The American Heritage dictionary cites a rhetorical question as being: A question to which no answer is expected.
The same dictionary also defines rhetoric as: 1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. 2. A style of speaking or writing. 3. Language that is pretentous or insincere.
Having a definition is a great place to start with a journey...
About this term...I will be clear here...I personally am not interested in being pretentous nor am I interested in being insincere. There is no value in this to me and I have no interest in my being in the world through either of these lenses.
I am interested in the art of using language effectively and pursuasively...but in my opinion...effectively and persuasively actually includes definition and meaning in what is being said...otherwise it is essentially...simply...talking without actually saying anything...and quite frankly....what is the point of simply blowing wind?
I am more interested in depth...and I think my postings attempt to do this...and I will continue to pursue doing the same...
So...rhetorical questions...are really just for making a point...but they are not really a way of discussing anything of depth, personal value, or meaning...because by definition...one is not looking for an answer...or to use an old adage...one can not see the forrest for the trees.
How does one define integrity? A personal definition?...
Again the same dictionary defines integrity as: 1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. 2. Soundness. 3. Completeness; unity.
So...personal integrity...it should include the above definition...and be added to because it is personal...of course this is my opinon. But it is a deep question...because most people are not honest with them selves...much less being honest with their wife/husband....children....parents...siblings...employer...so how much personal integrity is one living with if one isn't even the least of what qualifies unity and completeness? Soundness? Morality or ethical codes? How much self respect is one living with if one does not have personal integrity? These are not....rhetorical questions...they are deep....meaningful...respectfilled personal questions that....again in my humble opinion....should be asked by every individual...and not just asked...but answered.
What does it mean in your life? What defines your personal integrity? What defines your self respect? How closely are you living up to what you think you should be doing? Are you close...or are you still searching for what this is...in your own life?
Language is important...and usuage of language is important...but if it does not contain meaning...then...well...what are we doing that has any real importance or value? Where is the personal growth? I would invite the reader to read one of my older posts. http://thethoughtlounge.blogspot.com/2007/05/meaning-making-machines.html
Personally...I am interested in my own growth as a person...my own development...my ability to understand depth...not simply rules...the lessons of the ten thousand things...and the letting those ten thousand things go...to again refer to and quote a very old text.
Namaste
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
In my opinion this is your most well written piece.
The opening could be broadened in a manner to incite interest.
For example “Personal integrity means more than what is defined” then lead the reader to your summary.
I do have some problems with understanding; “…I have no interest in my being in the world through either of these lenses…”
Despite that, I hope the poking and prodding; the praise and sentiment; the criticism and analysis has aided your writing. In the least, it has given you something to focus your writing on.
You are a pleasure, a treasure and delightful.
Just marvel
I wish this…
I find that presupposing ideas’… makes the next thought presumptuous.
“Why don’t you be who YOU are?”
Could be “Take that which is in you, and let that be what others know you by.”
But, I will not place the spotlight on introspection on this answer.
Putting effort in having more than the center of ones own attention.
And none to hold others down. That would be nice.
I agree with the assertion that …these words are not my words…
I place no ownership on the words that comprise the my ideas.
No the rules that govern there usage in order to convey thought.
I have ownership of thoughts and ideas. Of the words I lack possesion
Rather than think I am replicating. I reconstitute.
Where am I? Still here in the dark recesses and corners…soon to be a memory…
the lessons of the ten thousand things… so that all may know…find kinship… in this space…we call our place..
As suggested I have read your older essay. My thoughts...
There is not a bad idea written.
I hope that future word selection is given a priority. Especially with regard to clarity. As a reader, a lengthy amount of time is spent discerning the possible meaning of the essay and its parts due to the writer’s circumlocution.
I have rewritten as much discernable meaning as possible, up to the point where the self-talk began.
---In early childhood we make meaning out of anything, everything, and nothing. We succeed at placing meaning on a thing that doesn’t fit and wear this constriction. Sometimes we credit meaning to the incredible. We make many malformed meanings in early childhood. We convince ourselves and take to heart our distorted meanings. We accept these as truism. Allowing for self-perception formed early in life to carry forward into adulthood.---
There is a great distinction in doing things incorrectly and thinking to do incorrect things.
As there is a great distinction in being taught to think inaccuratly and being taught to think accurate.
Responce eminates from an earlier blogg.
I do agree that a new religion is emerging. However, I think the point was missed. The science of psychology is the forerunner in replacing fundamental, orthodox, “Old-time” religion. Psychologist and psychiatrists are the new priesthood.
Just as in the era of the Roman Empire through the Reformation and until now the priesthood created its own terminology, for subjects like Actual grace, actual sin, mortal sin, sanctifying grace, etc… its own conceptualisation of human nature, humanity, sociology…etc its own beliefs and practices.
