Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:51:06 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Gorgias and the fragility of reality



Eric,

> he posits Helen in such a way that she seems almost like a kind of
> badminton birdie tossed about by Fate, the Gods, Male Seduction,
> Language, and Love.  

Yes, the human condition.

Hugh



> Diane,
> 
> This is very weird. You sent out this message to me during the same
> minute I sent out a message about you.  This is ALMOST COSMIC!
> 
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> By the way, how do you see the Helen text? To use modern parlance, it
> seems feminist to me since Gorgias undertakes to defend Helen, which was
> probably a bold and controversial undertaking back then.  At the same
> time, he posits Helen in such a way that she seems almost like a kind of
> badminton birdie tossed about by Fate, the Gods, Male Seduction,
> Language, and Love.  
> 
> eric   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Diane
> Davis
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 10:54 AM
> To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality
> 
> Just fyi, eric: in addition to Vitanza's pathbreaking work on Gorgias
> and Helen, you might be interested in Michelle Ballif's excellent book,
> _Seduction, Sophistry, and the Woman with the Rhetorical Figure_, the
> second chapter of which is titled "Seduction and Sacrificial Gestures:
> Gorgias, Helen, and Nothing."  Michelle was Victor's student, and on
> this question of Helen, they each got a world of inspiration from the
> other. ~ddd
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> > lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu
> > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 9:37 AM
> > To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu; Eric
> > Cc: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality
> > 
> > 
> > Eric,
> > 
> > Right, Lyotard is already--or, probably better to say "will have
> been"--an
> > important part of the Rhetoric discussion.  Again, Vitanza is probably
> the key
> > figure in the field to forward his work (and many, many others), and
> if you're
> > interested in his wide scope, I highly recommend his Negation,
> Subjectivity and
> > the History of Rhetoric (1997).
> > 
> > Now the Gorgias debate might be characterized in the following
> fashion:
> > 
> > Edward Schiappa has attempted to do rhetorical historiography by
> recovering
> > what the words mean in the context in which they were written
> (ipissima
> > verba).  That is, there is some kind of discoverable translation of
> certain
> > words, and that these words cannot cross certain historical boundaries
> that can
> > be delineated.
> > 
> > John Poulakos, by way of contrast, has attempted to read the sophists
> as the
> > other party involved in the formulation of Platonic/Aristotliean
> thinking.
> > That is, his rhetorical historiography attempts to generate "so what?"
> > arguments about the tension early sophists had with figures who are
> now more
> > widely known.  This work seeks, as you put it, to look at the "latent
> > possibility of denial" in now canonized works vis-a-vis the
> pre-socratics.
> > 
> > Schiappa and Poulakos locked horns over whether one can interpret
> history along
> > the lines of denial or whether the words only "mean what they mean"
> (to which
> > one asks, rhetorically, "What does that mean?!"=) semi-famously, in
> the journal
> > Philosophy and Rhetoric back in 1983.
> > 
> > Yet a third part of this discussion is Scott Consigny's recent work
> Gorgias:
> > Sophist and Artist (2001). He sees Gorgias as a key figure in
> realizing the
> > dynamic of "Agonistic Communities," and he suggests that Gorgias
> philosophizes
> > on the necessary tensions.  (In some ways, Consigny accounts for
> facets of the
> > Poulakos/Schiappa debate, though it's worth noting that Consigny
> positions
> > himself against both of them.  He sees Schiappa has too hung up on the
> actual
> > words, and Poulakos being too "application" oriented.  Consigny views
> the
> > community as the sole arbitrator, and since this opinion must be won,
> it can
> > never be known in advance.
> > 
> > Consigny's argument, though hitting upon quasi-Lyotardian notions of
> the
> > differend, at times, does not reference his work.  In many respects,
> Vitanza's
> > spin on Gorgias that tries to recognize the ethics of pre-socratic
> moves is
> > more interesting.  He stretches Gorgais's Encomium of Helen across
> feminist
> > lines and attempts to denegate EVEN THOSE lines via Cixous and Judith
> Butler.
> > This feminist may seem odd to outsiders, but, really, if I had to
> characterize
> > the tensions of the field, I see Gorgias's Helen essay as very
> important to how
> > Rhetorical studies current positioning--despite the fact that
> Vitanza's work is
> > sometimes (unfortunately) dismissively put aside.
> > 
> > That's the best I can do as far a nutshell is concerned.  Hope this
> serves as
> > something of a sketch of a debate that is, of course, more complicated
> than
> > I've rendered here.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Geof
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Eric <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>:
> > 
> > > Geof,
> > >
> > > I really would like to hear more about this, especially if you could
> > > give a kind of thumbnail sketch of this debate.
> > >
> > > Let me just make this one comment for right now, since my fingers
> > > already have blisters from typing.
> > >
> > > Yes, Gorgias was certainly in the background of what I wrote, the
> > > Gorgias section of Chapter 1 of the "The Differend."  Maybe I am
> just
> > > stating the obvious, but I am surprised no one explicitly made that
> > > connection.
> > >
> > > The differend is obviously concerned with conflict, but I find it
> > > interesting that Lyotard begins his discussion talking about the
> kind of
> > > epistemological denial practiced by historical revisionists and, as
> > > Gorgias shows, this latent possibility of denial is contained in
> every
> > > assertion of existence as a kind of ontological shadow.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to connect the arguments in Rhetoric with
> > > Lyotard. (or is that already a part of the discussion?)
> > >
> > > eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
>