The Rhetoric of Invention</title. </HEAD> <BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080"> <P ALIGN="CENTER"><IMG SRC="ohex.jpg" WIDTH=360 border=2></P> <P> </p> <FONT SIZE=2 COLOR="#800000"> <P>To: psysr-disc@yahoogroups.com </P> <P>From: target@batstar.net</P> <P>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:23:47 -0800 </P> <P>Subject: RE: [psysr-disc] Juan Cole | Obama's foreign policy report card</P> <P> </p> </FONT><B><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style"><P>Eee:</P> </B><P>You wrote:</P><DIR> </FONT><FONT FACE="Tahoma" SIZE=2 COLOR="#800000"><P>I am as you know, at times, very critical of Obama. However, I am very interested in fostering vigorous, but respectful dialog on this and many other issues. All sides based in a progressive framework need to be heard. Juan Cole needs to be heard, as do those with more critical perspectives. Only through vigorous discussion sometimes bordering into debate can we learn.</P></DIR> </FONT><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style"><P>However, there is more to dialogue than just vigorous argumentation. "Respectful dialog[ue]" and expressing one's feelings of outrage do not always mingle well. People can feel "dissed" when language with the appearance of civility actually matches language commonly used to oppress. Thus I'm a "second class citizen" according to the way that the Federal Govt. and social custom interpret my human rights: </FONT><I><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style" COLOR="#800000">When others speak, they "have something to say," when I speak, it's "my personal issue."</I></FONT><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style"> I refused to join the "national security state" value system. Is that a crime? Does that make me deserve pity? Or maybe does my rhetorical stance have social value?</P> <P>The point is not to figure out in detail "who said what" or "who is civil or not" but to develop a <B>HIGHER STANDARD</B> of dialogue on the list. That's where our <I>psychology</I> should be used to make this a safer space to disagree and maintain mutual respect. The historical degradation of rhetoric rendered by Descartes' misunderstanding of inductive reasoning and promotion of Ramus' advocacy against </FONT><A HREF="http://batstar.net/measure/inventio.htm"><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style">the rhetoric of invention</FONT></A><FONT FACE="Bookman Old Style"> (Walter Ong) has been reflected recently in the argument of Stanley Fish in the NYTimes against [<B>APA</B> involvement in] Bush torture policies. The core questions of dialogue, like these, need to be engaged. You can't expect everyone to want to "argue vigorously and creatively" whenever it pleases you to do so.</P> <P>The dignity of each activist in PsySR is important to us here. We need your exceptional skills and I'm hoping you will continue to tune in to those of others.</P> <P> </P> <B><I><P>Andrew Phelps</P> <P> </p> </B></I></FONT><P ALIGN="CENTER"><IMG SRC="line7.gif" border=0></P> <FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2><P>Eee wrote</P><DIR> </FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#800000"><P>Perhaps it will tell you something about me that, when I review books (or listen to lectures, etc), I look, not at whether they agree with me, but rather at whether they generate new thoughts in me. thus, I have given rave reviews to book with which I profoundly disagree because they made me think and panned books with which I agreed, but which had nothing new to say.</P> <P>One of the most profound aspects of the anti-torture struggle has been my exposure to military and intelligence personnel with whom I would never have talked previously. Though challenging at times, I have gained, both friends, and a valuable type of understanding. I believe they also gained understanding of us "pinko lefty antiwar" sorts. Respect grew out of our acknowledgement of commonalities and of differences. [I thank Jean Maria Arrigo for pushing me in this direction.]</P> </dir> </FONT></BODY> </HTML>