On Truth and Obligation

That’s what has been happening down the ages. That is the way of autohypnosis. John Lilly is absolutely wrong. “What the mind believes,” he says, “is true….” It is not. It only appears true.
And he says “… or it becomes true.” It never becomes true by being believed, but it starts appearing true. Yes, for the believer it becomes true, although it is not true, because belief begins in ignorance. Belief cannot create truth; truth is already the case.
Remember the first preliminary of Atisha: truth is. You need not believe in it for it to be. Your belief or your disbelief is not going to make any difference to the truth. Truth is truth, whether you believe or you disbelieve.
But if you believe in something it starts appearing as true to you at least. That’s what the meaning of belief is: belief means to believe in something as true – you know that you don’t know, you know that the truth is unknown to you, but in your ignorance you start believing, because belief is cheap.
To discover truth is arduous, it needs a long pilgrimage. It needs a great emptying of the mind, it needs a great cleansing of the heart. It needs a certain innocence, a rebirth: you have to become a child again.
Only very few people have ever dared to discover truth. And it is risky, because it may not console you; it has no obligation to console you. It is risky: it may shatter all that you have known before, and you will have to rearrange your whole life. It is dangerous: it may destroy all your illusions, it may shatter all your dreams. It is really going through fire; it is going to burn you as you are, it is going to kill you as you are. And who knows what will happen later on?
How can the seed know that by dying in the soil it will become a great tree? It will not be there to witness the happening. How can the seed know that one day, if it dies, there will be great foliage, green leaves, great branches, and flowers and fruits? How can the seed know? The seed will not be there. The seed has to disappear before it can happen. The seed has never met the tree. The seed has to disappear and die.
Only very few people have that much courage. It really needs guts to discover truth. You will die as yourself. You will certainly be born, but how can you be convinced of it? What guarantee is there? There is no guarantee.
Hence, unless you are with a master who has died and is reborn, who has crucified himself and is resurrected – unless you come across a man like Christ or Buddha or Atisha – you will not be able to gather enough courage.
Seeing Atisha, something may start stirring in your heart, a chord may be touched, something may be triggered, a synchronicity. The presence of somebody who has arrived may create a great longing in you, may become the birth of an intense passionate search for truth.
Belief cannot give you the truth, it only pretends. It is cheap, it is a plastic flower. You need not take all the trouble of growing a rosebush, you can simply go to the market and purchase plastic flowers – and they are more lasting too, in fact they are almost eternal. Once in a while you can wash them, and they are fresh again. They will not deceive you, but at least they can deceive the neighbors, and that is the point. You will know all along that they are plastic flowers. How can you forget it? You have purchased them! The neighbors may be deceived, but how can you be deceived?
And I don’t think that even the neighbors are deceived, because they have also purchased plastic flowers. They know they are deceiving you, they know you are deceiving them. Everybody is perfectly aware that everybody else is deceiving. “But this is how life is,” people say. Nobody is really deceived. People just pretend to be deceived. You pretend that you have real flowers, others pretend that they are deceived. Just watch, observe, and what I am saying will be experienced by you. It is a simple fact; I am not talking philosophy, just stating facts.
What John Lilly says is utter nonsense. He says, “What the mind believes is true.” It is never true, because belief has nothing to do with truth. You can believe that this is night but just by your believing, this is not going to become night. But you can believe, and you can close your eyes and for you it is night – but only for you, remember, not in truth. You are living in a kind of hallucination.
There is this danger in belief: it makes you feel that you know the truth. And because it makes you feel that you know the truth, this becomes the greatest barrier in the search. Believe or disbelieve and you are blocked – because disbelief is also nothing but belief in a negative form.
The Catholic believes in God, the communist believes in no God: both are believers. Go to Kaaba or go to the Comintern, go to Kailash or to the Kremlin, it is all the same. The believer believes it is so, the nonbeliever believes it is not so. And because both have already settled without taking the trouble to go and discover it, the deeper is their belief, the stronger is their belief, the greater is the barrier. They will never go on a pilgrimage, there is no point. They will live surrounded by their own illusion, self-created, self-sustained; it may be consoling, but it is not liberating. Millions of people are wasting their lives in belief and disbelief.
The inquiry into truth begins only when you drop all believing. You say, “I would like to encounter the truth on my own. I will not believe in Christ and I will not believe in Buddha. I would like to become a christ or a buddha myself, I would like to be a light unto myself.”
Why should one be a Christian? It is ugly. Be a christ if you can be, but don’t be a Christian. Be a buddha if you have any respect for yourself, but don’t be a Buddhist. The Buddhist believes. Buddha knows.
When you can know, when knowing is possible, why settle for believing? But again, the society would like you to believe, because believers are good people, obedient, law-abiding. They follow all formalities and etiquette, they are never trouble-makers. They simply follow the crowd, whichever crowd they happen to be in; they simply go with the crowd. They are not real men, they are sheep. Humanity has not yet arrived.
Somebody once said to George Bernard Shaw, “What do you think about civilization?”
He said, “It is a good idea. Somebody should try it.”
It has not yet been tried. Humanity is still arriving; we are still groping between animality and humanity. We are in limbo: man has to be born, man has to be given birth to; we have to prepare the ground for man to appear.
