Category Archives: dirimens copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoiof his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos[audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


How do we achieve closure on anything at all? I say “red” and you say “pink.” Can we both be right? Surely, we can both be wrong. Remember Hume’s missing shade of blue? So, what makes one of us right, especially if we’re both color blind? Colors are bad enough, but this is especially vexing when we impute or avow motives.

I have a friend Marly who is “motive impaired.” He has trouble avowing credible motives and imputing plausible motives to other people. His most frequently avowed motive is “I did it for the money.” This is never true because he has no service to offer that anybody would pay for. He’s a rag boy at the car wash—the pay is illegally low, and there’s nothing else he can do. He can’t even rake leaves properly. It is a pity, but it is true. Not only did he not do it for the money, but he didn’t even do it all. He told me he avows the motive so he’ll seem to be a productive member of society. Instead, he seems to be a prolific liar who should be pitied, not praised.

Then, when it comes to the imputation of motives, Marly decides that everybody who interacts with him loves him, even when they’re holding a gun to his head or kicking him in the stomach. He sees a woman kissing another man and he says “She actually loves me.” I try to explain that he’s wrong and he chides me and accuses me of trying to steal her from him. It’s very frustrating, but there’s nothing I can do. He forms his decisions like everybody else, only in his case “proof” is optional, or it is so untethered from the judgement that it is grounded in madness—like the kissing woman—he claimed she looked at him, and this proved she loved him. But, as much as I hate to say it, there’s a very remote possibility that he’s right. Nobody “knows” what the kissing lady is thinking—maybe not even the kissing lady, or, she could be reviewing her grocery list or thinking about her upcoming vacation to Seaside Heights, New Jersey. Those of us who’ve been torn apart by a faithless lover know what I’m talking about.

So, in a way, crazy Marly has it right. You may as well believe what makes you happy, even if it’s only temporary; even if it makes you look like an idiot or crazy. Marly’s “wishful thinking” may put him out of touch with reality, but it can make him happy, even if his happiness is grounded in bullshit—happiness is a feeling and the feeling is real, even if nothing else is.

If I feel happy, I am happy. It is by virtue of cruelty that one person would try to debunk another person’s happiness, unless of course, that person derives their happiness from shooting heroin or being a serial killer. Our thwarting of the addict’s or murderer’s happiness is called “drawing the line.”


Definitions courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

The Daily Trope is available on Amazon in paperback under the title of The Book of Tropes for $9.95. It is also available in Kindle format for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


The complexities of life are never-ending. Just when I think I have an answer, I am confronted with another question I need to resolve. As long as there are answers, there are answers that are liable to repeatedly fail and, over time, may become foundations for questions, or themselves become questions.

We live in time—time consciousness is life itself. However perceptible, or imperceptible, change is the horizon of life’s striving. Life’s contingencies become “settled” by choice— they are “held” near and dear, and as we know, they can can be let go of—often to maintain our sanity, self-worth, or to release one’s self from the bonds of a broken heart.

We know, as we engage with other people, we differ. As two people look at the “same” set of circumstances, one may see reason for hope, the other may see reason for fear. Or, one may see reason for a judgment of guilt, the other for a judgment of innocence. Depending on the contexts, these differences are expected and negotiated by opposing discourses that may “win” a judgment commensurate with an advocate’s standpoint. In short, the so-called truth does not speak for itself, rather it may be spoken for by an advocate in a contest with an opposing truth, that may more plausibly affect the judgement of auditors—here truth functions as veracity and must appear relevant to a sound judgment of the case at hand.

And why must this happen? Because nobody knows—nobody knows what happened in the past and nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future. In sum, neither the past nor the future exist in the present.

This is what makes life so difficult, unsettled and unsettling. I don’t know if my girlfriend’s story of what she did before we met is true. I don’t know if her promises for our future are true—are sincere, as are her avowals of love and affection. I have to constantly impute motives for all she does—from giving me a ride to work to paying for our dinner and drinks on my birthday.

I suffer from “Suspicious Minds Syndrome.” Elvis sang about it, and probably suffered from it. When two people with suspicious minds try to form a relationship, they are doomed—there is no faith between them.

I am undergoing suspicion therapy—learning how to summon belief in my partner, without being duped. it is a kind of secular faith and a gamble.

Viva Las Vegas!


Definition courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

The Daily Trope is available on Amazon in paperback under the title of The Book of Tropes for $9.95. It is also available in Kindle format for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.


Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoiof his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos[audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


I was and I wasn’t. I wasn’t what I was. I sounded like a riddle looking in a mirror. While something may be known one at a time, at another time it may be something different—now it’s a car, now it’s a cube of steel riding a magnet across a junkyard. Or, maybe not. Maybe it was a cube of steel when it was a car—a potential of steel, an actual car. Can you look at the cube as steel and say “That’s a 1992 Mercedes.” But I walk down the street swinging my arms back and forth like an ape. I am not an ape though. I am a cup of tea with legs. I must be careful not to spill. I do not want to stain the sidewalk Orange Pekoe. Why do I keep changing? Are they incarnations, or am I insane, or both? I think both. Or better, madness is a sort of a new incarnation. You forget your previous self and take on a brand new guise. When you’re really crazy you don’t remember your past. When you’re sort of crazy, you do remember. In a way being sort of crazy is worse than being totally crazy—you may be tantalized by a recent past—a reality that is “sort of” but not palpable enough to thwart the vague recollections that intrude on your dream and hurt. Being totally crazy is a glutted maelstrom of meaningless ooz with untraceable emotional import, like abstract art free from the canvas, possessing you with its colored fluidity.

There are many variations on this theme. I don’t know them. I don’t care when I roll around on the sidewalk singing Elvis’ “Don’t Be Cruel.” People look at me and step around me with disgusted looks on their faces. Why? Not because I’m in mental distress, but because I’m in their way. Then a guy that looks like Jesus hovers above me, motioning for me to get up. This happens once or twice a week. I usually get up and continue my crazy trek through the day. But today, I can’t get up. I am dead. A half-dozen teenage boys kicked and beat me to death while I lay drunk on the sidewalk. I look down and see my bloodied torso. The Jesus guy points. I look in the direction he’s pointing and there is a golden elevator. I climb on the elevator and ride to Heaven. As I step off the elevator, I become sane. I see my grandma coming toward me with a bouquet of flowers.


Definition courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu)

The Daily Trope is available on Amazon in paperback under the title of The Book of Tropes for $9.95. It is also available in Kindle format for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.


Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoiof his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos[audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


I was like the riddle: What is big, but also small? A shadow. But that’s not all I am. I am a cook. I am a brother. I am a benchwarmer. I am a consultant. In fact, I put the “con” in consultant. Twelve years ago, I came up with the idea for making up fake emotional maladies, convincing people they were suffering from them, and then “magically” curing them, sometimes overnight. I even invented an “organic compound” that would bring them around and maintain them. It was highly addictive, so almost every client created a permanent cash flow. I was busted by the FDA, and also by the Fed for criminal deception: posing as a licensed health care provider.

I did 2 years in an ultra-low security prison jokingly called “Hotel California.” It was for starched white-collar criminals. We ranked above the permanent press white collar criminals who were mostly tax “fraudies” and embezzlers. The “Hotel” had a golf course, tennis courts, a bar, a drag strip, a vape salon, a gambling casino, and numerous other amenities. It was initially built in anticipation of Ricard Nixon’s incarceration. He evaded justice, so the Fed opened the prison anyway, designating it for high-class offenders who could afford the rent.

I was still determined to go after emotionally disturbed people, where maintenance, not curing, was all that could be done. If I could get 100 clients on the hook, I’d get rich. Accordingly, I studied to be a licensed psychologist while I was in prison. I got on online degree from “Clownfear College of Psychology” located in Guatemala, but accredited by the American Association of Accreditors LLC, located in Panama, New Jersey. My residency was conducted with my next door prisoner. He had been convicted of selling shower-curtains with built-in spy cams. His major market was hotels, motels, and professional voyeurs. His specific crime was “equipping, aiding, and abetting weirdos in the conduct of their weirdness.” He suffered from agoraphobia: he wouldn’t leave his cell. In my internship, I worked with him for a year before he finally put one foot outside his cell. As soon as his foot hit the concrete floor, he had a heart attack and died. And then I thought: if I specialize in agoraphobics, I won’t even need an office! I can do everything over Zoom while they stay in place.


I wrote a book entitled “Your Outside Chance” and sold it on Amazon. It posed as a self-help manual, but it actually worked to keep agoraphobics entrenched in their illness. In collaboration with a corrupt Amazon book packer, I developed my client base from the people who purchased my book. Since I was on Zoom, it did not matter where they lived, but I settled in New York City, where the “Association of Agoraphobics” estimates there are 12 agoraphobes per block in Manhattan alone!

