[KB] KB Digest, Vol 28, Issue 11
Jarron Slater
slate151 at umn.edu
Wed Feb 1 10:23:51 EST 2017
A quick note: "Archetype and Entelechy" is also reprinted in Burke,
Kenneth. *On Human Nature: A Gathering While Everything Flows, 1967-1984. *Ed.
William H. Rueckert and Angelo Bonadonna. Berkeley, U of California P:
2003. That volume might be more accessible for some than *DD*.
Best,
Jarron
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM, <kb-request at kbjournal.org> wrote:
> Send KB mailing list submissions to
> kb at kbjournal.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> kb-request at kbjournal.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> kb-owner at kbjournal.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of KB digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Archetype and Entelechy (wessr at oregonstate.edu)
> 2. Re: Editing Redux (Leslie Bruder)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: wessr at oregonstate.edu
> To: Stan Lindsay <slindsa at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>, Leslie Bruder <
> bruderian at gmail.com>, "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:21:48 -0800
> Subject: Re: [KB] Archetype and Entelechy
> Just a note: Burke also refers to pure persuasion as an "archetype"
> (Rhetoric 273).
>
> Bob
>
> Quoting Stan Lindsay <slindsa at yahoo.com>:
>
> Ed wrote: "One more thing on ?Archetype and Entelechy? in DD: That?s a
>> book of Burke?s not much referenced, it seems. I probably wouldn?t even
>> have a copy of it, except for the retired Clark U. professor who used to
>> post on this list. . . . It is, I think, an important and useful
>> lecture/essay."
>> (Incidentally, for those who are interested, I have an order form from
>> Clark University Press that lists the DD text as still available for
>> $7.50--reprinted in 2000. I have attached a scanned copy of this order
>> form to this email, in case someone can afford such a pricey volume!
>> Burke's first lecture in the book is also important and very
>> useful--Biology, Psychology, Words. It is Burke's own retrospective review
>> of the significance of all of his prior books--a tremendous introduction to
>> Burke.)
>> Ed is absolutely correct that the "Archetype and Entelechy" lecture in DD
>> is an important lecture/essay! For me, it was, perhaps, the seminal (both
>> an archetypal and entelechial term, itself) essay in my studies of Burke.
>> I clearly see that the Aristotelian term ARCHE (from which ARCHETYPE is
>> derived) and Aristotle's term TELOS (from which ENTELECHY is derived) are
>> two of the four CAUSES of Aristotle's grammar of
>> motion/action/kinesis--which I mentioned in my previous post. Briefly,
>> Archetype is the focus of the Anthropologist; Entelechy is the focus of
>> Burke. They are looking at the same phenomenon from the two opposite ends
>> of the spectrum. The anthropologist looks for the incunabula (an
>> anthropological term for arche, in the sense of beginning). What STARTED
>> the kinesis? Burke looks for the telos, or ending. What is the FINAL
>> purpose of the kinesis? Of course, whenever one looks for "beginnings,"
>> one often finds oneself in Biblical eras. The fact that
>> "first/arche/beginning" and "last/telos/ending" can be combined into a
>> single essence is not lost on the writer of the Book of Revelation: "the
>> alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (I
>> explore that Aristotelian and Burkean entelechial principle throughout my
>> book Revelation: The Human Drama.) As an example of archetype, Chapter 7
>> of my book Implicit Rhetoric is entitled "Prayer as Proto-Rhetoric."
>> There, I argue that the prayer theory of Homer, as seen in the Iliad, is
>> the incunabula (although I don't think I used that specific term, at that
>> point) of the development of Rhetorical Theory, which saw a significant
>> telos in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Homeric prayer theory was the first? to
>> demonstrate that flattery, quid pro quo, and consistency were persuasive
>> tactics when attempting to "persuade" gods (who, by their nature as gods,
>> could not be "coerced"). Hence, these three elements of prayer theory were
>> demonstrated again in the Iliad as tactics to "persuade" humans (who,
>> although they could be coerced [by warfare], were--more
>> ethically--persuaded).
