I am #peacockrhetoric
Quadrant 1 is question 1; What is the peacock?
Question 1:
What Is The Peacock?
In ancient rhetorical texts, the image of the peacock was often used as a metaphor to illustrate the concept of ostentation or showiness in language. Just as a peacock flaunts its feather to impress potential mates, a speaker who uses ostentatious language is trying to impress their audience with their linguistic abilities.
The peacock was also sometimes used as a metaphor for vanity, particularly in the context of speeches or writing that were excessively self-promoting. The idea was that just as the peacock is preoccupied with its own appearance, a speaker or writer who is excessively self-promoting is similarly preoccupied with themselves.
A Greek orator and one of the ten Attic orators who lived in the 5th century BCE touched on the broader themes associated with the image of the peacock. The name of the orator was Antiphon, and he was known for his speeches and writings on law, politics, and rhetoric.
Antiphon was critical of speakers who used flowery language and excessive rhetoric in order to impress their audience rather than convey a substantive message. In one of his surviving works, “On the Choreutes,” Antiphon argues that good speech should be clear and straightforward, avoiding unnecessary embellishments or digressions. Curiously, in an ancient fragment “On the Peacock” Antiphon reflects that a peacock only becomes ostentatious when its wings are clipped, which doesn’t allow the bird to fly.
The image of a winged peacock, therefore, changes the metaphor of showing language from simply being showy to being more complex and sophisticated. The addition of wings suggests that the peacock is not just flaunting its feathers but is also capable of soaring to great heights. This imagery conveys a sense of power, grace, and elegance that elevates the metaphor beyond mere ostentation.
In the context of everyday language, the image of a winged peacock suggests the speaker or writer who is not just using flowery language to impress their audience, but who is also capable of using complex and sophisticated language to convey complex ideas. This speaker or writer is not just focused on the form of their message but is also concerned with its substance and the depth of their ideas.
On the one hand, the image of the peacock in ancient rhetorical texts serves as a warning against using language that is overly showy or self-promoting and encourages speakers and writers to focus on the substance of their message rather than just form.
On the other hand, the image of a winged peacock changes the metaphor of showing language from being shallow and superficial to being more nuanced and sophisticated, emphasizing the importance of using language to convey complex ideas and insights.
Overall, the peacock is a teaching device with perpetual lessons on language lapses into egoic expression and pretension or a lesson on how rhetoric has survived for thousands of years as an image of possibility.
#peacockrheotirc stems from the desire to explore this dichotomy in the spacetime of discovery and mission to Mars.
Question 2:
What Is Rhetoric?
Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” is a treatise, dating from the 4th century BCE, on the art of persuasion.
The word art in ancient Greek text is “techne” and from this is derived our word “technology.” It is helpful to see rhetoric as a nascent technology to understand that Aristotle provides a systematic analysis of how people can influence others through language. In it, Aristotle outlines the three modes of persuasion—ethos, pathos, and logos—and discusses the various strategies and techniques that speakers can use to appeal to their audience’s ethics, emotions, and sense of logic. He also provides guidance on how to structure arguments and use language effectively to convey a message.
Curiously in this regard, “Rhetoric” may be approached as a 2500-year-old chatbot developed not by OpenAI (ChatGPT) but by human intelligence seeking to find a means to bring people together and decide public policy or simply observe the good. Just as a someone can start a chat (Artificial Intelligence) and ask, How do I structure an argument in praise of something, so someone over the last few thousands could pick up a copy of “Rhetoric,” locate the section on speeches of praise, and discover a way to make an argument. ChatGPT is totally faster.
Back to the case of wanting to compose a message….
In the case of ChatGPT …
To structure an argument in praise of something, you can follow these steps:
Introduce the topic: Begin by introducing the thing or idea that you are praising. Provide some context and background information to help you audience understand what you are discussion.
State your opinion: Clearly state your opinion about the thing you are praising. Make it clear that you are in favor of it and explain why.
Provide evidence: Back up your opinion with evidence. This could include statistics, facts, example, or personal experience that demonstrate why the thing you are praising is so great.
Address counterarguments: Acknowledge any potential counterarguments that someone might have against your position. Then explain why you believe these counterarguments are not valid or are outweighed by the positive aspects of the thing you are praising.
