[KB] "Deacon"-structing Burke Part Whatever
Edward C Appel
edwardcappel at frontier.com
Mon Nov 10 14:37:15 EST 2014
Just a short reply to Greg's most recent post:
One, I wasn't in the least "bored" or "alienated" reading it.
Two, criticism of Burke, or a creative reinterpretation of his work, is vouchsafed as appropriate for the Burke Society in general, and surely for this listserve in particular, not just a slavish adherence to either the "early" Burke or the "later" Burke.
Third, I tend to view the concerns of the "later" Burke (as per "logology") to be inplicit in the concerns of the "earlier" Burke (e.g., "dramatism"), more so than quite a few of Burke's most esteemed interpreters. But I, too, detect, along with Greg, a more "postmodern" Burke in P&C than in, say, the piece in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences and some even later statements. As for which of those two apparently disparate approaches to language I prefer, I think we need to blend them in some sense: Burke as "quasi-Postmodern" in a way, emphasizing both the distortions of, and the dramatizing superimpsitions placed on, the "reality" that language symbolically "acts" upon, and the "recalcitrance" that fitfully, perhaps eventually, brings those superimpositions into some kind of useful, "serviceable," "adequate," "curative" line.
Fourth, I do think that in "post-Enlightenment" Western culture, science does come pretty heavily to bear on our "interpretation" of texts, not just on our "interpretation" of "reality," which, Burke-wise as well as Kant-wise, does not seem directly accessible to us.
A "blessing" on all who have ventured into the parlor for this vigorous chat.
Ed
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/10/14, Gregory Desilet <info at gregorydesilet.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [KB] "Deacon"-structing Burke Part Whatever
To: "Stan Lindsay" <slindsa at yahoo.com>
Cc: "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
Date: Monday, November 10, 2014, 1:06 PM
Stan—I have
to confess your last post genuinely surprised me. I did not
at all realize you
were so irritated with what I’ve been saying. And I was
also a little surprised
by your tone. I enjoy this KB forum because I see it as a
kind of intellectual
playground for the exchange of ideas and the airing of lines
of thought in
order to see how they fare in a community of other minds
interested in
exploring similar topics. I see us all as friends here and I
don’t take myself
or anyone else seriously enough in this “playground” to
get too worked up about
any responses. So, Stan, if you feel I’m out of line in
how I’m reading you,
feel free to just say: “Hey, Greg, time out. I think
you’ve misread me here and
there and that’s causing some problems in how you are
going forward” instead of
saying something like: “Who died and made you the arbiter
of what faith is?”
That’s a little off-putting and overly serious in tone for
a playground like
this—unless, of course, you are just poking fun at me, in
which case in this
written medium it would help for you to put a smiley face
after that sentence. Also,
it can be difficult when someone takes me to the woodshed,
but especially so
when it’s done based on bad misreadings of what I’ve
said. But, no harm done. I
don’t take offense easily and I continue to admire and
respect you and your
work as I have in the past. So I don’t go forward here to
be nasty but rather
because it would be rude and perhaps arrogant of me to say
you have misread me
badly and then not point out how. So here goes.Example
#1:
You say: “Burke's entire methodology of bringing
enlightenment to texts would
be trashed, if you have your way. There is no way that
ANY text (whether
considered sacred or secular) could be tested in a purely
scientific
(repeating, using experimentation) sense.”As for
Burke’s “bringing enlightenment to texts”—more on
that later. I had to puzzle
over the next sentence for some time before making some
sense of it. Here’s
what sense I make of it (let me know if I’m wrong): When I
say, “The difference
between the two faiths of science and religion” etc. you
read me to be saying
something about scientific approaches vs. religious
approaches to WRITTEN TEXTS.