>> My current project is also in the archetype mold--a book on Angels and
>> Demons as the Personification of Communication--is being shopped around to
>> university presses. Oxford UP gave it a good look, but decided that it did
>> not quite fit their needs at present. Harvard UP has it now; we'll see
>> what they decide. I plan to use the occasion of the next KB
>> conference--whenever or wherever that is--to hone the archetypal impact.
>> Something like: "Angels and Demons as Communication Personified: The
>> Incunabula of Logology."
>> Thanks to Ed for emphasizing the importance of Archetype for Burkeans!
>> Dr. Stan A. Lindsay, Ph.D. Teaching Professor Professional
>> Communication College of Applied Studies Florida State University
>> slindsay at pc.fsu.eduhttp://www.stanlindsay.comhttp://www.lindsayDIS.COM
>>
>> From: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
>> To: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>; Leslie Bruder <
>> bruderian at gmail.com>; "wessr at oregonstate.edu" <wessr at oregonstate.edu>
>> Cc: "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [KB] Editing Redux
>>
>> Burkophiles,
>> Onemore thing on ?Archetype and Entelechy? in DD:That?s a book
>> of Burke?s not much referenced, it seems. I probably wouldn?teven have a
>> copy of it, except for the retired Clark U. professor who used topost on
>> this list. He sent me a copy back in the day. I thought I saw thatsecond
>> lecture anthologized somewhere, but do not recall the work. It?s not
>> inGusfield?s collection. Has anybody else seen it somewhere outside of
>> Dramatism and Development? It is, Ithink, an important and useful
>> lecture/essay.
>> Letme conclude, or maybe not conclude, by pointing to just some
>> of the passages inearly Burke (that is, Burke?s writings before he gets to
>> the generally?un-Troubled? concerns of a highly-abstracted pentad in the
>> Grammar), that conjure the ?Trouble?inherent in dramatic action as
>> ?conflict? of one degree or another in quest of?redemption? of some kind:
>> ?Recommendingby Tragedy? and ?The Peace-War Conflict? in the
>> Chapter ?The Ethical Confusion?in P&C, pp. `93-98, and Burke?s ?moralsare
>> fists? interpretation of Bentham, the chapter just before. See, also, in
>> P&C, Burke?s earlier reference tothe scapegoat mechanism as faulty means
>> selection.
>> ?PoeticCategories? and ?The Destiny of Acceptance Frames,? pp.
>> 34-105; the distinctionbetween ?universal? and ?factional? tragedy in ?The
>> General Nature of Ritual,?pp. 188-90 note, in ATH. Burke couldhardly talk
>> about, or distinguish among, genres or ?Categories? of dramawithout getting
>> into aspects of disorder through disobedience, guilt,sacrifice, and
>> redemption---?Trouble,? if you will.
>> Theubiquity of terms and concepts spelling out the ?Trouble? of
>> dramatic conflictin the ?Philosophy of Literary Form,? PLF,pp. 1-137
>> (?Aspects of the Scapegoat in Reidentification,?
>> ?purification,??redemption,? ?burden,? ?debt,? ?disease,? ?problem,?
>> ?evils,? ?indictment,??sacrifice,? etc.) And, of course, note Burke?s
>> analysis of the scapegoatmechanism in ?The Rhetoric of Hitler?s ?Battle,??
>> pp. 191-220, a treatment oftroublous drama that does actually conclude with
>> Burke?s using the term ?trouble? as ?locus of? a drama?s inception on p.
>> 220.
>> And,although A Rhetoric of Motivesappears after, not before,
>> the Grammar,RR still precedes Burke?s shift to?logology? and its more
>> focused concerns with the negative, the motive ofperfection, the terms for
>> order, and theological drama as epistemologicalfilter or frame, as master
>> ?terministic screen,? if you will. And I?m talkinghere about Burke?s later,
>> more systematic ?logological? treatments, sinceadumbrations of such
>> concerns appear, for example, in RM in the ?Pure Persuasion? section, and
>> Divine action as ?ultimate?anecdote of action in the Grammar (p.61 ff.).
>> Hints of the logological or epistemological turn are scatteredthroughout
>> early Burke.