Conclude: Sum up your arguments and reiterate why you believe the thing you are praising is so valuable, End with a call to action, encouraging your audience to asl appreciate and support this thing.
In the case of Aristotle’s Rhetoric…
To structure an argument in praise of something, you can follow these steps (after acquiring a copy of the book in English)
Introduce the topic: Begin by introducing the person or idea that you are praising. Praise the object in relation to present realities. Select the appropriate context, such as a funeral oration, a speech at the Olympics, a speech in a royal palace, etc.
State the “doxa”: Doxa is a common belief or popular opinion and is contrasted with episteme (‘knowledge’).Use the standard of “the honorable” to praise the thing. Clearly state the “doxa” (common opinion) about things “we all know” are praiseworthy.
State the honorable: Use the standard of “the honorable” to praise the thing. Observe that the speech of praise does not involve debate. What is praiseworthy is praiseworthy and does not involve dispute.
Conclude: Reiterate why the object is praiseworthy. End with a reminder that the speech is for the audience’s pleasure, not their judgment, encouraging them to see the power in the thing being praised.
In both cases, artificial intelligence or AI and Aristotle’s “Rhetoric,” the information provides guidance on how to structure arguments and speeches and use language effectively to convey a message.
Notice the evolution of structure. The ancient structure of a speech to praise excludes debate. The AI model, which amalgamates rhetorical works on the speech to praise, includes counterarguments in its structure. Speakers in ancient Athens held the praiseworthy to a unified or simple standard. Speakers today have many standards of the praiseworthy from which to claim an object or person as praiseworthy and they must say what that standard is and why is preferred over standards.
So what? It means we rhetoric has evolved. And it means it is up to us to develop it.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “No one should believe that an art [rhetoric] falls from the heavens; the Greeks worked it more than any other people and more than at any other thing.”
It is our turn to imitate the Greeks and work on the evolution of rhetoric. What new structures can we invent? Here is a thought experiment: If rhetoric had not evolved, then today we would (theoretically speaking) not have a structure to handle counterarguments when considering what is and what is not praiseworthy. Here I am arguing for the importance of a new political structures for humans to create and write.
#peacockrhetoric seeks to provide future generations with a glimpse of the old cultural and intellectual tools of the ancients. How does rhetoric need to evolve to meet new challenges? What speeches and messages and written words will we put out there to be collated and amalgamated by AI that is behind our thoughts.
Question 3:
How Are Peacock and Rhetoric Connected?
First peacock: The peacock and its distinctive, colorful plumage played an important role in Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was intrigued by the fact that the peacock’s ornate tail feathers, which are so cumbersome and seemingly serve no practical purpose, are so highly prized by peahens. He saw this as evidence of sexual selection, a process by which certain traits become more common in a population because they are preferred by one sex over the other, usually for reasons for courtship and mating.
In “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,” published in 1871, Darwin writes: “The sights of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” Despite this initial disgust, Darwin saw the beauty of the peacock’s feather as proof that the bird’s colorful display was a product of sexual selection.
Overall, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection provided a framework for understanding how traits that are not directly related to survival can still evolve and become important in the survival of the species. In this way, the peacock helped shape our understanding of the natural world and continues to inspire new discoveries and scientific advancements today.
Second rhetoric: In four parts
Part 1. Rhetoric makes me sick!
In the context of social media and news outlets like CNN, FOX, and NPR, the term “rhetoric” is often used to refer to the language used by individuals, groups, or organizations to influence or persuade others. This can include a wide range of language styles, including persuasive arguments, emotional appeals, and figurative language. In news outlets, the term is often used to describe the language used by politicians or other public figures in speeches, interviews, and press releases.
In social media, rhetoric can take on a more negative connation, referring to language that divisive, misleading, or meant to stir up controversy or emotions. In this context, rhetoric is often used to criticize the language used by certain individuals or groups, particularly when it is seen as manipulative or intended to manipulate public opinion.
Rhetoric makes people sick! Colorful, emotion, and tropological dimensions of speech when attached to a body of rational thought looks malevolent. It is used to manipulate and deceive and turn people against each other.