And the most significant thing that will help that man to come will be if we can drop believing – if we can drop being Christians, Hindus, Mohammedans, Jainas, Buddhists, communists. If you can drop believing, immediately your energy will take a new turn: it will start inquiring. And to inquire is beautiful. Your life will become a pilgrimage to truth, and in that very pilgrimage you grow.
Growth is a by-product of the inquiry into truth. Believers never grow, they remain childish. And remember, to be childlike and to be childish are poles apart, they are not the same thing. It is beautiful to be childlike. The man of trust is childlike and the man of belief is childish. To be childlike is the ultimate in growth; that is the very culmination – consciousness has come to the ultimate peak. To be childlike means to be a sage, and to be childish means to be just un-grownup.
The average mental age of human beings on the earth today is not more than twelve years. When for the first time this was discovered, it was such a shock. Nobody had ever thought about it; it was just by accident that it became known. In the First World War, for the first time in human history, the people who were candidates, who wanted to enter the army, were examined. Their mental age was inquired into, their IQ was determined. This was a great revelation – that they were not more than twelve years; the average age was just twelve years.
This is childishness. The body goes on growing, and the mind has stopped at the age of twelve. What kind of humanity have we created on this earth? Why does the mind stop at twelve? Because by the time one is twelve, one has gathered all kinds of beliefs; one is already a believer, one already “knows” what truth is. One is a Christian, another is a communist; one believes in God, one does not believe in God; one believes in The Bible and the other believes in Das Kapital; one believes in the Bhagavad Gita, another believes in the Red Book of Mao Zedong.
We have drilled concepts and ideologies into the innocent minds of poor children. They are already becoming knowers. Do you know – by the age of seven, a child already knows fifty percent of all that he will ever know. And by the time he is fourteen he has almost arrived; now there is nowhere to go, he has only to vegetate. Now he will exist as a cabbage. If he goes to college then, as they say, he may become a cauliflower. A cabbage with a college education is a cauliflower. But there is not much difference, just labels change. The cabbage becomes an M.A., a Ph.D., this and that, and just to show respect we call it a cauliflower. But the mental age is twelve.
The real man grows to the very end. Even while he is dying, he is growing. Even the last moment of his life will still be an inquiry, a search, a learning. He will still be inquiring – now inquiring into death. He will be fascinated: death is such an unknown phenomenon, such a mystery, far more mysterious than life itself – how can an intelligent man be afraid? If in life he has not been afraid to go into the uncharted and the unknown, at the moment of death he will be thrilled, ecstatic. Now the last moment has come: he will be entering into the darkness, the dark tunnel of death. This is the greatest adventure one can ever go on; he will be learning.
A real man never believes; he learns. A real man never becomes knowledgeable; he always remains open, open to truth. And he always remembers that “It is not that truth has to adjust to me, but just vice versa: I have to adjust to truth.” The believer tries to adjust truth to himself, the seeker adjusts himself to truth. Remember the difference; the difference is tremendous. One who believes, he says, “Truth should be like this, this is my belief.”
Just think of a Christian…. If God appears not like Jesus Christ but like Krishna, not on the cross but with a flute and girlfriends dancing around him, the Christian will close his eyes; he will say, “This is not my cup of tea.” Girlfriends? Can you think of Jesus with girlfriends? The cross and girlfriends can’t go together. Jesus hanging on the cross and girlfriends dancing around? It won’t fit, it will be very bizarre. He was waiting for Christ to appear, and instead of Christ this guy, Krishna, appears: he seems to be debauched. And the flute? The world is suffering and people are hungry and they need bread – and this man is playing on the flute? He seems to be utterly uncompassionate, he seems to be indulgent. The Christian cannot believe in Krishna: if God appears as Krishna, then the Christian will say, “This is not God.”
And the same will be the case with the Hindu who was waiting for Krishna: if Christ appears, that will not be his idea of God – so sad, such a long face, so gloomy, with such suffering on his face.
Christians say Jesus never laughed. I don’t think they are right, and I don’t think they are representing the real Christ, but that’s what they have managed to propagate. The Hindu cannot accept the revelation; he must think this is some kind of nightmare. Jesus will not appeal to him.
The believer cannot even trust his own experience. Even if truth is revealed, he will reject it, unless it fits with him. He is more important than truth itself: truth has an obligation to fit with him. He is the criterion, he is the decisive factor. This kind of man can never know truth; he is already prejudiced, poisoned.
The man who wants to know truth has to be capable of dropping all concepts about truth. Everything about truth has to be dropped. Only then can you know truth. Know well: to know about truth is not to know truth. Whatsoever you know may be utter nonsense; there is every possibility that it is utter nonsense. In fact people can be conditioned to believe any kind of nonsense; they can be convinced.
Once I went to address a conference of theosophists. Now, theosophists are people who will believe any bullshit – ANY! The more shitty it is, the more believable. So I just played a joke on them. I simply invented something; I invented a society called “Sitnalta.” They were all dozing, they became alert. “Sitnalta?” I made the word by just reading “Atlantis” backwards. And then I told them, “This knowledge comes from Atlantis, the continent that disappeared in the Atlantic ocean.”
