1

Peter Husted

Professor Kitty Geoghan

Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

24 March 2024

Duality and the Mind Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

The essay “Duality and the Mind” from the MICUSP Database is quite a philosophical

sounding paper, talking about the psychological divide between the ethereal mind and the brain

as the center of human functionality. The author analyzes this divide and argues their point that

science can only measure the material mind, and that the mind and intervention of the

other-worldly is unmeasurable and unpredictable. Throughout this argument, the author uses

sophisticated diction to get across their otherwise simple points, and it makes this piece very

dense so as not to appeal to all audiences, but rather just educated ones. There are also several

examples of very long sentences, where a break is needed even when reading internally to

process the large words to generate the meaning. Finally, there are plenty of examples of reader

pronouns, specifically in the form of the word “we” which will also be reviewed. This usage of

“we” engages the reader and references who the audience might be (such as like-minded people),

who the author is talking about, or who is included. The message and argument of the piece is

not complex at all, and this juxtaposition makes it interesting as it raises the question: who is the

intended audience? These two sides of this framework are carefully intertwined through this

essay to craft an argument that some might see as intelligent and credible, and others might be

troubled by and be confused. Are these rhetorical choices too much, or is the combination
 2

immature? Who really is the intended audience? Why use such difficult diction to convey a more

simple argument?

One might argue the consistent inclusion of large and sometimes difficult words elevates

this piece and reinforces the author’s point, but others might see right through it and think it is

too much and embarrassing, or find trouble with it and lose interest or get distracted. It is

important to consider who the intended audience might be because of this. Not a sentence goes

by without a strong or large word. A word that stands out immediately is “...emergentism...”

(MICUSP Student, para. 3). There is not an easy, clear-cut definition for this term which makes

this even more complicated. The author is assuming the reader is familiar with the term although

it is uncommon, and this might point towards who the intended audience is. Emergentism seems

to be a philosophical way of thinking about consciousness and how it comes around. Another

example of a very rarely used word or phrase is “...tantamount to supremacy…” (MICUSP

Student, para. 2). Tantamount roughly means to be equivalent in power or value. This definition

is extremely simple and an easy concept to grasp. Evidently, to the author, conveying the idea

that something is supreme, or equal to being supreme is too accessible. Conveying most simple

concepts in this paper in an easy-to-read way seems to not be allowed. Instead of saying that

something is “tantamount to supremacy”, a phrase hardly ever used that most readers will not be

familiar with, the author could have chosen to say something along the lines of “supreme” or

“equally as supreme” or “essentially supreme.” But in order to elevate this piece of writing,

using obscure phrases and words must have been an obligation. In the process, it makes reading

this piece a difficult experience and allows for less and less people to understand what is actually

being said. Because of this, it is becoming evident that the author intends for only sophisticated
 3

readers to be reading and understanding their essay. Another example worth noting is the

adamant mention of “...attendant psychotropic medication…” (MICUSP Student, para. 3). This

is mentioned when talking about the brain’s manipulative behavior to want to pursue this

complicated sounding medication. It is assumed that the audience knows what an “attendant

psychotropic medication” is, which means that the audience should most likely be scientists or

psychologists. In reality, this is just a complicated way of referring to a mood-altering drug (such

as an anti-depressant or sedative) as a way of solving a behavioral issue that has arisen. But

because the general public would easily understand what a behavior altering drug is, the author

seemed to feel obligated to call these drugs something way more complicated than they really are

or need to be in order to only appeal to a more niche audience. This overcomplicating of ideas

and concepts is the repeated behavior throughout this piece, and it is not helping the author’s

point. It is only making it harder to read, and therefore is only for the most experienced of

readers who also understand the occasional appeals to shared knowledge, such as scientists or

psychologists.

The author also sprinkles relatively long sentences throughout the piece, and this choice

of syntax can be difficult to deal with. For example, “In dualism, we are uncomfortable thinking

of the body as merely meat, capable of being manipulated with training and chemicals, without

some other definition of self: maybe this means we are not ourselves, maybe we are just animals

without free-will, maybe we are clone-able” (MICUSP Student, para. 4). The author keeps

running on. The three commas add on points about the body being “merely meat”. These could

be split up, or the sentence could end where the colon is. But instead, the author adds a colon to

what could easily be the end of a complete thought, and instead doubles the length of this long
 4

sentence with more commas adding on little bits of thought to form a fuller sentence. The

absence of transition words or conjunctions makes this seem informal or immature. It is almost

as if it needs revising to fully complete the thoughts that were strung together with commas and

further connected with a colon. This contradicts the professional state of mind that the intended

audience might have since this group seems to be more intelligent. One more example of a

seemingly run-on sentence is found in the second paragraph: “It is egotistical to argue that we as

humans alone of all life on the planet have some other property, unknown and unknowable that

sets us apart from all other life, tantamount to supremacy over all life, sometimes even other

human lives” (MICUSP Student, para. 2). The author may have chosen this way of writing these

points together as they could act as ideas bouncing off one another. However, again the lack of

transition words or conjunctions makes it seem unfinished or informal. It does not help the

writer’s case in conveying their meaning, although maybe only the intended audience is

supposed to understand this. More advanced, technical readers must be the intended audience

then. This sentence is not as extreme as the previous one, but still we can see this is repeated

behavior and a conscious choice made by the author. Using more periods to break up the

sentences would have given each separate thought time to shine, and the pauses for each one

would emphasize them more. When reading a book or story, super long sentences are frowned

upon and avoided as they are uncomfortable for the reader and can likely lose the meaning of the

sentence. However, this article is no story, and this might reveal that only more intelligent

readers are supposed to read and understand this article. Knowing where the important parts are

is a technique for those that are supposed to read academic papers, and therefore this paper is not

geared towards the general public.

