Ong argues that writing in general (not just self-reflective writing) is isolating. In his "Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought," he says, "Writing is diaeretic. It divides and distances, and it divides and distances all sorts of things in all sorts of ways," one of which is the way the writer becomes reclusive and divided from the world when caught up in the act of thinking and writing.

My initial response to this title was to assume Muckelbauer's question was the same as Lanham's (the 'Q' question). Instead, he's tackling the "what is rhetoric?" question.

Without a limiting definition, rhetoric's reach is practically limitless.

It's nice to see that some things don't change :)

Unlike Lanham, Muckelbauer doesn't seem bothered by this sort of repetition. Dwelling on and returning to this question isn't "simple" repetition for him but achieves a more complex purpose.

Muckelbauer has made some interesting word choices so far (see also traffic, above). Both have sexual connotations (sex trafficking, sexual promiscuity); though he's not using them in that way, I can't help but to make the association.

OED: "Done or applied with no regard for method, order, etc.; random, indiscriminate, unsystematic," from "classical Latin prōmiscuus common, shared, general, indiscriminate" (http://www.oed.com.ezp.slu.edu/view/Entry/152429?redirectedFrom=promiscuous#eid)

'Simple' repetition is one way to look at it, but Muckelbauer's Future of Invention provides an entirely different take on the value of repetition, of reproducing. Though both Quintilian and Erasmus return to similar ground again and again, they and the layout of the land are not precisely as they were before.

Physician and philosopher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Empiricus

"being beneath one's dignity : UNDIGNIFIED"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infra%20dig

Interesting that there's this call for "proof," some form of evidence, something tangible that we can point to. Such a desire feels very objective, as though there's some Truth this proof will point to. What would such proofs be?

This is one aspect of the exigence of this piece (re: Casey Boyle's "Step One: Exigence"). What are some of the other nuances of that exigence?

http://caseyboyle.net/2016/01/16/something-like-a-reading-ethics/