And then I talked about it: “There are really not seven chakras but seventeen. That great ancient esoteric knowledge is lost, but a society of enlightened masters still exists, and it still works. It is a very very esoteric society, very few people are allowed to have any contact with it; its knowledge is kept utterly secret.”
And I talked all kinds of nonsense that I could manage. And then the president of the society said, “I have heard about this society.” Now it was my turn to be surprised. And about whatsoever I had said, he said that it was the first time that the knowledge of this secret society had been revealed so exactly.
And then letters started coming to me. One man even wrote saying, “I thank you very much for introducing this inner esoteric circle to the theosophists, because I am a member of the society, and I can vouch that whatsoever you have said is absolutely true.”
There are people like these who are just waiting to believe in anything, because the more nonsensical a belief is, the more important it appears to be. The more absurd it is, the more believable – because if something is logical, then there is no question of believing in it.
You don’t believe in the sun, you don’t believe in the moon. You don’t believe in the theory of relativity: either you understand it or you don’t understand it; there is no question of belief. You don’t believe in gravitation; there is no need. Nobody believes in a scientific theory – it is logical. Belief is needed only when something illogical, something utterly absurd, is propounded.
Tertullian said, “I believe in God because it is absurd: Credo Quia Absurdum, my creed is the absurd.”
All beliefs are absurd. If a belief is very logical, it will not create belief in you. So people go on inventing things.
Man is basically a coward, he does not want to inquire. And he does not want to say “I don’t know” either.
Now, that president of the theosophical society who said, “I have heard about this society” – he cannot say that he does not know, he does not have even that much courage. To accept one’s ignorance needs courage. To accept that you don’t know is the beginning of real knowledge. You go on believing, because there are holes in your life which have to be filled, and belief is easily available.
There are three hundred religions on the earth. One truth, and three hundred religions? One God, and three hundred religions? One existence, and three hundred religions? And I am not talking about sects – because each religion has dozens of sects, and then there are sub-sects of sects, and it goes on and on. If you count all the sects and all the sub-sects, then there will be three thousand or even more.
How can so many beliefs, contradictory to each other, go on? People have a certain need – the need not to appear ignorant. How to fulfill this need? Gather a few beliefs. And the more absurd the belief is, the more knowledgeable you appear, because nobody else knows about it.
There are people who believe in a hollow earth, and that inside the earth there is a civilization. Now, if somebody says so you cannot deny it; you cannot accept it, but at least you have to listen attentively. And that serves a purpose: everybody wants to be listened to attentively. And one thing is certain, this man knows more than you. You don’t know whether the earth is hollow or not; this man knows. And who knows? He may be right. He can gather a thousand and one proofs; he can argue for it, he can propound it in such a way that you at least have to be silent if you don’t agree.
Believers and believers and believers – but where is truth? There are so many believers, but where is truth? If John Lilly is right, then the world would be full of truth, you would come across it everywhere. Everybody would have truth, because everybody is a believer. No, it is all nonsense.
He says, “What the mind believes is true or becomes true.” No. What the mind believes is never true, because truth needs no belief. Belief is a barrier to truth. And what the mind believes never becomes true, because truth is not becoming, truth is being; it is already the case. You have to see it – or you can go on avoiding seeing it, but it is there. Nothing has to be added to it, it is eternally there.
And the best way to avoid truth is to believe. Then you need not look at it. Your eyes become full of belief; belief functions as dust on the eyes. You become closed into yourself, the belief becomes a prison around you. Belief closes you: then you are living within yourself in a windowless existence, and you can go on believing whatsoever you want to believe. But remember, it is belief, and belief is a lie.
Let me say that even when the truth is told to you, don’t believe in it! Explore, inquire, search, experiment, experience: don’t believe in it. Even when truth is conveyed to you, if you believe in it, you turn it into a lie. A truth believed is a lie, belief turns truth into a lie.
Believe in Buddha and you believe in a lie. Believe in Christ and you believe in a lie. Don’t believe in Christ, don’t believe in Buddha, don’t believe in me. What I say, listen to it attentively, intelligently; experiment, experience. And when you have experienced, will you need to believe in it? There will be no doubt left, so what will be the point of belief? Belief is a way of repressing doubt: you doubt, hence you need belief.
The rock of belief represses the spring of doubt.
When you know, you know! You know it is so; there is no doubt left. Your experience has expelled all darkness and all doubt. Truth is: you are full of it. Truth never creates belief.
How to attain to truth? By dropping all kinds of beliefs. And remember, I am saying all kinds – belief in me is included. Experience me, come along with me, let me share what I have seen, but don’t believe, don’t be in a hurry. Don’t say, “Now what is the point? Now Osho has seen it, all that is left for me is to believe it.”
What I have seen cannot become your experience unless you see it. And it is the experience of truth that delivers you from ignorance, from bondage, from misery. It is not the belief that delivers you, it is truth.
Jesus says, “Truth liberates.” But how to attain to truth? It is not a question of belief, but a question of meditativeness. And what is meditation? Meditation is emptying your mind completely of all belief, ideology, concept, thought. Only in an empty mind, when there is no dust left on the mirror, truth reflects. That reflection is a benediction.

