I, too, am basically new to the idea of rhetoric, so stasis theory strikes me as brilliant. No doubt all my well-educated classmates consider it old hat and already know what theory succeeded stasis theory. For me, the appeal of stasis theory is its systematic process of running through the applicable arguments, so that the solution is nearly "scientific". I'm much more comfortable in a world where there is truth and right. Using stasis theory, any number of people could arrive at the same conclusion, even for a complicated problem or issue.
First comes the consideration of conjectural stasis - the exploration of the crucial fact in the problem. If yes, it is time to look at definitive stasis, to determine if the terms used truly apply to this situation. If yes, qualitative stasis follows, where reasons and excuses are offered. Presuming the reasons are not compelling, the final test is translative stasis, where the authority or jurisdiction of those in power is questioned. It could be put into a flow chart or a computer program.
Stasis theory is beautiful in its simplicity and order. I am reminded of the work of the great Hebrew rabbis, toiling for centuries to discover solutions to all potential spiritual issues that their people would face. Because the process is systematic, there is no need for personal politics. I guess it is ultimately fair, within the bounds of the rules of the society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems simple and clean, and it is a simple clean format for setting up an argument. Still, the point is argued with two potentially legitimate viewpoints being debated at each step so that two reasonable people could still disagree on the outcome at any of the three steps.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is too simple to say, in any case, that there is no big T truth. I think that there is truth in the world, and right, but I am not sure our brains are capable of understanding the truths and I'm not sure our spirits are capable of achieving the "right" behavior.
ReplyDeleteIn short, truth and right are ideals that could (as Quintillian claims) be achieved at some point in the future, but it's less probable and more possible (I am more comfortable in a world where there is endless possibility). Although I do think that there are a lot of teachers, gurus, buddhas (same word...) that have come pretty darned close (succeeded? How would we know?) to knowing and doing.
I liked stasis theory, though, as well. I thought that it covered a lot of what is coverable. I also think that it is a really good starting ground for other methods to depart from.