Self-Correcting Rhetoric, Maltz, and Wiener

This is some thinking/writing on the free fly:

In the TOPIC manual, Fred writes about the self-correcting nature of rhetoric. Essentially, through skillful presentations of multiple positions, the public can listen to and decide what action to take after hearing various options. Only one thing seems to be missing: a goal or a point. What is the purpose, after all. This may be so big, or assumed, but it was a trigger which got me thinking.

The oscillation between two different ideas, or three or four, reminded me of Maxwell Maltz's discussion and incorporation of Norbert Wiener's works in cybernetics and goal achievement. In the second chapter of Psycho-Cybernetics (18), Maltz refers to Wiener and the zig-zagging of torpedoes as they make their way to the targets. They make errors and then then adjust/correct for them, and move toward the goal. This is a vital part of Maltz's Psycho-Cybernetic approach to self-help.

The parallel I see is that rhetoric can operate as these voices, guides, or pings for a torpedo/culture and the direction they go. The other skillful voices and positions which are presented operate in order to adjust the course of the torpedo/person/culture towards its goal.

I understand this is a mashed up mix of ideas, but it makes me wonder how we deal with a nation, culture, family, or organization when there is no clear purpose, when there is no goal. If there is no general direction, then how can any decisions really be made? If there is no "there" to shoot for, we can wander all over the place.

The net result is that it seems like rhetoric can be extremely efficient and effective in communities where there is a well-conceived, understood, accepted, and/or shared goal. However, when everyone has a different goal, how can you possibly persuade anyone to do much of anything? Their goal is different than yours.