 5

Looking at another repeated choice by the author, they utilize plenty of reader pronouns

in the form of “we”. However, the group (or reader) the author is meaning to refer to switches,

and it reveals identities of who the author may be but also confuses readers on who the intended

audience is. The author seems to be addressing an audience of like minded people at some

points, but not every point. In the beginning, the author’s style of writing can be scary and

alienating to many readers, but these upcoming examples reveal that the author isn’t very clear

on who the intended audience is in the first place. Also, engaging readers with “we” is a common

practice in philosophical papers, but this one is also making an argument responding to an

ongoing debate. This adds an interesting twist to this seemingly factual, argumentative, but also

philosophical paper. One might think it is all over the place or disorganized. The beginning of the

second paragraph is where we see this first, with the author writing “...we as scientists…”

indicating they’re a scientist (MICUSP Student, para. 2). This could also allude to the intended

audience, but many readers may not be scientists but still well-educated. The author quickly says

“...we as humans…” in the next sentence, talking about the human race as a whole (MICUSP

Student, para. 2). This is a more philosophical address as it is talking about the human race, and

not really addressing the audience or author in particular, but instead addressing everybody,

readers or others. A more unclear self-mention is in the middle of the third paragraph, where it is

said “...while we contemplate our own ideas and whims in the foreground…” talking about the

mind’s activity (MICUSP Student, para. 3). “We” could be anybody, but also nobody as it is

talking about the emergentism of the mind and not a conscious action anybody chooses to take. It

is rather addressing the human race in the most general sense, as “we” are not even choosing to

take this action but rather it is an innate function of our mind that we cannot measure or control
 6

according to the author. With this more philosophical approach, it is now more unclear if the

intended audience is still scientists, because perhaps a less grounded, less factual, and more

open-minded essay is less convincing and less of what they might be looking for. More food for

thought might or might not be what intelligent readers are looking for in an essay.

Most extremely, the end of the paper is lined with “we”, with it being used at least once

in every sentence. This “we” is addressing human nature, or generalizing human behavior, even

if it doesn’t actually apply to everybody. For example, sentences like “But we are equally

uncomfortable assigning our self awareness to some unknowable other…” and “Plagued by

indecision, we vacillate: we take anxiolytics but we frantically pray to God on icy roads”

(MICUSP Student, para. 4). The author is writing this as a generalization of human behavior in

general, and it is important to note many of these behaviors do not apply to everybody. Some

people are unable to relate to these generalizations, and they can be uninterested or confused.

The author filled this last paragraph with these, and it is a very philosophical take, analyzing our

behavior as a means of understanding the ways of the mind. Scientists in particular are a small

group and may not understand some of these behaviors. Stereotypically they are less forgiving

and less “go-with-the-flow” than the general public and would not partake in these seemingly

universal actions. A niche engagement that does refer mainly to scientists and statisticians is the

sentence “We cannot isolate the variable consistently; we cannot keep all other factors equal”

(MiCUSP Student, para. 4). Without a doubt this is a form of reader pronoun that only engages a

certain audience. Others may not even know what this means. Isolating variables is something

done in research, when conducting tests and making observations, also known as something

people in the sciences do often. This is a direct appeal to this particular audience. Consistently
 7

using “we” to engage the reader in this way makes it lose its meaning or what the engagement of

we really should be used for. Pulling “we” in from many different perspectives, referring to

different audiences gives the end a disorganized feel. However, the reader pronouns near the

beginning of the piece were more thoughtfully placed, as they had a real audience and purpose

behind them. Because of this, why use “we” so much at the end? It has no engagement factor if

readers, whether they’re scientists or not, cannot relate. It is important to maintain who the

intended audience is and cater to them. Therefore, the inclusion of all these reader pronouns

nullified the effect for the most part, and could be avoided with just as effective a meaning for

those who are supposed to read this.

The rhetorical choices of this essay are fascinating, in that there is so much juxtaposition

in formalities and the argument. The choice of large, complex words make it much more dense

than the actual message may require. Yet, with this dense diction, readers are continuously

engaged throughout with the use of the word “we”, and this reader pronoun addresses several

audiences and groups, and what was thought to be the intended audience was further questioned

again. They are tying in this consistent use of reader pronouns with complex words and other

interesting syntax and diction choices, which makes this seem not as credible when combined

with a lack of hard knowledge. At heart, this paper is an essay, yet there is so much philosophy

used to better convey the author’s opinion. This crossover further meddled with the clear view of

who the intended audience is, as philosophy is uncommonly used in scientific, academic papers.

If this essay were geared toward the general public, then the sophisticated words and sentences

should have been toned down to not be so alienating when discussing this rather simple message.
 8

If the intended audience were highly educated people, such as scientists or other professionals,

the author could have made that more clear and better reflected that through less mixed signals.