I will begin with concluding that Otto Fischer is a total liar, a rather harsch accusation, I´m aware of that. But how could I respond otherwise to an examinator that deems an examination of the nucleus of rhetorical tradition, the rhetorical figure enthymeme, ”scientifically non-interesting” [?!]
If you, as Otto Fischer have spent years on editing an anthology aimed at use in master courses in rhetoric, and a student can show that the disposition of this particular book is made specifically to hide the knowledge of enthymemes; presenting them as abstract as possible (?). Then (maybe), you shouldn´t take on the responsibility to examinate a master thesis describing enthymememes! Otto Fischer has been biased all the way!
In my master I show a clear (!) connection between enthymemes and authoritarian take-overs, how former democracies gets transformed in democratic elections by gathering support for non-democratic systems – and Otto Fischer comments this as scientifically non-interesting […] in our contemporary world [?!]. A standpoint scientifically [very] INTERESTING in itself! A comment that ”speaks” of something, and I have done my best to show what (?) in my masters.
In my master I clearly show how my former mentor Maria Wolrath-Söderberg guided me towards creating an enthymeme that was totally dependent on me ”regretting my sexuality”. Otto Fischer states that ”it is impossible to know” if my former supervisor did what i do describe or not. That Maria Wolrath – Söderberg do show an great expertise concerning enthymemes during the same period this ”conversion therapy-like” supervising of me took place is of no importance to him, that I show clear tendencies of my former supervisor showing ”creationist-tedencies” (makes conversion-therapy more likely) is of NO IMPORTANCE to Otto Fischer. That Maria Wolrath-Söderberg actually created her whole Phd-thesis around this kind of pedagogy is of NO IMPORTANCE to Otto Fischer:
The Enthymeme, which is a central concept in Aristotle’s rhetoric, is also one of his most debated notions. A majority of the interpretations proceed from Aristotle’s own words “the enthymeme is a kind of syllogism” and most of them understand the enthymeme as a reduced syllogism or a syllogism based on the plausible. In this article different views of the Aristotelian enthymeme are examined, and an alternative outlook inspired by Aristotle’s own examples, is put forward. This is a suggestion that takes into consideration the context dependence, the dialogical nature and the need for presence (in a Perelmanian sense), in human communication and construction of meaning. The enthymeme is here viewed as a discursive process in which the reasoning of the speaker connects with the listener’s structures of meaning. An important phenomenon in this process is the establishment of coherence. Keywords enthymeme, Aristotle, discursive process, coherence, topos. (Maria Wolrath – Söderberg, 2010)
One could suspect that if you as an author responsible for an anthology which I clearly show to be structured specifically to downplay the absolutly central importance of the enthymemes in rhetorical tradition (rather embarrassing) that you as an examinator will be playing with marked cards – might take the chance to play false [!]. Otto Fischer did just this, with the support of the whole academical system as it is organized at Uppsala University, from the headmaster down…Actually…The only thing that can be read about enthymemes in his book supposed to introduce master students to enthymemes is:
an argument based on probable premisses with one or several premisses unspoken…
A rather abstract explanation, making it very improbable that students even learn to detect it while analysing speeches (…). You have to prove yourself ”worthy” och this information by being loyal to the Rhetorical Tradition (my hypothesis, and it is backed by lots of good science in my masters).
Take me to court
The accusation I make would be a serious crime [if..], and Uppsala University surely [!?] would have taken me to court a long time ago if they could afford it, but they can´t! Because Otto Fischer did lie when examining my master thesis, the most obvious example is when I comment on my former supervisor showing obvious signs of creationism (god created earth (timeframe: between a week to some 3000 years). He comments on this quote with the words:
one example is the critique against Wolrath – Söderberg on incorrect understanding of elemental molecular biological knowledge which is hard to understand as anything else than digressions (Otto Fischer, examination 1
”Digressions” [!] I would say that the creationist tendencies clearly shown in my supervisors Phd-thesis is ”quiet” accurate if you are trying to give somebody the possibility to decide ”did this conversion-therapy-like mentoring really take place”, or not? (?!). ESPECIALLY if it´s combined with a description of how this extorsion was made psychologically, but not in Otto Fischers universe […!].