But I don’t want to have presumed this process unique to just Catholicism. Rather, it can be applied to all the religious and the combinations of philosophical and psychological teachings such as Taoism.
Nor is this an American phenomenon.
What is you thought ?
Sorry,corrected spelling of "emanates"....
It happens..
I suggest this blog as a source for accurate writing technique.
http://simply-put.blogspot.com/2005/09/moral-authority.html
This is Ground Control to Major Tom
“…How much personal integrity is one living with if one isn't even the least of what qualifies unity and completeness…?
Trying to reconstruct this thought/idea as realistic and clearly expressed, as I might.
If I have interpreted you words correctly, first let me point out, that interpreting them is a best-guess endeavor, for me. I give us this…
What amount of integrity do you retain, when you are not whole or connected?
Within or outside of context.
Is this version or your original an expression of clear thought? Or even a clear and valid question?
Truly, I am not being nitpicky. You may have a profound or common question within those words. But they are placed together is an incomplete manner.
So, indulge me again and complete the question as you intended it to read.
You can call me AnonYmouse instead of Terry.
"The Ambiguous reply..."
Servitude to the IT.
(A pathway to eradicate the “Itiot’s”. With so many species worthy of saving from the jaws of extinction. Their absence will not be missed. )
At present, the definition of ‘Itiot’ can not be found in the American Heritage Dictionary. Nor in any form of literature or media. So, I will clarify the initial intended meaning. So that classification and identification can be made. Leading us to further research and development of a new and potent disambiguator for those infected and eventually an inoculant to serve as a preventative. Until such a time arises and an inoculant presents itself, I suggest the following method; identification, isolation and eradication.
The key characteristic trait of “itiots” : A person that habitually exhibits meaningless and or incomplete expressions of thought or ideas. Not markedly absent of ideas, more so they lack the means to recognize the absence of intelligent thought and meaning. Also lacking in the ability to form intelligible meaning. This is not intended to substitute for the similarly defining words idiot, ignorant or insane. Rather, it is continuing the classification.
Unfortunately, individuals having been exposed for several years to itiots may never fully recover from the affect. Most of these individuals eventually begin to develop characteristics of the itiot. Fortunately, a few remain uninfected and symptom less. This group exhibits a form of natural immunity, that as of yet,
has not been classified. While this naturally immune group proves to be small, the hope that an inoculant might be synthesized remains.
Most often the itiot will distinguish itself by emanating short, low, rhythmic sounds culminating with a short pause to be concluded with an idiom favoring “know what I mean.”
For example:
“It’s self explanatory, not to difficult… ask me any questions of what it is and let me know. Know what I mean ?”
to be continued...
AnonYmouse
Again, this is in no way directed toward the blogger/author or any individual.
I do mean to be humorous and serve this as an example of how to provide (via the written word) a definition to the reader.
AnonYmouse
Professional, Artistic, Peculiar, Private, Intimate; Integrity …
As my grandmother Emily Litella AnonYmouse would say; “Never mind”.
It seems my previous ranting definition was a false step. The American Heritage Dictionary in fact has defined “Inane” with the meaning I wanted to place on “itiot”. Still…
Then again, what was the moral of "The rhetorical question..."? Was it perhaps, the effort to express that one can not have a measurable amount of integrity if one is the least of what qualies as whole and connected? Or was this an implied observation? Is this a means to provide insight into the Bloggers experience and an informed opinion?
In an effort to gain understanding. Let me refer to another source that could offer eluviation for alteration or eliquation. (Pun intended/ pundigron )
Quote from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Integrity… “When used as a virtue term, ‘integrity’ refers to a quality of a person's character; however, there are other uses of the term. One may speak of the integrity of a wilderness region or an ecosystem, a computerized database, a defense system, a work of art, and so on. When integrity is applied to OBJECTS, it refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people.” …” What is it to be a person of integrity? Ordinary discourse about integrity involves two fundamental intuitions: first, that integrity is primarily a formal relation one has to oneself...,”
So, for the sake of the reader, the part of “The Rhetorical question…” as it applies to people/a person that needs further defining asks; …if one is the least of what qualifies as whole and connected… Certianly, the blogger didn’t mean to imply that a quadraplegic cannot have integrity. So, what are we to make of this question? Perhaps, the blogger’s misapprehension of the applied meaning…
This can not be true. The Blogger has clearly defined that there is no desire in the simple rules, of using language effectively and persuasively. Which does imply serious effort not to be misapprehensive. Therefore, inapprehension rests on the shoulders of the reader.
The faculty to understand. Perhaps the reader is “silly” or “fearful”, therefore is incapable of grasping the obvious.
Again looking to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “ …However, the most philosophically important sense of the term ‘integrity’ relates to general character. Philosophers have been particularly concerned to understand what it is for a person to exhibit integrity throughout life. Acting with integrity on some particularly important occasion will, philosophically speaking, always be explained in terms of broader features of a person's character and life….”
