A 1983 article might be forgiven for its anachronistic theoretical position in the historical context of Pomo discourse, but even(sic) a Pure Land Buddhist should be able to understand the concept of an ontological dualism. As a counter-example, if you can explain Vedic math to me in "plain-spoken" terms that might be applicable to both scholarly and everyday life, since I would love to see its logic applied to the reducing diplomatic conflict, then you have some standing to complain. This is not unlike the "moral values" trope currently in vogue.
Ann --------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:38:28 -0500 From: "Brian Charles Dauth" <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: On the Limits of Rhetoric To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Message-ID: <003f01c4d581$d8501180$cbfa1645 at Gloria> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Dear List:
Stannard writes:
> Probably the most important article on the ideological turn in rhetorical
criticism is Wander's "The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism," Central States
Speech Journal 34 (Spring 1983): 1-18. Wander refutes both neo-Aristotelianism and postmodern criticism in that article. Most good rhetorical critics today think we have a responsibility to point out the lies of those in power, even if that forces us into a problematic (but very defensible) ontological dualism.
Could this be translated from academic jargon into English? What is a "problematic (but very defensible) ontological dualism"? Is it contagious? Are there any homeopathic cures?
Maybe the problem with the rhetoric of the left is that is understandable only by those who have been initiated into the Cult of TheorySpeak. This approach leaves everyday people out in the cold and susceptible to plain-spoken entreaties from the right.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister