I think that there are multiple strategies to evade some of this structure that are very hard to manage because we have built no counter offensive yet.
One very new one is “Verbum ex machina” where something a machine or computer spits out is seen as authoritative, a variant on “deus ex machina” in drama. The anonymity of AI is useful.
I think that there are multiple strategies to evade some of this structure that are very hard to manage because we have built no counter offensive yet.
One very new one is “Verbum ex machina” where something a machine or computer spits out is seen as authoritative, a variant on “deus ex machina” in drama. The anonymity of AI is useful.
There are other versions of this - “argumentum ex scientia” where all language is impenetrable scientific jargon, quite popular.
Here is a book about gender I generated Sunday afternoon - “generated by an AI” - in the language of “Judith Butler” with somewhat impenetrable jargon “ex scientia” though I’ve been told it’s more readable than Judith:
What do you refute? People have a very hard time labeling what a computer creates as having human attributes or points of rhetorical attack. It feels like you are attacking a paper clip.
Another idea is what I call “Verbum ex juvenes” or “what kids say”, which gives the appearance of being unsullied or tainted by any possible adult objective.
Here’s the same book from the Sunday batch as though written by the plucky Nancy Drew.
Humor and ridicule is a powerful rhetorical device also, and when done well, devastating. It takes many forms. It can introduce ideas which normal defenses block but the silliness key allows it to get in your mind. Perhaps “Verbum ex morio” - words from a buffoon.
Same book except written by Foucault in a hideous Pepe le Pew French.
Anyway I have the same idea constructed by Dawkins, Sontag, Hesse, Kafka, Sapphire, Achebe, Assis, Mishima, Xun, Gibran, Premchand, Allende, Solzhenitsyn and Edward Gorey, and Plato. Enough time for a beer at The Eagle Sunday afternoon beer bust with the leather guys while waiting for the AI ghost writer to crank them out.
The purpose of rhetoric is not to be correct, it is to convince people. It’s part of the foundation of the trivium “grammar, logic, and rhetoric” and somewhat separates skill in logic from rhetoric, and the accuracy of grammar.
There are many approaches possible now at a scale never before thought of. The “Santorum” ploy is only the tip of the iceberg.
As a writing, grammar, and rhetoric instructor, I can say few people know English grammar, fewer know logic, and fewer still know rhetoric enough to detect when the Ivory Tower uses the illogic of the obstacle course, minefield, and tprf to retain power and authority at the expense of Truth. Students arrive willing to assent to such expert authority, from whom they then parrot the rampant illogic of the ideology at play. Students think they are ‘factually’ or ‘truthfully’ critiquing their newly revealed false consciousness when they are actually persuaded by a professor’s lack of sharing countervailing evidence and rhetoric; by trusting the sheer volume of an article’s citations; by an ideology that is an orthodoxy, etc.
I think that there are multiple strategies to evade some of this structure that are very hard to manage because we have built no counter offensive yet.
One very new one is “Verbum ex machina” where something a machine or computer spits out is seen as authoritative, a variant on “deus ex machina” in drama. The anonymity of AI is useful.
There are other versions of this - “argumentum ex scientia” where all language is impenetrable scientific jargon, quite popular.
Here is a book about gender I generated Sunday afternoon - “generated by an AI” - in the language of “Judith Butler” with somewhat impenetrable jargon “ex scientia” though I’ve been told it’s more readable than Judith:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5vwtrgnc06kipela6muug/Butler_112233full.pdf?rlkey=39zh8v4p2dsluni0xznlt1k8j&dl=0
What do you refute? People have a very hard time labeling what a computer creates as having human attributes or points of rhetorical attack. It feels like you are attacking a paper clip.
Another idea is what I call “Verbum ex juvenes” or “what kids say”, which gives the appearance of being unsullied or tainted by any possible adult objective.
Here’s the same book from the Sunday batch as though written by the plucky Nancy Drew.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/l64vkkcs9q1z3hzt5tyi1/ButlerDrew_112233full.pdf?rlkey=d1k8968emvlmvkhw9i6s1hm61&dl=0
Humor and ridicule is a powerful rhetorical device also, and when done well, devastating. It takes many forms. It can introduce ideas which normal defenses block but the silliness key allows it to get in your mind. Perhaps “Verbum ex morio” - words from a buffoon.
Same book except written by Foucault in a hideous Pepe le Pew French.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/11z67n1vrpj2rdb1adhj5/ButlerFoucault_112233full.pdf?rlkey=ehmkzggyowztnsazgwsw92qbp&dl=0
Anyway I have the same idea constructed by Dawkins, Sontag, Hesse, Kafka, Sapphire, Achebe, Assis, Mishima, Xun, Gibran, Premchand, Allende, Solzhenitsyn and Edward Gorey, and Plato. Enough time for a beer at The Eagle Sunday afternoon beer bust with the leather guys while waiting for the AI ghost writer to crank them out.
The purpose of rhetoric is not to be correct, it is to convince people. It’s part of the foundation of the trivium “grammar, logic, and rhetoric” and somewhat separates skill in logic from rhetoric, and the accuracy of grammar.
There are many approaches possible now at a scale never before thought of. The “Santorum” ploy is only the tip of the iceberg.
As a writing, grammar, and rhetoric instructor, I can say few people know English grammar, fewer know logic, and fewer still know rhetoric enough to detect when the Ivory Tower uses the illogic of the obstacle course, minefield, and tprf to retain power and authority at the expense of Truth. Students arrive willing to assent to such expert authority, from whom they then parrot the rampant illogic of the ideology at play. Students think they are ‘factually’ or ‘truthfully’ critiquing their newly revealed false consciousness when they are actually persuaded by a professor’s lack of sharing countervailing evidence and rhetoric; by trusting the sheer volume of an article’s citations; by an ideology that is an orthodoxy, etc.
That’s the beauty of rhetorical jujutsu - feed them on their own devices.