to act out of fear if that is the only reason you would follow him. Worshiping out of fear however is one of the least profitable spiritual lives, not only do you act at best mechanistically in this one, your promised hellfire in the next should you fail to grow beyond that motivation.
The pre-elements, who’s source I characteristically can’t highlight for examination due to influencing from perhaps my subconscious, lead me to interpret the passage in that way. They are not something which I can simply turn off (as of yet), though I have gotten to a point in which I stop myself and attempt to find other ways of reading. In this way, whatever argument is attempting to be made is breezed over, unless returned to through self-awareness or some outside discussion. Even if a person does stop themselves it may still require someone else to help them see alternative interpretations. I must also confront the fact that this may be a personal limitation rather than widespread.
In my view of Rhetoric it becomes easy to simply dismiss someone else’s perspective as just another argument, but that is inconsistent. If a person strives for knowledge of this kind, they must acknowledge that their disagreement could be their own lapse. The prime illustration of the problem in my mind is my own unawareness of possible racism or elitism. Reading through a friend’s tomes of Lovecraft I never got the slightest inkling of sexual and racist undertones to his works that articles like The Genetics of Horror suggest are present. Or in the case of banter I engage in with a friend; he is a believer in the New World Order conspiracy theories and we jest back and forth. While I agree some trends are alarming I do not share his conviction that the world is so clearly on a path to Orwell’s or Huxley’s dystopia. As I’ve said, on the one hand, I could simply chalk it up to a problem of their unique outlooks and background; but I have to consider that the problem could just as easily be my own.
I’m not so certain how exactly one confronts these pre-elements without outside assistance though. My suggestion is that they are the distillation of your psychological temperament, education, experiences and growth throughout life; this would not be something easily subject to rattling. The Zen Master attempts to do it through paradox and absurdity but often times they require contemplation to achieve their ends and wouldn’t be fitting to an introduction for any work that wishes to be quick yet thoroughly convincing to the extreme opposite side.
Leave a Reply