Rhetoric & the ART of Discourse

Wikipedia: ... rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."[3] Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic"see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

...
Some years ago I produced a PDF of Ethos, Logos & Pathos & various links related to it for further exploration to help enhance our discourse. Here it is on Google Drive for anyone who has the link.
Note Google Drive digests a PDF so that it leaves the text in a plain version following Acrobat version. The original is best but is somewhere on fastblogit as Ethos.pdf which I don't have access to right now.
From facebook this AM

Eh?

Comments

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-03-22 09:55:52 17204

of course rhetoric as you define it is just a part of human communication. there are other parts that do not have the {I -persuade-> You} presumption. Those are the parts of human communication that personally interest me ... for example the communication that happens during peer to peer inquiry ... see blue arrows in the picture within the context of "How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision".

Now i do realize that discussing useful p2p inquiry is probably not your agenda for this item. But sorry i cannot grock anything called "the Art of Discourse" without extending the context to include useful p2p inquiry. So feel free to delete this contribution should you rather hold to your own

... no problem ... and there would be no foul perceived

Dude, I did NOT define rhetoric. Go follow the links. Go do some more argumenting with arguosity perhaps on your own item. Such here is about the

ART of DISCOURSE.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-03-24 07:41:39 17204

MR 2014-03-24 07:35:11 17204

seth 2014-03-24 05:18:07 17204

huh?

huh¿

just expressing my surprise that what i said above was taken as off your topic and ridiculed.

Was talking about ART not offering up yet another excuse to argue about arguing.

& BTW there WAS an error in your opening statement which I pointed out, eh?

Seth says

MR 2014-03-24 07:35:11 17204

seth 2014-03-24 05:18:07 17204

huh?

huh¿

just expressing my surprise that what i said above was taken as off your topic and ridiculed.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-03-24 08:15:55 17204

MR 2014-03-24 07:53:16 17204

seth 2014-03-24 07:41:39 17204

MR 2014-03-24 07:35:11 17204

seth 2014-03-24 05:18:07 17204

huh?

huh¿

just expressing my surprise that what i said above was taken as off your topic and ridiculed.

Was talking about ART not offering up yet another excuse to argue about arguing.

& BTW there WAS an error in your opening statement which I pointed out, eh?

I don't see the error. What you call "rhetoric" is part of what i call "communication". Rhetoric is exactly as you stated above, that part of communication which assumes {I -persuade-> You} ... that is not p2p. So i am really just informing you that my interest in the art exists in the p2p area of communication, rather than on the non p2p part.

In fact if you think about it, {I -persuade-> You} implies {I am right, you are wrong}. Kind of a setup for RWG, eh? That is why i really cannot get behind glorifying the persuading part of communication as the art of it. That goes klunk over here.

Yo dude! "Rhetoric as I define it" is inaccurate. I copied the Wikipedia & articles from all over the web. I DEFINED NOTHING!

Seth says

MR 2014-03-24 07:53:16 17204

seth 2014-03-24 07:41:39 17204

MR 2014-03-24 07:35:11 17204

seth 2014-03-24 05:18:07 17204

huh?

huh¿

just expressing my surprise that what i said above was taken as off your topic and ridiculed.

Was talking about ART not offering up yet another excuse to argue about arguing.

& BTW there WAS an error in your opening statement which I pointed out, eh?

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-03-24 09:16:39 17204

MR 2014-03-24 08:38:36 17204

You are still arguing about arguing about arguing .... to infinity & beyond.

My suggestion is turning such back into an ART as some of the ancients beheld it - read the reference. Logos is just one part out of 3 & many more.

i don't get the anger here.

Maybe YOU just like to argue a lot - me? not so much.

Si says
This is super seeded by authenticity. Anyone who speaks directly from their own authentic impulse is providing the exact best communication that can be given to all present in that moment. Tony Robbins says this as well … he even said it in Austin to all of us, and in his latest “I am not your guru”.

It is now no longer needed to train someone to speak better, or more usefully … any more than it is necessary to teach a baby how to speak. A baby learns to speak through their own authentic desire … and so to can anyone of any age communicate perfectly the same way by tapping into authentic desire.

Needing to relate through an “Art of discourse” is a left over from an era where people communicated inside a meta layer on top of their self and their thoughts. Now, we can simply communicate each authentic impulse as it arises and know without any doubt it is perfectly matched to the circumstances in effect right now.

Mark de LA says
← #MakeShitUp & be

lieve it! nathan – Way to go. da #juice must be fully ripe by now & your #Egoo .

Si says
I relate stuff the same as the others who relate useful things directly from source. You might as well say Peter and Rudolf Steiner and Jesus and all the rest are making things up.

Mark de LA says
XOR not. Gather all you can or as GW used to say “what do you mean WE? got a turd in your back pocket?”

Si says
Conversation forked to thought 22889

Mark de LA says
Authenticity seems to be perverted here. If words mean anything anymore consider:
authentic (adj.)

mid-14c., "authoritative," from Old French autentique (13c., Modern French authentique) "authentic; canonical," and directly from Medieval Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one’s own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," from PIE *sene- "to accomplish, achieve." Sense of "entitled to acceptance as factual" is first recorded mid-14c.

Traditionally in modern use, authentic implies that the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious; genuine implies that the reputed author is the real one; but this is not always maintained: "The distinction which the 18th c. apologists attempted to establish between genuine and authentic ... does not agree well with the etymology of the latter word, and is not now recognized" [OED].

Rhetoric & the ART of Discourse

Tags

Comments

ART of DISCOURSE.

See Also