Apparently you think I’m suggesting scientific testing and
experimentation
would be the preferable approach to texts.If
anyone
other than you has read me this way, I would be very
surprised. My comment
about the “faiths” of science and religion was
distinctly made in the context
of Sam Harris’ book and his use of the term “faith”
where I was suggesting even
science (which Harris distinguishes from faith) was based on
a kind of
faith—faith in a particular mode of gathering evidence. So
I was speaking of
two different modes of evidence for understanding LIFE AND
WORLD not two
different modes of evidence for reading WRITTEN TEXTS. There
is no suggestion
here of interpreting written texts by way of the
“testing,” as you put it, of
scientific experimentation. The point of my comment
concerned the notion of
“faith,” not the process of interpreting
texts.Speaking
of “faith,” Example #2: You say, “When
I use the term "faith" to identify the objective
of rhetoric, I mean ‘pistis' as
Aristotle uses the term, not as you use
it.”I
don’t
know what, in anything I said, makes you think I was
responding to your mention
of Aristotle’s use of the term as “pistis.” I was
keying off of your use of the
term when you said this: “I personally critique Burke's
interpretation of scripture, Aristotle, etc. That does
not mean that I am
right and Burke is wrong, but, based on my argumentation, I
have ‘faith’ that
I'm right.”In the
context of your statement here, I don’t think it
unreasonable of me to assume a
meaning for your use of the word “faith” compatible with
how I use the term (in
example #1 above). The sentence previous to the one cited in
example #2 is
where you say, “Who died and made you the arbiter of what
faith is?” I can’t,
for the life of me, understand why you would read me as
attempting to impose my
use of the term “faith” on you. I was primarily keying
on Harris’ use of the
term, as is clear from the context of my comment. But I also
did not see any
alarming inconsistency in how you were using the term in the
passage where you
say, “I have ‘faith’ that I’m right.” I’m just
really puzzled about how you
could possibly read me in any way that would cause you to
get so worked up about
what I say here.Example
#3:
You say, referring to me: “Why would you lump all students
of biblical texts in
a single category, such as those who determine meaning based
on ‘the evidence
of tradition, sacred texts, and transcendent personal
experience (sometimes
called direct divine communication or
DDC).’”I the
first
place, I obviously do NOT lump all students of biblical
texts in the same
category. I have been very careful to distinguish those who
interpret the Bible
as a non-divinely inspired text from those who interpret it
as a divinely
inspired text. As you even point out, there are members of
the SBL who are
atheists who do NOT regard the Bible as the written word of
God. My line of
argument depends on understanding this distinction because
what I’ve said in
this thread about sacred texts relates to understanding
sacred texts as divine
communication. In fact, at one point some ways back in this
thread I defined my
use of “sacred text” for purposes of this thread to
include ONLY texts approached
in such a way that they are regarded by those who champion
them as divine
communication. I realize there are many broader uses of the
word “sacred” but
for purposes of discussion in this thread I have used the
word more narrowly.Furthermore,
regarding the process of determining meaning you mention, I
can’t imagine how
meanings in any sacred text (in the sense I use the term),
the Bible for
example, could be derived from any sources other than 1)
“tradition” (which
includes historical context and what other people say about
the text), 2) the
text itself, and 3) personal experience of a visionary or
transcendent nature. What
other sources of data are there? EVERY interpreter of the
Bible has only one or
more of these sources for “determining meaning”
regarding the Bible.I
realize
that you, Stan, do not view DDCs as acceptable means of
gathering meaning (or
whatever). But I am not directing my argument at you or at
members of SBL. I
have directed my argument only at THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
BELIEVES A TEXT TO BE
DIVINE COMMUNICATION. That set of people may be an empty set. It may contain
ten people. It may contain millions (as I would guess). But
my argument does
not depend on this set having any real members. In that
sense, it cannot possibly
qualify as a “straw man.” For purposes of argument, it
is a hypothetical
category and applies only to those who would indeed fit the
category, whether
in real life that amounts to zero or millions. And this
brings us to the next
point.Example
#4:
You say, “If Burke's approach to studying a text is
not a valid approach to
producing a more enlightened understanding of a text, then
why are we
discussing this matter on a Burke listserve?”Which
Burke
are you speaking of here??? I’ve already mentioned that I
see a big difference
between early Burke and late Burke with regard to how Burke
views the nature of
language and the processes of interpretation. For example,
there is the Burke
of P&C who appears to make a case for how all
language-using is
fundamentally metaphorical. Then there is a later Burke who
seems to believe in
a sharp distinction between the literal and the metaphoric
and between fact and
interpretation (the “Fact, Inference, Proof”
essay).As for
Burke’s various methods for analyzing a text, I doubt very
much he would regard
any of these methods as capable of guaranteeing a “more
enlightened
understanding of a text.” They are tools in the toolbox
and will help yield
different perspectives on a text but whether any of these
tools used separately
or all together produce a more “enlightened”
understanding is likely a matter
more one of “faith” than “validity.” And my
“faith” concerning notions about
language and interpretation still rests more with the early
Burke than the late
Burke, which is something I also mentioned earlier in this
thread to provide a
sense of what I mean when I say things like “what we
(Burkophiles) know about
language.”As for
the
entire question in #4 above, I don’t understand why it
would be in the least
off-topic to discuss on a Burke listserve the possibility
that “Burke’s
approach to studying a text is not a valid approach to
producing a more
enlightened understanding of a text.” What better place to
do so? Only that is
NOT what I’m doing.As for
what
I am doing, I jumped into this thread (which began with
Ed’s discussion of the
work of Deacon) by citing Burke on the connection he makes
between religion and
fascism in “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s
Battle”—attempting to make sense of what
he’s getting at in that passage. And that’s a topic
I’ve puzzled over for many
years and the topic I thought we were on most centrally and
I think it’s very
appropriate for a Burke listserve.I’ll
end
this now, hoping not to have bored everyone or alienated
anyone—including Stan. Greg
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
KB mailing list
KB at kbjournal.org
http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
More information about the KB
mailing list