Start with No – Notes

  1. Have your own calculation ?
  2. Dont show “Neediness “ .
  3. Slow down … To be in control during negotiation..
  4. Don’t worry about Rejection . Rejection is a cause for neediness. It also means trying to be likeable. But also There cannot be any rejection; rejection means your adversary need something from you. If they do not need , then how can there be a rejection.
  5. In Labor Management Dispute – Find a union member who has a big ego , and wants to be liked . Use it ..
  6. It all because team gets killed when the chief negotiator has the neediness to be known as smart, to be liked, to feel important, and urge them to compromise.
  7. Wanting is fine, Needing is not.
  8. You do not need to close ; Your adversary needs to.
  9. In Japan, It is said that make decision through stomach; Not head nor Heart — But with Stomach.
  10. Forget “Yes” and Forget “Maybe” –
  11. Make them Say No.
  12. Negotiation means that Both parties have right to veto . Which is to be the case. And then it would be the idea.
  13. How will they like me; or How they will perceive my company ?
  14. Never, “Save the Adversary” or “Save the Relationship”.
  15. Un – “Qualified” adversary.
  16. Respect, Not Friendship, What you want ?
  17. More important then Friendship is “Effectiveness” and “Respect”.
  18. Why would you want to load down a business relationshipwith a lot of emotional baggage, including guilt, which can bethe by-product of “friendship”? It doesn’t work. It doesn’t pay.
  19. “Lieutenant Camp, you sure make some bad decisions in this air-plane, but don’t worry. As long as you at least do make decisions,we can fix the bad ones.”
  20. Understand the power of “No”.
    1. If you do not accept No, you are going to burn too many bridges
    2. No is not rejection; but a honest decision that can be discussed and reversed.
    3. No will bring you respect
  21. How to build “No” ?
    1. It needs a valid “Mission” and “Purpose”.
    2. Its an Airtight guide to effective decision making.
      1. Typical Conversation
        1. “Why take this deal?”
        2. “The whole thing sounds too good.””Maybe I can win even more.”
        3. “Why are they making this so easy?””What do they know that I don’t know?””This can’t be right.”
        4. “How can I get out of this?”
  22. If your negotiation serves a valid missionand purpose, you don’t have to worry about whether you getevery last dollar or concession out of the deal, or whether you
  23. gave enough dollars and concessions. You don’t worry about thelong-term relationship. You are not responsible for the otherparty’s decisions. You don’t care whether this contract is win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose. Such scorekeeping is sud-denly seen for what it is: arbitrary, empty, meaningless. You don’thave to worry about it anymore, and this freedom will liberateyou in a negotiation, believe me.
  24. If you’re not working on be-half of your own mission and purpose, you’re working on behalfof someone else’s.
  25. Problem is not to have an “I-Centered” mission
    1. The essential problem is that they are I-centered. They are set in the world ofthe individual building the mission and purpose.
  26. Money for money’s sake does corrupt; power for power’s sake does corrupt.
  27. Another problem with concentrating on money and power asa mission and purpose is that you’re scorekeeping, and score-keeping means you’re thinking about results over which you have no real control.
  28. W i n -ning isn’t everything, but the will to prepare to win is everything.”
  29. Having Valid M&P ?
    1. It must be set in the “Adversary World” ?
  30. You do not go anywhere without an adversary
  31. Likewise, the mission and purpose of the booking agent for the dance company in the negotiation with the program director was not to secure another week of touring for the company and increase its earnings. It was not to secure a commission for the booking agent and in-crease her earnings. It was to get this director to see and decide that presenting this particular dance company would bring cultural richness to her organization’s audiences and community,and to help the program director fulfill her organization’s ownmission and purpose.
  32. This is the day and age of teamwork in business, and the teammust have its own mission and purpose that is..
  33. In his excellent book Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Prac-tices, Peter Drucker dedicates many pages to the issue of under-standing what it is you really do—your mission and purpose. Hewrites, “Your business is never apparent. It requires in-depthquestioning that gives you a process that provides constant refo-cusing of what you do.” You must continuously analyze and ask yourself: What is my business? What is my mission? What is my purpose?
  34. My clients do not set sales targets, quotas, num-bers, percentages. Never. Instead, they set goals they can control…..
  35. Negotiation never ends.
  36. In a negotiation, nurturing will keep the negotiation going through thick and thin. Your ability to nurture will be the key tobringing the negotiation back to the table after a breakdown.Your ability to nurture your adversary, to put him or her at ease,is the key to assuring her that you are listening and that you valuewhat she has to say. Nurturing is also just another way to allowyour adversary to feel okay.
  37. Your job is to get informationfrom the adversary by asking questions, not to provide informa-tion by answering questions.
  38. Blank State
    1. For the negotiator, even a positive attitude is dangerous. Yes, it’strue. It can devolve quickly into neediness, into positive expec-tations. When I teach blank slate, I mean blank slate. And it’shard.
  39. Neither positive nor negative expectations have a place in mysystem. You blank slate and you negotiate, that’s all. When youhave a mission and purpose in place, when you have behavioralgoals in place, when you’ve established your plan to solve the realproblem, when you have laserlike focus—when you have all thisgoing for you, why would you want to climb on any kind ofemotional roller coaster of expectations?

