<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: : Campaign maneuvers&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rhetorica.net/archives/2390.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rhetorica.net/archives/2390.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:36:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: acline</title>
		<link>http://rhetorica.net/archives/2390.html/comment-page-1#comment-2248</link>
		<dc:creator>acline</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2004 19:51:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wpp3/?p=2390#comment-2248</guid>
		<description>Michael...we&#039;re not talking rational-choice theory here. I merely mentioned it because Riker was the leading light of the Rochester School. You might read my essay on Riker&#039;s contribution to rhetoric to see where he and I are coming from in regard to heresthetics. It&#039;s linked in the post.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael&#8230;we&#8217;re not talking rational-choice theory here. I merely mentioned it because Riker was the leading light of the Rochester School. You might read my essay on Riker&#8217;s contribution to rhetoric to see where he and I are coming from in regard to heresthetics. It&#8217;s linked in the post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Greer</title>
		<link>http://rhetorica.net/archives/2390.html/comment-page-1#comment-2247</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Greer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2004 18:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wpp3/?p=2390#comment-2247</guid>
		<description>I hope you might clarify what this means in a rhetorical situation: rational-choice theory. As I understand it, rational choice theory works in the manner of a calculus; rhetoric can never work in that sense since it deals only with the probable and the uncertain. To be persuaded of something is to lean toward identification with it, a sort of empathetic move since one&#039;s perception is already inclined in that direction. Rational choice works abstractly as an assessement of the accidental properties of substances. 

Michael Greer</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope you might clarify what this means in a rhetorical situation: rational-choice theory. As I understand it, rational choice theory works in the manner of a calculus; rhetoric can never work in that sense since it deals only with the probable and the uncertain. To be persuaded of something is to lean toward identification with it, a sort of empathetic move since one&#8217;s perception is already inclined in that direction. Rational choice works abstractly as an assessement of the accidental properties of substances. </p>
<p>Michael Greer</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