I use a sort of music therapy. During our sessions I play my clients music encouraging them to get outside. Lou Reed’s “Take Walk on the Wild Side” is a favorite along with “Viva Las Vegas,” “Kansa City,” “Walk Like a Man,” and a bunch of others, and for the romantics, “Walk Away Renee,” “You’ll Never Walk Alone,” “Harvest Moon,” and hundreds more. My clients keep coming because I am “encouraging and supportive,” but it is an act. I have clients who have hung with me for eight years now—a steady cash flow paving the way to a wonderful retirement.

Now, I’m branching out a little. I’ve developed a special product for my fellow specialists. It’s called “Bad Dog” and makes the sound of a growling rabid Pit Bull. It also contains a spy cam. It can be mounted across the hall from the client’s apartment. When the coast is clear, you can make it growl viciously by remote control. When the client hears it, it affirms the client’s belief that it’s dangerous “out there.”

I haven’t been out of my own apartment for six years. The convenience of Zoom has drawn me away from actual embodied interactions with other people. I am happy here in my little nest of solitude. When the cleaning lady comes on Wednesdays, I hide in my bedroom closet until she leaves.

I often sit and stare at the bathroom wall. I think, “John, your life is one big whopping lie, and that’s the truth.”


Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu). Bracketed text by Gogias, Editor of Daily Trope.

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoiof his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos[audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


I was floating in a tube down a river in Texas, near where there’s a pig that dives into a spring-fed lake. Aquarena Springs is where Ralph the pig makes his dive to the great delight to those who come view him, some from 100s of miles away. Some say Ralph is very smart, even saving his earnings in a pension fund. Some say that the pension idea is insane—they yell “He’s a pig for Chrissake!” There’s a fact that could easily resolve the dispute: Ralph’s bank and pension account statements.

Ralph’s master is very strict about money. He adamantly refuses to make any kind of financial disclosure whatsoever. Many people are comfortable with not knowing how much Ralph makes. They say “It’s none of our business.” Other people say, “I am paying this pig. We are told that his salary has a significant impact on our community—not to mention the park that is built around him.” Other people ask, “What gives you the right to dig into the pig’s personal business?” Then, as the conversation developed, it came up that maybe Ralph’s master had something to hide. After all, he was Ralph’s spokesperson. It was curious that we never hear directly from Ralph, it’s always through his master. Then, a pig farmer from Dime Box chimed in: “Y’all are missin’ an important fact: Pigs can’t talk. Mostly, they make a snofflin’ sound that has come to be known as ‘oink oink’.”

Now we were really suspicious of Ralph’s master. All along he was fooling us into believing he was passing along what Ralph had said. Having been duped, the crowd became very agitated and began calling out Ralph’s master. Some of the older people in the crowd wanted to “shoot him in the gizzard” or “hold a necktie party” in the mall parking lot on the outskirts of town.

Things were getting out of hand when Ralph’s master stepped out of the shadows. He had Ralph on a leash, and a .9 mm Beretta in the other hand. He looked drunk. “How’d you like me to make Ralph into ham, bacon, and pork chops you bastards?” He pointed the gun a Ralph. Buck Jones jumped out of the crowd and tackled him. The gun went off when he hit the ground, and he shot himself in the thumb. He dropped the gun and got up, bleeding and still holding Ralph’s leash. But Ralph pulled himself free and took off running toward the bridge over the river. He was going to dive!! Clearly he would die on the rocks below.

Ralph’s master ran to the bridge yelling “No, no, no!” Ralph backed away. His master knelt down. He was talking to Ralph and Ralph was nodding his head in agreement. The crowd stood there awestruck with their mouths hanging open, silent. They were witnessing a miracle. Not only could he dive, but he could actually talk too.

Ralph’s master told the crowd: I have reached a agreement with Ralph regarding the disclosure of his finances: After deductions, last year Ralph made $5,000, all put in his retirement fund. Ralph started shaking his head “No” and jumping up and down, and angrily oinking. His master cracked: “Ok, he made $500,000 last year and I took it all, and I don’t give a shit. With that, the crowd surged forward and the pig farmer from Dime Box asked Ralph if he wanted to eat his master. Ralph vigorously nodded “Yes.”


Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu). Bracketed text by Gogias, Editor of Daily Trope.

