Dear Folks and Keith,



I’m jumping in not having kept up with all the postings. I’m also jumping out again. With my lack of context in mind (but my belief that an argument/post needs to stand on its own merits)  I read Keith’s post and thought that it begs for an accounting—what is the proof for these claims? Having read the end of it, I also wondered if empathy is required? I’m not sure.



When Keith states:

<snip> "Mostly I have been marginalised and tolerated as a funny fellow” <snip>

he could be using his feminine wiles on us as part of <snip>" the Sophistic Method,  learning how to make the weaker argument the stronger, so one might beat opponents, in political stoushes, is a feminine process. You learn distinct things so you can muck with your opponent. Playing the victim is a case in point with currency.” <snip>. If so, interesting strategy Keith.



That said, as a woman with functioning left and right sides of my brain, along with a still intact corpus collosum, I’m curious about four things.



1. How did you defend the conclusion tied your statement on the Sophistic Method—one that so clearly communicates an an attack? Note: I’m not interested in the historical underpinnings or the implications of sophistry  which I see as red herrings.



<snip> ... is a feminine process. You learn distinct things so you can muck with your opponent. Playing the victim is a case in point with currency. How to defeat an assertive man? Pretend you are a wounded female child. Show him cute wet childish eyes and he will fall apart. Do this is court and the man will go to jail for life.<snip>



It seems to me you claim that success in "mucking about" emerges because the emotional aspect of the argument will always win over appeals to logic or authority. Again I wonder, have you also learned "distinct things to muck with us" that have no basis in the kind of Socratic questioning or science you seem to prefer. Where is your proof, your statistical, rhetorical, or discourse analysis that would back up this claim for successful "wounded child" strategies?



2. More importantly, if all that mucking and childish eyes is a hot button, one giant red herring that contains a not so subtle ad hominem attack, why is this useful to you? In other words, in a post that will be read for its own merits, why lead with that weak point, when you seem to want to get to this one:



<snip>"Do we need and use both approaches? Of course we do. Do we need more of the Dionysian at this present moment in history? My answer is obviously, yes. Do we need to be less confident of our feminised Apollonian givens? My answer is obviously, yes”<snip>



3. Aside from tying masculine and feminine to historical touchpoints that suggest (intimidating) classical training, might your training have encouraged you to use concepts that have outlived their value as metaphor?



What proof medically or scientifically—or value rhetorically do these artificial ties to masculine and feminine contain? To me, like spontaneous generation to explain fly production, this metaphor needs to be replaced with better ideas. Your post implies that you agree. What you ascribe to the masculine and feminine, you also say are exhibited regardless of gender. If that is the case, couldn’t we as easily call one apples and the other oranges, eliminating potential attacks?



4. As for  the conclusions about disciplinary failure, you move from the authority of others to your own <snip> "Two thirds of my university teaching (20 years out of 30) took place in the area of Communication Studies” <snip>. You suggest to us that your time is proof, a conclusion that Aristotile might suggest is the lowest form of proof and that questioning using the Socratic Method would never leave unexamined.



When I read the post, at first I was insulted. Then I was curious. Since you're smarter than all of this, what satisfaction does it provide?



Susan











-----------------------------------------------------------------

PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>

Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design

Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design

-----------------------------------------------------------------