Shayari – One Liners

Log toot jate hai ek ghar banane mein
Tum taras nahi khate bastiyan jalane mein
Hamesha tinke hi chunte gujar gai apni
Magar chaman mein kahin aashiyan bana na sake
Doondta rahta hoon ae ‘Iqbal’ apne aap ko
Aap hi goya musafir, aap hi manjil hoon main
Teri dua se kaza to badal nahi sakti
Magar hai is se yeh mumkin ki tu badal jaye
Teri dua hai ki ho teri Aarzoo poori
Meri dua hai teri Aarzoo badle jaye.
Chadhte Sooraj ke pujari to lakhon hai ‘Faraz’
Doobte waqt humne sooraj ko bhi tanha dekha
Zindgi to apne kadmo pe chalti hai ‘Faraz’
Auron ke sahare to janaze utha karte hain
Kaun pareshan hota hai tere gham se ‘Faraz’
Wo apni hi kisi baat pe roya hoga
Bahut ajeeb hai ye bandishein mohabbat ki ‘Faraz’
Na usne qaid mein rakha na hum faraar hue
किताबों से दलील दूँ या खुद को सामने रख दूँ ‘फ़राज़’ ,
वो मुझ से पूछ बैठी है मोहब्बत किस को कहते हैं
Ye mumkin nahin ki sab log hi badal jate hai
Kuchh haalaat ke saanchon mein bhi dhal jate hai

28 lines of Argument

28 Lines (Strategies) of Argument Useful in Treating Diverse Subjects
Below is my effort to paraphrase Aristotle and to offer examples additional to his
1. From opposites: look to see if the opposite claim is true of the opposite subject, confirming it if it is true, refuting the argument if it is not.
Aristotle’s Example: Moderation is good because excess (immoderation) is bad.
My Example: Since being stupid is unfortunate, being intelligent is a blessing.
2. From different grammatical forms of the same word: look to see if the same claim is true of the related word; if so, claim is true, if not, then not.
Aristotle’s Example: to say that the just is not entirely good because then what is done justly would also be a good, something which is not entirely the case. Justice is not always a desirable good, as when the just punishment is a death sentence.
My examples: Justice is not always just.Nobles (the nobility) do not always behave nobly.
3. From correlatives [logically related things]: see if something that is true of one element of a pair is also true of the other element.
Aristotle’s Examples: If it is right to order (an action), it is right to obey it. If it is (not) shameful to sell something, it should (not) be shameful to buy it.
Aristotle’s Counter argument: just some action or result is just, doesn’t mean anyone can perform it.
My examples: If it is immoral to perform an abortion, it is immoral to seek it, and vice versa. If it is illegal to steal, it should be illegal to buy those stolen goods. Just because I deserved a good whuppin’, doesn’t give anyone the right to give that whuppin’.
Motto: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
4. From more and less; if something is not the fact where it should be more expected, it is not the fact where it should be less expected; if the lesser thing is true, the greater is also
Aristotle’s Examples: If not even the gods know everything, human beings can hardly be expected to do so; A person who would beat his father, he would also beat his neighbors.
My examples: (from the Bible) Who, when his child asked for an egg, would hand him a scorpion or a snake? If human beings give good things to their child, how miuch more does God the Father give to his children? If a man would rob a young healthy person, he wouldn’t hesitate to rob an old sickly person, this latter being an even easier target.
Furthermore: Neither more nor less: if something is the case for a lesser event, person or thing, it is no less the case for a greater event person or thing.
Aristotle’s example: If Hector did no wrong in killing Patroclus (best friend of Achilles), Alexander (brother of Hector) did no wrong in killing Achilles (who killed Hector). That is, it is no worse a thing to kill your brother’s killer than it is to kill your best friend’s killer, a brother being at least as great a loss as a best friend.
My example: If athletes are respectable, so are academics. Ifeven [insert category of bad people here] are kind of animals, then so too should you.
5. From past to current or future time: look to see if something that was true/likely/just in the past is even more true/likely/just in the present or future; this line of reasoning is sometimescalled a fortiori argument, from the lesser case”to the stronger”case.
Aristotle’s example: If you would have erected a statue in my honor even before I accomplished a great task, how much more should you be willing to do so now?
My example: if a politician deserved to be voted out of office even before this latest scandal, how much more so now?
6. Turning an accuser’s words against oneself back against the accuser
Aristotle’s example: If you [with your track record or reputation] wouldn’t do such a thing,what makes anyone think that I would?
My example: how can you fault me for not giving to charities when you yourself have hardly given anything? Your one to talk! When was the last time you picked up the phone to call me. How can you sit there and complain that I never call?
7. From definition: focusing on the meaning of a word to support a claim.
Aristotle’s example: What is the divine? What is noble?
Myexample: arguing that the so-called ‘morning after’ pill is not a contraceptive (but rather an abortifacent) because it does not (necessarily) prevent conception. Objecting to the use of the term “hysterical” because it means, literally, “of the womb,” so saying that someone is being hysterical is, knowingly or not, maligning their behavior in anti-female terms.
8. From varied meanings of a word
Aristotle’s example: from his work “On theTopics,” he references a discussion of the various meanings of the work oxus, meaning sharp; in music the opposite of flat, of a knife the opposite of dull.
My example: the concept ofenthymeme, “of the thymos,” reminds us that much of our reasoning comes ‘from the gut,’ not through formal analysis, but from what seems to us, at first impression, correct. We can seek to restrict or to broaden the reference to term.