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


We live in a world of circumstances—we are contained by thought-altering differences that have weight in determining what course to take. Truth is of little use, because there are multiple truths piled up around a given point of decision. Conflicts in this space are best resolved by persuasion—judgements of what is better or worse, right or wrong, not solely by applying what appears to be true and false: you are not supposed to lie. Tell the truth! The Nazis are at your door looking for your children. They are hiding in your basement. You lie and tell them you haven’t seen your children for weeks. Lying is a good thing here. If you told the truth, your children would be taken away. This a time-worn example, but it still makes a important point: lying can be good, telling the truth can be evil. They have no intrinsic moral valance, it emerges in the particular case, when they are told for better and for worse. Just think, if your commitment to truth was unassailable, in the example above, you would kill your children. Good idea? Is there something superior to truth operative here in the process of making a decision? Is there ever a hierarchy of truths prior to their engagement in a moment of decision? Making good decisions is about weighing alternatives, but again, maybe not.


Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu). Bracketed text by Gogias, Editor of Daily Trope.

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility].

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]


Somebody said, “If there’s a fork in the road, take it.” Funny, but not helpful in making a decision. Rather, when we reach a fork in the road, like we have today, we must choose one way or the other. Otherwise, we sit here here parked on life’s road shoulder, idling, going nowhere. The fork’s two tines may take us to different destinations, but in this case they take us to the same destination: building a new warehouse complex in Puerto Rico.

We’ve settled on Puerto Rico, we’ve settled on the warehouse project, but now we must decide whether to hire locals, or bring in our own laborers to work construction.

Ok, what do you have to say?


Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu). Bracketed text by Gogias, Editor of Daily Trope.

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility]).

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy.

It’s true, in some regards–very small regards–very, very small–I have let you down. But also, I have accomplished really great things, not only for you, but for the United State of America. For example, we have kept the pandemic death toll in the US under 5,000,000. That’s nearly 3,000,000 less than anybody–doctors, scientists, Melania, Hannity–might have predicted! At the same time we are Number 1! I like being number 1, even if it’s dead people.

While I may be making these numbers up as I speak, they might be true. Who knows? Unless you’re on your death bed right now, you are going to believe me because you want to believe me and vote for me in the fall.

As you plan for the future, please consider cremation. It will help deal with the clutter and smell at the morgues, and also, with the loaded panel trucks parked nearby.

Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility]).

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy.

I love a sunny day! Not only that, I love a cloudy day. The sun is warm. The clouds are cool. Feeling this way, I feel at home with the weather–I feel at home in the world.

Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99. There is also a Kindle edition available for $5.99.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility]).

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy

I want a muffin for breakfast. Not only that, I want it toasted in the toaster-oven and buttered to perfection. Not only is it your turn to cook this week, but it is time for us to figure out how to make muffins. But you disagree? Come on, no time for that: get out the flour, the cranberries, the butter, the mixing bowl, the sugar, and most important, a spatula.

  • Post your own dirimens copulatio on the “Comments” page!

Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

A paper edition of The Daily Trope, entitled The Book of Tropes, is available for purchase on Amazon for $9.99 USD. It contains over 200 schemes and tropes with their definitions and examples of each. All of the schemes and tropes are indexed, so it’s easy to find the one you’re looking for. Not only that, the examples of schemes and tropes may prompt you to try to create your own examples and use them as springboards for creating longer narratives.

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility]).

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy.

When faced with a decision, time and place may vex our motives.  For example, being unable to be full of praise and full of rage toward the same issue, person, idea or anything else from within the compass of here and now, we are at a crisis, a stasis, a standstill.

Realizing that there are advantages and disadvantages to all prompts to decision we are stuck in a rut for the time-being.  That is, we must drive the road to judgment under the spell of a consistent motive, or we may zigzag, stop and start, back up, go forward, skid, lurch, crash, or, if we’re lucky (or unlucky), run out of gas, never getting anywhere, staying stuck in a rut.

In sum, while there may be two or more opposed why-ways to drive into the unknowable future, if you’re going to get anywhere at all, you must have the foresight to take a single (because best) why-way to your hope’s destination. Nevertheless, realize that there may be unforeseen roadblocks along the way that necessitate taking a detour–a different why-way–in order to get to your destination.

As a reminder of what may happen between now and then, here and there, I have a statue of Stephen Toulmin glued to my decision dashboard.  For he is the cousin of Hermes, the grandson of Magellan, and the Supreme Spirit of Life’s Road Trips.

  • Post your own dirimens copulatio on the “Comments” page!

Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).

Dirimens Copulatio

Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.

Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility]).

This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy.

Not only should one tell the truth, but also, one should be prepared to lie when lying is warranted. Let me explain how this pertains to . . .

  • Post your own dirimens copulatio on the “Comments” page!

Definition and commentary courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).