<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:002101d6e90e$4c95d4b0$e5c17e10$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@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;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<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. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Nick -</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.</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<br>
</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?)</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.<br>
</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!".</p>
<p>Joust on!</p>
<p> - Steve</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. <br>
</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.</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><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>