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”