Part 2 Rhetoric inspires new discoveries!
The relation between the peacock’s tail and the tropes and emotions that comprise rhetoric is that both can exhibit a beautiful display of color. A peacock’s tail is known for its iridescent feathers, which can display a range of colors, including greens, blues, and purples, that change based on the angle at which they are viewed. This is due to the microscopic structure of the feathers, which splits light into its component colors and creates the iridescent effect.
The colors of rhetoric—its tropes, metaphors, similes, and figures of speech, is another example of a message being split into its component parts. When light passes through a prism of language, we can articulate our ideas, to debate them with one another, and to arrive at the truth through the give and take of open discourse. The experience of the peacock is simple, straightforward, and grounded because the speaker or writer must appeal to the reason and conscience of their audience.
Part 3 Rhetoric and Democracy
Rhetoric is inextricably bound to Democracy. In Aristotle’s “Rhetoric,” democracy is seen as one of the three main forms of government, along with aristocracy and monarchy. According to Aristotle, democracy is a system in which power is held by the people and decisions are made by the majority. In a democratic system, all citizens have equal rights and the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The decision-making process is aided and abated by the art of rhetoric. Democracy is virtually impossible without rhetoric, which is why Aristotle devoted an entire treatise to the subject.
Aristotle believed that democracy had the potential to be a just form of government, but he also recognized its flaws. He saw democracy as being prone to the rule of the mob, where the desires of a majority can override the rights of a minority. He also noted that in a democracy, the wealthy often have more influence than the poor, leading to unequal representation.
Despite these criticisms, Aristotle saw democracy as an important form of government, and he believed that it was the best option when compared to the alternatives of tyranny and oligarchy. He also believed that democracy could be improved using reason and education, so that citizens could make informed decisions and avoid the negative aspects of democracy.
Overall, Aristotle’s view of democracy in the “Rhetoric” was nuanced, acknowledging both its potential for justice and inherent flaws, but ultimately seeing it as a necessary component of well-functioning society. The art of rhetoric was instrumental in democracy achieving its potential and overcoming its inherent flaws.
Part 4 Peacock in America
The term “rhetoric” was extensively used by the Founding Fathers and had a much different connotation in their time than it does today. In the 18th century, rhetoric was considered a highly valuable and respected discipline and was seen as a mean of persuasion and effective communication.
In the context of the founding of the United States, rhetorical was a crucial tool (techne) for the Framers and their contemporaries, as they sought to articulate their ideas about government, liberty, and the rights of citizens. For example, the speeches and writing of figures such s Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Alexander Hamilton made extensive use of rhetoric to convince their audiences of the need for independence from Britain and later, the need to ratify the Constitution.
The study of classical rhetoric was a central part of the education of many of the Founders, who were well-versed in its principles and techniques. The art of rhetoric was considered a crucial tool for shaping public opinion and influencing decision-making, and the use of language and persuasion was seen as a key factor in securing the future of the new nation.
Third A Fable of Our Times
Once upon a time, in a far-off kingdom, there lived a fox named Sly. Sly was known throughout the land for his cunning wit and his silver tongue. He was a master of rhetoric and could talk his way out of any situation.
One day, Sly came across a peacock sitting on a branch in a elm tree, holding a piece of dark-chocolate-salted caramel bon bon in its beak. Sly’s mouth watered at the sight of the bon bon, and he decided to put his rhetoric to the test.
Oh, what a beautiful bird you are, Peacock!” said Sly. Your feathers are so iridescent and colorful, and your voice is so lyrical. I have never seen such a magnificent creature.”
The Peacock was flattered by Sly’s word and said, “Thank you, Fox. I am indeed a beautify bird, not matter what Darwin says.”
“And what a clever bird you are, too! said Sly. (The Fox had read Antiphon and knew a thing or two about wingless speech.) I bet you could solve any riddle or puzzle in the land.”
The Peacock was pleased by this praise and said, “ I do have a sharp mind, Fox.”
“Well then, Crow,” said Sly, “I have a puzzle for you. You are up in a tree. How would get that bon bon from your beak to mine?”
The Peacock thought for a moment, then said, “I would simply drop it.”