It took me three months to rewrite my master thesis; meeting every single one (!) of Otto Fischers points of critique, the one above gave me the chance to locate and describe the same creationist tendencies in Otto Fischers own book. Tendencies I did put in a theoretical psychological frame of Avital Ronell:
Darwin, admired and feared, scrambled the code, dragged Freud (and us) through the mud, dusted off any semblance of unaffected human dignity. If he, Freud, based social reappropriation on the thinking of identification, who could make it stick when the lineage traced back to a gorilla? ”The figure of the father was untenable in the Darwinian derivation of Totem and Taboo (which will serve right to the end as a matrix): For a gorilla is not a father, and there can be only one Father after the event in the ”after” of the mortal event (Panique politique*, 15) Displacing the origin with a gorilla has generated a massive narcissistic breakdown owing to and in the Freudian narrative – one so serious that, let me hasten to add, it in part accounts for the unprecendented maltreatment of animals, the splice of the disavowed ”paternal” today. Henceforth, the myths of primitive horde and Father fail to take off: irretrievably attached to Darwinian search engines, they simply don´t work for Lacoue – Labarthe and Nancy. This narcissistic chock may be one reason why, in a sense, mystifications such as those sponsoring ”creationism” over evolution are on the table, in order to skip the pages sketched by Darwin that undermine paternal license while rattling divine sanctity. Still, we are locked in the archeophiliac edifice of killing the father, which exercises effects of power over a wide range of offenses to this day, raising auxiliary problems of philosophical responsibility and theological authority. (Ronell Avital, 2013, Loser Sons, University of Illinois Press. Chicago, page 89)
How did Otto Fischer respond to this particular quote in his second ”examination”? Well, he NEVER did! Instead he choosed to pretend that it didn´t exist! And changed his point of critique TOTALLY and this is neither fair nor scientifically correct, Otto Fischers examination is a total fraud! This is a matter of scientific exclusion. If this ”scientific institution” would admit that what I describe ever happened their whole world view would crumble making their ”seminars” worthless, the system they present in books, on seminars….would fall apart!
The theories I use in my master is taken from the american professor of rhetorics Victor J Vitanza and his collegues. Their non-systematic system starts with the question ”how was Auschwitz even possible?:
”If desire [force, will to power] is repressed, it is because every position of desire, no matter how small, is capable of calling into question the established order of a society: not that desire is asocial, on the contrary…Despite what some revolutionaries think about this, desire is revolutionary in its essence…[No] society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised. (1983, 116)./…/ And so now you have an idea of what I´m talking about. With a preliminary understanding of what I have in – and yet mostly out of – mind, however, comes problems. And why? Because finally, antinomian. Because such a free-flowing desire/force would be against the very principle of identity itself. Yes, yes, yes, I would reintroduce the excluded middle (muddle). Let me explain further: After almost completing this book, I read Katy Ackers In memoriam to Identity (1990). A Novel. She writes: ”She learned she must be several, if not numberless parts” (260). Even closer to completion, I read Clarice Lispectors The passion according to G. H, in which, G. H. – in attending to the ugly, the most despicable creature – disposes of her identity, and takes on undifferentiated ”vastness” (1988). She becomes animal. When I speak of adding force/desire to the History of Rhetoric, I am saying, therefore, the same that Acker and Lispector say about their characters. Yes, I would reclaim for The History – that which is under suppression, repression, and political oppression – it´s severallness, but its numberlessness, its sublime vastness, and especially its parts that do not allow for systematization, for completeness, without exclusion, without purging, Why, because systematization is the result of exclusion. Wherever there is system (totality, unity), there is the trace of the excluded. As Kenneth Burke keeps telling us, congregation is established by way of exclusion. As Catherine Clément says: ”The same goes for women as for madmen: in a manifest position of exclusion, they keep the system together, latently by virtue of their very exclusion” (1981, 134; Clément emphasis; cf. N. O. Brown 1966, 160-61). Again as Clément says: ”Somewhere every culture has an imaginary zone for what it excludes, and it is that zone we must try to remember today. This is history that is not over. (Cixious and Clément 1986, 6) Therefore, yet again, I do not wish to write, read, and think in this major disciplined language of ”doing history” that produces The history ”that is not over”; rather, I would write, read, and think by way of and within – as Deleuze and Guattari do – ”a minor language.” Which can be a site of an ”imaginary zone.” I wanted, or at least I would start that way, ”a minor literature,” in the midst of The History of Rhetoric. (I would unleash this history that is not over, which is in an ”imaginary zone” , right in the midst of The History. Or vice versa! I would fold the two into each other, destroying the difference that allows for exclusion.)
Uppsala University has AVOIDED to answer the question, ”was Otto Fischer biased when examining the thesis ”Esoterisk retorisk didaktik som härskarteknik” (Esoterical rhetorical didactics as a ruler technique”). They didn´t even answer YES or NO.
THE CASE IS NOW IN UPPSALA FÖRVALTNINGSRÄTT – lets see how corrupted the system is – TO BE CONTINUED 🙂