<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Nah! No, you are doubling down on the idea that some communication is not persuasive because it is to our emotions. Remember. I believe that all emotions are rational. (Just based on low probability data.) \u201cPfffft!\u201d as Glen has taught me to say. I love to say it. \u201cPfffft!\u201d \u201cPfffft!\u201d \u201cPfffft!\u201d<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:53 PM<br><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine Emulator<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Colleagues;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I want to recommend the dialogue below for all who read. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What is the probative value of a narrative? What is the probative value of a photo of demonstrator beating a policeman with a flag? Well, narrowly, if the narrative is accurate and the photo is not faked, they prove that such a thing COULD happen, because, you can plainly see, it has happened. What IS the probative value of a poem? Nothing? Then why are people sometimes convinced by them. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p>Nick -<o:p></o:p></p><p>I think you are doubling down on Glen's implication that a poem is intended to be persuasive ("convincing" in your term)? While an apt poem (or joke, or song, ) offered with good timing can be persuasive in the context of an argument, it can also/instead be *illuminating* in the context of a generative dialog.<o:p></o:p></p><p>I'm much more interested in a generative and synthetic dialog than in analytical and/or rhetorical one. In your pursuit of publishable results from all our rattling on here, I understand the need/value of doing very careful analysis and then build a rhetorical<o:p></o:p></p><p>EricS's recent invocation of the Albatross and Mariner images from Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" sent me back to that text which I chose to listen to, read to me (thank you Alexa) by a practiced reader. I was primarily interested in Eric's revised analysis of Trump as Mariner/Democracy as Albatross and whatever embodied wisdom/perspective this "told story" had to offer. I was drawn quickly to the image of "Rime" which I will leave the analysis to others here who might have dipped their beak (or earholes) into this bit of Coleridge. I wasn't inclined to be persuaded by Eric to any particular moral judgement, just to add (if I didn't already have it) the offered allegory to my quiver of perspectives on this big mess we are trying to find our way out of (deeper into?)<o:p></o:p></p><p>Not to miss the chance Nick, I *do* agree with you that the photos/clips of the insurrection/coup-attempt last week represent a "possibility by example" proof. Context matters (hugely) (sad how traditional media AND internet media have normalized everything to be taken out of context?) and with modern mediocre (well edited by a clever human) and "deep" fakes, I'm rarely inclined to take any image, video or sound recording as an absolute objective fact, even if it doesn't carry any obvious (even to careful technical analysis) evidence of spoofing/construction. But as with good fiction (storytelling), I don't have to believe that there were literally two naked modern humans named Adam and Eve in a Garden of Plenty who became the progenitors of all human kind to learn something useful from the story.<o:p></o:p></p><p>This leads us full circle back to the question of what is "really real"? And by correlation, can fictional narrative speak a qualitatively superior truth to factual narrative? I'm not nearly PoMo literate enough to know if this has all been Derrida'ed and Foucault'ed thoroughly. The competing narratives on the topic seem to be at an impasse, which I probably can't even characterize well. Others may feel they are making headway in coming to a better understanding of the question, or perhaps each faction (is there more than 2?) are stuck in the (IMO fruitless) exercise of trying to persuade the other. While I think I now recognize and appreciate Glen's use of the terms Strawman/Steelman, they seem to reflect the idiom recently (re)Popularized by the Poet-Philosopher Rudi Guilliani with "Trial by Combat!".<o:p></o:p></p><p>Joust on!<o:p></o:p></p><p> - Steve<o:p></o:p></p><p>PS(ssst!)... my more-aggressive-than-usual style here is probably just me sublimating my frustration with not being positioned well to "break up the bar-fight" that is our national politics today. I grant Marcus' strategy of "ducking out the back and let them kill one another" plenty merit when it is a "brawl" or another episode in a "gang war", but most bar/street fights I've been (even obliquely) aware of had an element of a bully and a victim, and I'm still proud of stepping between the two and facing down the bully while the (potential) victim gets a chance to collect themselves and either withdraw or wait for someone (bully's friends, bartender wielding a pool cue, or maybe the cops) to remove the bully from the equation. If I miss my cue and turned my back to the real bully, I risk getting blindsided by the faux-victim and having possibly just made things worse. <o:p></o:p></p><p>The Capitol insurrection/coup-attempt was some many thousands of bullies trying to intimidate our elected representatives who had to first bully a few hundred capitol police to get access. If I'd been on site (could anyone there have been truly an innocent bystander?) I'd have been more likely to throw myself on one of the grenades (metaphorical) than to "duck out the back"... I understand why many would "duck out the back" to (not?) "fight another day". I'm glad few if any of the Capitol Police chose that option, but then that was what they were (self?) selected (and paid) for.<o:p></o:p></p><p> Unsurprisingly, the Right (from hard-core Radical Extreme to more recentTrump-Radicalized) uses an obvious but still effective tactic that all bullies play from time to time which is pretending to be the victim: "what are YOU looking at, huh?" I really hope that those who are true (little c) conservatives can see how their crypto-cousin high-T, grievance-shouting radical-rabble are as dangerous to them and their idealized way of life (if not more) than their presumed complement of (little l) liberals. </ramble><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>