“Ah, but what if you drop it and it falls to the ground?” asked Sly.
The Peacock thought some more, then said, “I would fly down and pick it up.”
“Ah, but what if I were to take the bon bon before you could pick it up?” asked Sly.
The Peacock, who was not thoroughly flustered, said, “I supposed I would have to give it to you, Fox.”
And with that, the Peacock opened its beak and the bon bon fell into Sly’s waiting mouth.
The moral of the story is that rhetoric tool, but it can also be used to deceive and manipulate others. Just like the Peacock, it is time to become aware of those who would use their words to take advantage of use.
#peacockrhetoric is discovery operated in the mode of tropes and color, winged and wingless speech, and form and substance.
Question 4:
Why Is the Relation between the Peacock and Rhetoric a Point of Departure for Mars?
Rhetoric and the Peacock intends to access other worlds, what David Bowie called life on Mars
Bowie had labeled the song lyrics of “Life on Mars?” abstract and explained them. They are about a girl who “… finds herself disappointed with reality...” that “although she’s living in the doldrums of reality, she’s being told that there’s a far greater life somewhere, and she’s bitterly disappointed that she doesn’t have access to it.” “Is there life on Mars?” Yes, I think so, meaning we need rhetoric and the peacock to challenge entrenched beliefs and break down the barriers that prevent women from reaching the presidency.
The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted women the right to vote, was not ratified until 1920, more than 140 years after the founding of the country. Even after women gained the right to vote, cultural norms and gender stereotypes continued to prevent women from entering politics, including running for the presidency. it wasn’t until the later part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century that women started to break down barriers and gain more representation in politics, including the election of women to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, governorship, and Cabinet appointments such as Secretary of State. Now 244 years after the founding of the county, a woman was elected as Vice President. Bowie was singing about a little girl who wondered about a life somewhere else. Little girls grow up.
Speaking in the style of Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own,” I would like to address the problem of living in the doldrums for more than two centuries. Just as Woolf argues for the importance of a physical space for women to write and create, I argue for the importance of a political space for women to lead and govern. In Bowie’s song, women have been denied access “to a far greater life.” Throughout history, women have been denied access to the highest echelons of power.
The exclusion of women from the presidency—the highest echelon of power—is not only a problem for women, but also, as Woolf observes, a problem for society. Women bring unique perspectives and experiences to leadership, and their absence from the highest office in the land undermines the diversity of thought and experiences that is necessary for a thriving democracy.
The exclusion of female leadership in the workplace can be understood as a market failure. A market failure occurs when the market fails to allocate resources in an efficient and equitable manner. In this case, the market fails to recognize and reward the full potential of women as leaders, leading to an underutilization of their skills and abilities.
This exclusion can result in a loss of potential productivity and innovation, as well as a loss of diversity in perspectives and approaches to problem solving. By excluding women from leadership positions, organization are missing our on valuable talent and ideas that could contribute to their success.
Bowie’s girl is disappointed because for most of life on earth the absence of women has perpetuated the notion that women are not fit to lead. She looks up and wonder if there is life on Mars which presumably would enable a new way of thinking.
Bowie’s preference for the question, Is there life on Mars?, stems from the desire to provide future generations with a glimpse into some of the key cultural and intellectual debates of our time, and would allow us to consider the larger questions of what it means to be human and what kind of society we want to build on our new home, should that be Mars.
The only reason I would go to Mars is if rhetoric were to become lost as an art on earth.
If rhetoric were to be lost as an art, it would likely have several significant impacts. Rhetoric is the study of persuasive communication and has been a critical aspect of human culture for thousands of years. Losing this art would mean losing the tools and techniques for effectively communicating and persuading others, which could lead to a decline in the quality of public discourse and the ability of individuals to influence and motivate others. Additionally, the loss of rhetoric as an art could result in a decline in critical thinking skills, as the study of rhetoric helps individuals analyze arguments and develop their own persuasive arguments. It could also result in a decline in the quality of education, as rhetoric has been a central part of classical education for centuries and is still an important part of many modern educational systems.
Overall, the loss of rhetoric as an art would likely have far-reaching and negative consequences for society and culture. It is therefore important to continue to value and study this important art form.