9. From division: breaking a larger category into smaller parts [and narrowing to one of a few parts by eliminating certain possibilities]
Aristotle’s example: All people do wrong for one of three reasons: from this, or this, or this; now two of these are impossible [in this case], but even the accusers do not assert the third.
My example: Why did she ever marry him? She had to be either crazy or desperate. [You can extend that example in various ways Division does not necessarily involve a secondary process of elimination, though it often does.]
10. From induction: to generalize from particular cases.
Aristotle’s example: all mothers recognize their own child. Everyone honors the wise.
My example: All New Jersey politicians are corrupt. All librarians are social misfits.
11. From a previous judgment about the same or similar or opposite matter: see if all always make this judgment or if most do, or the wise, or the good. Also called the argument from authority.
Aristotle’s example: If the (wise) judges have decided, then it must be accepted.
My example: The great and powerful Oz has spoken. If the Bible says it, it must be so.
The people have spoken. Who am I to question my betters? Science has proven it. It is God’s will.
12. From the parts; look to see which individual elements of some larger thing are at issue.
Aristotle’s example: What kind of motion is the soul, this or that? Which gods that the city recognizes does he not believe in?
My examples: What particular statute did the accused violate? Exactly what kind of academic dishonesty is he being accused of?
13. From consequences: look to see whether to exhort or dissaude, accuse or defend, praise or blame on the basis of consequences, since similar effects spring from similar causes. Note: this is an argument of generalityAristotle’s Example: Because envy (by others) follows from being educated, it is good not be educated. Because wisdom comes from education, and wisdom is a good thing, it follows that it is good to be educated.
My Example: Every time he shows up, trouble follows. Therefore, I say let’s not invite him. It’s a bad idea to marry one’s high school sweetheart, since most such marriages end unhappily or end up being unhappy ones.
14. From alternatives: look to see [how to resolve] a dilemma, a choice between two alternatives, where each choice has negative consequences.
Aristotle’s Examples: If you rule justly, the people will hate you. If you rule unjustly, the gods will punish you. When you buy the salt, you also buy the marsh. Myexample: If you tell the truth, your boss will fire you. But if you lie, you will likely end up being prosecuted. [Better unemployment than prison.] You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
Motto: sometimes one has to take the good with the bad.
15. From inward vs. outward contradictions; look to see if one thing is said in one (public) place and a different thing is said in another (private) place. [Challenges an opponents motives and honesty.]
Aristotle’s Example: What people say praise in public is not necessarily what they say in private; the reasons people offer to others are not necessarily their private motives.
My Example: “That oughta hold the little bastards” said one children’s TV host in the 1950s, not realizaing he was still on air, in his unexpectedly last broadcast.
16. From consequencesby analogy: look to see how an opposing case challenges an act and itsconsequences.
Aristotle’s Example: If tall boys are now to be counted as men, then short men will soon be counted as boys.
My Example:
17. From identical results: look to see (or argue) if the antecedents are the same where the results are the same.
Aristotle’s Example:It is equally impious to say that the gods were born as to say that they die, since either statement means that the gods, at one time, did not exist.
My Example: Erroneous calculations of some outcome are equally bad when they lead to bad results, regardless of their differences. Failing to vote is a lapse in one’s patriotic duty whatever the reason. Consequences matter, not motives or intentions. To pay taxes is to submit to tyranny.
18. From differences in position or action before and after
Aristotle’s Example: It would be terrible if we fought to come home, but when, having come home, we choose exile over fighting.
My Example: If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have chosen a course of action. If I knew that the Iraq war would be so mismanaged, I would not have voted to authorize the use of force.
19. From attributed motive or from a result to an attributed motive: assert that a particular outcome is, in fact, the intended purpose.
Aristotle’s Example: If something results in inury, argue that the purpose was to cause injury. God gives great forture to many not out of good will but so that misfortunes may be more obvious.
MyExample: God gave us memory so that we could have roses in December. My parents treated me harshly as a child so that I would learn to be self-sufficient. [That might be true, or they might simply have been jerks, yet I turned out okay.]
20. From perceived incentives and deterrents: reason about a motive on the basis of perceived benefits or disadvantages that would accrue.
Aristotle’s Example: If someone had motive and opportunity, then he did the action.
My Example: No one does something without a reason, and people generally act in their own best interest.
21. From improbability: something implausible, but thought to be a fact, is true.
Aristotle’s Example: Laws need a law to correct them; Fish need salt and olives oil to preserve them.
My Example: It’s so unlikely, it has to be true.
22. From contradictions in circumstances; look to see if there are discrepancies in dates, actions or words.
Aristotle’s Example: He says I am litigious, but he cannot show that I have ever brought a lawsuit.
My Example: I say there are many, many examples, but I fail to produce a single one of my own.
23. From false impression: state why something is erroneously perceived.
Aristotle’s Example: Despite an affectionate embrace, someone is not a woman’s lover, but her son.
MyExample: Corrupt people think that virtuous people have a base motive when they appear to do something altruistic, but here is a case where the person really is selfless.
24. From the necessity of a cause to effect relationship: for without cause there is nothing.
Aristotle’s Example: There was no reason to cover up a crime, because no crime was committed.
