john ennis's picture

and so i woke this evening wondering about burke in reverse. of course, this is little more than an exercise, i suspect, but in the spirit of de-ridda, all his precursors, all his grammatological devotees, i wondered "what if we were to take burke (and rhetoric) in reverse." that is to say, if the upward and downward synergies of rhetoric do culminate in ultimates of "identification," then what if one began, instead, with oneself as "already identified," as one already identified with several extrinsic links of apparent selfhood, and so beginning there, as "i am," one begins to de-rhetorize oneself?

then were i to "joyce" some terms, terms like "derrida" might we arrive at something like "divide," and might this not lead us, eventually, to "deconstruct?" and again, joycing the term "burke" or perhaps "re-burke" might we not come close to something like "reverse?" so that if i begin with the sense that i am "one" already identified, and initially descend rather than ascend (assent?) i have embarked (em-burked?) on this de-rhetorization commonly called "psychoanalysis." this is the freudian rhetoric par excellence, perhaps. perhaps not. and so what? except that in this reversal, this de-rhetorization, it may be suggested that burke is right, of course. rhetoric is everywhere. our birthrites are, in fact, "to be persuaded," and is it much of a leap then to suggest that the nature of language is the nature of dialectical life forces that comprise the continuum of existence derrida called "differance?" i must need more sleep.