I was doing a paradigm shift. I moved from the notion of the post away from Religion of Logic towards Conversational Etiquette, shifting it from an ostensibly masculine undertaking (LOGIC-AS-FOUNDATION-OF-ALL-THINGS) to an ostensibly feminine undertaking (MISS-MANNERS-SUGGESTS-A-BETTER-WAY-TO-ENGAGE-TO-AVOID-UNNEEDED-ROUGHNESS) in an attempt to remove its perceived power in the original context. Sexist? Nah. Playing with stereotypes against possible stereotype users? Indeed.

I was doing a paradigm shift.
I moved from the notion of the post away from Religion of Logic towards Conversational Etiquette, shifting it from an ostensibly masculine undertaking (LOGIC-AS-FOUNDATION-OF-ALL-THINGS) to an ostensibly feminine undertaking (MISS-MANNERS-SUGGESTS-A-BETTER-WAY-TO-ENGAGE-TO-AVOID-UNNEEDED-ROUGHNESS) in an attempt to remove its perceived power in the original context.
 
Sexist? Nah. Playing with stereotypes against possible stereotype users? Indeed.
======
  I’m distinguishing between logic and rhetoric.
===
  Logic makes for poor rhetoric, hence “10 commandments”, which is rhetoric.I don’t strictly follow the trivium (Logic, Rhetoric, Grammar) but it’s a good guideline.

Within Rhetoric, there’s
judicial oratory (or “forensic”);
deliberative oratory (or “legislative”) and.
epideictic oratory (“ceremonial” or “demonstrative”).

In this case, I’d call the 10 commandments epideictic with a hope of it becoming deliberative. :)

—-
 That said, “It sounds like you are abandoning logic for a new logic. What is the alternative?”

Unlike the trivium, I put it all (including Logic) under Rhetoric, which boiled down, is “Convincing Power”

======

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three × 2 =

Leave a Reply