My Example: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
25. From alternatives::look to see if there is a better plan
Aristotle’s Example: none
My example: There’s got to be a better way; the current course is not acceptable.
26. From comparison of possible actions: look for a different course of action
Aristotle’s Example: When the people of Elia asked Xenophanes whether they should sacrifice and sing dirges to Leucothea, he said they should not sing dirges if they regarded her as a god, and if as a human being then not to sacrifice.
My example: If something isn’t working, then change it.
27. From mistakes that have been made in the past: accuse or defend on the basis of mistakes
Aristotle’s Example: Some accuse Medea of killing her own children, but if she didn’t kill Jason, why would she kill her own children.
My example: Someone would not be so careless as to leave the murder weapon in plain sight. She must be innocent.
28. From the meaning of a name
Aristotle’s Example: When your mother named you Sidero she clearly meant it.
My example: Boy [to Thomas], you really are a doubting Thomas.

Rhetoric of Motives – Kenneth Bruke – Summary

  • Persuasion (classical) vs identification (using pretext to gain individual advantage)
Part I: The Range of Rhetoric
  • “Rhetorical” – written for a purpose with an audience in mind
  • Analyzing poems by Milton and Arnold – trying to bring them together as instances of the same motivation
    • Also insisting that the unique context of each makes the motive itself different
    • To connect to Coleridge as well, need a motive that can serve as ground for “both choices” – can ambiguously contain both
  • Poets identify themselves with their characters and ritualistically transform their texts
    • IE: “desire to kill” someone is the desire to transform the principle they represent
  • The “logical idea of a thing’s essence can be translated into a temporal or narrative equivalent by statement in terms of the thing’s source or beginnings”
    • Puns (?) of logical and temporal priority
    • Can also use “an ultimate of endings” – depict a thing’s end to identify its essence
  • Must consider “proportions of a motivational recipe”
  • Rhetoric is the region of insult, injury, bickering, squabbling, malice, lies
    • Killing, enmity, strife, invective, polemic, eristic, logomachy – all aspects of rhetoric
    • Also includes resources of appeal: sacrificial/evangelical love, sexual love, neutral communications
  • Imagery leads to transformation, and transformation leads to ideas and imagery of identification
    • IE: killing (imagery) something changes it (transformation), and the things nature before/after change (transformation) is an identifying of it
  • Where interests are joined, A identifies with B – or A may identify himself with B, even if there interests aren’t joined
    • They are simultaneously distinct and consubstantial
  • Identification is indicative of division – if there were not division, we wouldn’t need identification – identification proclaims unity in the face of division
  • Ethos: the properties (qualities) someone surrounds themselves with to establish identity
  • Invitation to rhetoric: place where identification and division come together ambiguously
  • The rhetorician and the moralist come together where the attempt is made to reveal identification in accordance with property
  • Even if an activity is reduced to intrinsic, autonomous principles, it could still be influenced by external motivation and thus subject to identification
    • Identification is for the autonomous activity’s place in the wider context
  • “Belonging” to a group via identification through a specialized activity is rhetorical
    • Science is not autonomously good – it is identified with motives and ethical attitudes
  • To sympathize with people greatly different from us, we need “imagery of a richly humane spontaneous poetry”
  • Ends justify means – politician can still be “rhetorically honest” if he lies, but means to do well – only thought he could get votes via the lie
  • Poetic language is a symbolic action (for itself and in itself); rhetoric is inducement to action
  • Rhetorician’s “tricks of the trade” are an art, not a science
  • Nothing is more rhetorical than deliberation – controversy = rhetorician’s forever “proving opposites”
  • Rhetoric is an art of persuasion, or means of persuasion available for any given situation
  • Realistic: when one symbol-using entity uses symbols to induce action in another; idealistic: consubstantiality established between being of unequal status
Part II: Traditional Principles of Rhetoric
  • Persuasion: choice, will (insofar as a person is free); rhetoric: formative effect on attitude
  • Range: rhetoric as “art of cheating” to rhetoric as power
  • The kind of opinion with which rhetoric deals is not contrasted with truth
    • Opinion is the moral order of action, not “scenic” order of truth
  • Topics must be timely
  • Tradition evidences of rhetorical motive: persuasion, exploitation of opinion, a work’s nature as addressed, literature for use, verbal deception, the “agonistic” generally, words used “sweetly,” formal devices, the art of proving oppositions
  • Most thoroughgoing rhetorical device is amplification
  • Three purposes of audience: 1) hear advice for future, 2) pass judgment on past, 3) or general interest in subject at hand
    • As such, Aristotle’s 3 kinds of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic, epideictic
  • “Titles”: ideas and images – rhetoric uses titles to identify someone/thing with whatever will call forth the desired response – select titles with bias of intention and opinions of audience
    • Image uses imagination to “contain a while bundle of principles”
  • Ideology is a kind of rhetoric – have led to social/political choices
  • Associating an idea with an image is mechanical, a conditioned reflex
  • Nonverbal elements persuade via symbolic character – “paper need not know the meaning of fire in order to burn” – the “idea” of it is persuasive
    • Thus, rhetorical motive lurks in every “meaning”
  • Rhetorical persuasion and identification: relies on social implications of the enigmatic