(What does it mean to be a person of integrity? … if one the least of what qualifies as whole and connected?)
Integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms. It is also perhaps the most puzzling. For example, while it is sometimes used synonymously with ‘moral,’ we also at times distinguish acting morally from acting with integrity. Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally—though they would usually not know they are acting immorally. Thus one may acknowledge a person to have integrity even though that person may hold importantly mistaken moral views.
While the obviousness of “The Rhetorical question…” eludes the reader. It is less than that which is utilitarian. Not the least of which is morally obligatory.
The reader can conclude that integrity is more than merely a matter of opinion.
… What qualities define people that exhibit questionable skill with confidence, cheerfulness, discipline, and willingness to perform assigned tasks? I.e. Morality…
I will depart from humor to arrive at seriousness
How do I love thee…
The Boggler is unbelievable, straining his naïveté. The Blogger is making this more of a pissing contest then discourse. Rather than asking what is, you ask what it is not. As such…
This represents a problem to divide the issue raised. The issue being, to determine if the flaws in logic, intention and grammar are of moral character or common sense. Presently, the scale is tipping toward the later.
What is not at issue, that currently the Blogger is out of his depth when discussing the origin and source of human intellect? Responding with a tirade of questions regarding the horrible state of the world and the horrible people can be overlooked. Ignorance can be overcome.
However, at the first indication the blogger was going to introduce the pretentious notion that reads; I (the Boggler) collect wisdom, understanding, knowledge like someone collects sea shells along the shore because a Great all omnipotent source provides them… this is by definition claiming unjustifiable merit.
Secondly, the Blogger attempts to direct the reader’s attention from the rational to the absurd. Through the use of weak inductive reasoning, like a child’s magic trick. Attempting such a shift requires a skill that avoids further exposing the weakness. When failing to do this the bogglers ideas become in the least uninteresting, at most ridiculous.
For example; the blogger makes a point of telling us he has “things” collected.“…I believe that I collect things along my path…” He reveals these “things” to be “…intellect, understanding, gift, or wisdom…” and ”…I believe that I collect things along my path…The ideas...perceptions...beliefs...faith...understanding...education...and even a shot or two of wisdom...these things and more I pick up along the journey…”
The bloggers premise needs the reader to believe this list of “things” can/has been easily collected. This reader is not as arrogant or foolish to affirm your belief. And wants and waits for the blogger to demonstrate his proficiency in these things.
When the Boggler said; “The second paragraph was not meant as satirical nor was it contrived.” Obviously, the blogger misunderstood the meaning of word contrived. Is this reader to believe this admission into a mind absent of planning and organizing is valid? You have intentions.
Last, that the Blogger believes that he can hide his feebly constructed idea by hiding behind Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates. In no way does the ‘Republic’ hold a distaining view on human intellect; rather it exposes foolish and oppressive use of….
You claim to have reread prior works. Try reconsidering them instead.
I suggest, then you’ll realize why your request “Open invitation” has been limited.
And the add-pabulum comments(non-by AnonYmouse) would cease.
I will sum up by borrowing from Brian Hugh Warner:
"And I don't want you and I don't need you
Don't bother to resist, or I'll beat you
It's not your fault that you're always wrong
The weak ones are there to justify the strong..."
… with Dignity, Grace and Honor
I will provide a response to the sensitive question to your young son’s contemplation of his mortality.
It is an unfortunate human condition, dying. I have been at hand four times and witnessed the process. I have found no beauty or comfort in it and can offer little aid in expanding the reasons to broaden the subject for the purpose of contemplation. Fairly, the aspiration to narrow the scale of the process is best possible preparation.
Dieing when met with the care and comfort of loved ones is best. Those aiding in the process need to be free of the propensity to dilute the self. Those who are not, are consumed by it. I also have witnessed this destruction. For those who continue forward cherish the remainder.
So, it becomes imperative to contemplate how you will approach, deal with the process and continue. And when the individual (your son, my son, you and I) approache that threshold, the best we can do, is approach and pass through it with dignity, grace and honor.
Strength to you
AnonYmouse
e-ro-tem'-a
AnounYmouse
P.S.
Just received this video(http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/jpl-cassini20071018.html)
Please, check it out and note the timeline, and the demonstration of how increased the source of information has become.
Enjoy !
AnounYmouse
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
I always motivated by you, your thoughts and attitude, again, appreciate for this nice post.
- Thomas
Please, give me link to download XRumer 7.0!!!
Thanks!
Always yours,
miss MW
[url=][/url]
[url=http://sexrolikov.net.ua/tags/%EF%E0%F5%F3%F7%F3%FE/]пахучую[/url] Online porno : [url=http://sexrolikov.net.ua/tags/%EF%E0%F5%F3%F7%F3%FE/]пахучую[/url] , это все смотри
Post a Comment