    • Acceptance of “enigma” as element in symbol’s persuasiveness leads us to note the place of “magic” or “mystery” as a passive reflection of class culture and an active way to maintain cultural cohesion
  • “Infancy” – empirical objects treated as symbols of a generating principle
  • An idea comprises personal, sexual, social, and universal promises
  • With symbol-using animal: logic of symbols must be “prior” to the effects of any “productive forces” in the socioeconomic meaning of an expression
  • Language can be used to deceive: rhetorical analysis seeks to expose mystifications
  • Theology is implicit in persuasion: it is the ultimate reach of communication between different classes of being
Part III: Order
  • Positive terms: name the things of experience – visible, tangible existence located in time and place
  • Dialectical terms: competing voice talk/argue with each other
  • Ultimate terms: competing voices placed in a hierarchy – arranged developmentally with relation to one another
    • Guiding idea/unitary principle behind diversity of voices
  • Bias is false promise, but still promise – if you eliminate all bias, you deprive society of its primary motive power
  • “Principle of courtship” – the use of suasive devices to transcend social estrangement
  • 3 motives: the order, the secret, the kill
  • “Pure persuasion”: saying something for the intrinsic satisfaction of saying it – not for extraverbal advantage – in fact, may seem to go against aims
    • IE: puzzle solver: either gives up or solves the puzzle – either way, is no better off than before – the value of the puzzle is intrinsic
  • Hierarchies:
    • 1) Constructed on basis of numerous negatives to the degree to which they are followed
    • 2) Hierarchic principle is inevitable, but no particular hierarchy is inevitable
    • 3) Hierarchies serve as motives – IE to rise or maintain socioeconomic position
  • Mystery – Three ways to create mystery via physical/experiential separation of individuals
    • 1) Occupational psychosis: particular way of thinking adopted from long term pursuits
    • 2) Terministic screen: specialized vocabulary that reflects selective view of reality
    • 3) Trained incapacity: development of limited view of reality via training/experience
  • Functions of mystery?
    • 1) Maintenance and preservation of hierarchy – encourages obedience
    • 2) Instrument of governance, cohesion, and preservation of the nature of a hierarchy
Things Which I Found Online but Are Important To Know
  • Rhetoric of Motives: showing that rhetoric exists in literature not purposely intended to persuade
    • Identifying real people with characters in literature story may be seen as an argument about how we can/should understand that person
  • “Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric, and wherever there is ‘meaning’ there is ‘persuasion’”
  • “You persuade a man insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his”
  • Aristotle: persuasion is ethos, pathos, logos
    • Burke: new ways to see persuasion and identification (a broader process), not just gaining audience assent
      • Primary aim of rhetoric is to win an argument (Aristotelian) – it’s to make a connection – Burke shifts imagery of the persuasive encounter from a duel to a courtship
      • Goes both ways: audience to speaker, speaker to audience, but still audience-centered (New Rhetoric)
      • Individuals who try to form themselves in accordance with the cooperative communicative norms of society are also concerned with identification – individual must act upon him/herself
      • No use for rhetoric by yourself – need an audience, even if it’s only yourself
    • Booth: rhetoric is finding good reasons to change minds and being open to them
      • Booth also uses Burke’s Pentad – I think to argue against rhetoric of doubt
    • Pentad: Act, Scene, Agent, Agency, Purpose
      • Way of analyzing any rhetorical statement
      • Ratios: relationships between elements of pentad – examining ratios aids the critic in discovering which term in the pentad receives the greatest attention by the rhetor
    • Substances (common images, ideas attitudes) create acts – a process of acting-together
    • Substance: stands under the word (medieval in origin) – distinguishes substance (what holds up a word) from accidents (what you sense) – substance cannot be sensed by definition
    • Goal of rhetoric: consubstantiality – the substance that is you united with the audience
      • Consubstantial – individual, but part of a group by similar experience
      • Substance of acting together = consubstantial experience
      • Science can be perverted by consubstantiality (Nazis)
    • Most serious problem of humanity: alienation/separation – rhetoric find a common ground and brings people together
    • Identification – imaginary act in which you assume someone else is standing in your shoes
    • Identification: three ways it functions:
      • 1) means to an end (politics), 2) antithesis (creating identification via opposing entities through basis of common enemy), 3) persuasion on unconscious level (convincing someone to agree with specific action so they do not appear negatively
    • Identification is possible because we share consubstantiality – commonality of substance – physical body, aspirations, language)
      • Recognizing and building on this becomes a rhetorical possibility because it heals the wound of separation
    • Motive: motif, reason why, and something that moves along
    • Magic and socialization: to live in a social condition, you need rhetoric (Lanham)
      • Socialization means learning some kind of rhetoric to keep communication lines open
    • Terministic screens: set of symbols that becomes a grid/screen of intelligibility through which the world makes sense to us – we see the world as our symbol systems allow us to
      • Socrates: man as symbol using animal is unique
      • Weaver: calls these “god terms” – words that conceal the meaning and values behind them – words you don’t want to argue with
        • Culturally reflective: every culture has a terms that “screens out” differences you might attend to
      • Words and ideas are not tangible – refer to collection of ideas we have about the specific word (Kant, Saussure [1906-1911], Derrida)