>> So,observe in RM the very opening ofBurke?s case for
>> ?identification? as ?substance? applied to persusion/communicativegroup-cohesion-building
>> in general: Burke starts via illustration ofColeridge?s insight, ??. . . in
>> His vast family no Cain/ Injures uninjured (in her best aimed blow/
>> Victorious Murder ablind Suicide).?? That is, Burke begins with the
>> fundamental ?Trouble?inaugurating the human drama, the internal one,
>> Freud?s indictment of the Egoby the Superego, generating and ?Qualifying
>> the Suicidal Motive,? or ?Self-Immolation,?as Burke puts it (pp. 5, 7).
>> We?ve got Milton?s Samson pulling down the ceilingon himself and the
>> Philistines together, Arnold?s Empedocles jumping into avolcano, Arnold?s
>> Rustum killing his son Sohrab as proxy for himself (like thefather Burke
>> elsewhere references [RM,pp. 260-63] who felt an urge to through his son
>> down from the top of a tallbuilding, as a form of self-destruction, that
>> expresses the same motive inancient cultures in the sacrifice of the
>> first-born, male, or male or female;in enlightened Biblical Israel, that
>> first-born child was ?redeemed,? boughtback from such a fate by payment of
>> 5 shekels of silver; Exodus 13:1-2, 11-16;Numbers 18:15-16).
>> In RM, Burke goes on to classify the rhetoras, in a sense, a
>> ?killer? who, by way of such symbolic aggression, usuallyturned outward,
>> effects ?transformation? via a reidentification that can knitspeaker and
>> listeners together in common cause. Rhetoric, Burke says, ?mustoften carry
>> us far into the lugubrious regions of malice and the lie,? thesymbolic and
>> so often material ?Human Barnyard? (p. 23). Talk about ?Trouble?!See
>> ?Order, the Secret, and the Kill? and ?Pure Persuasion? for more
>> dramatic?Trouble? and extreme self-sacrifice and/or extreme dramatic
>> self-aggrandizement.
>> That?sall I have to say in particular about the partly
>> ?Trouble[some],? as I see it,article in the current KBJ. However,Stan?s
>> well-taken note that Burke?s ?grammar of motives? is rooted in the
>> basicgrammar of language raises for me, at least, the question: Does Burke
>> own thepentad, or only his creative use of it?
>> Again,inquiring minds want to know.
>> Ed
>>
>> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:53 PM, Edward C Appel <
>> edwardcappel at frontier.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Les,
>> In respect to your three posts in this thread:
>> On the first, I would differ with your rejection of "The Iron Law of
>> History." Remember that there is "comic" drama, as well as the more
>> intensive genres. "Victimage" in comedy is most attenuated, but the mere
>> reproof or "slap on the wrist" or social distance still comes under the
>> heading of "sacrifice" of the other.
>> On the second, great job, no qualms.
>> On the third, again, most illuminating and insightful on CS, but a bit
>> beside the mark maybe in your first sentence. Burke devoted a whole lecture
>> at Clark U. to the topic "Archetype and Entelechy," published in his
>> Dramatism and Development (1972, pp. 33-55). The entelechialized "perfect
>> form" Burke cites as example is "the Freudian archetype of the 'primal
>> crime'" (p. 42 ff.). In this revised lecture, Burke analogizes archetypal,
>> prototypical, entelechial, paradigmatic, summational, culminative,
>> idealized, essentialized, rounded out, perfected, thoroughgoing, taken to
>> the end of the line, the form that would best fulfill the symbolic telos,
>> striving after complete satisfaction, at a high or highest level of
>> generalization or abstraction, pure form, condensatiion, completion,
>> mythic, absolute, a key terminologu and resultant attitude that functions
>> as a generating principle, and a compulsion to conform perfectly to such a
>> pattern
>> The notion of "archetype" thus fits well with the thought of late,
>> logological, Burke.
>>
>>
>> Ed.
>>
>> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:05 PM, Leslie Bruder <
>> bruderian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Burke was careful to avoid the wordarchetype, though I am not sure why.
>> WilliamRueckert in The Drama of Human Relationssays tragedy is Burke?s
>> representative ?anecdote.? In Counter-Statementmetaphysical universals
>> become psychological universals, the divine formsbecome ?conditions of
>> appeal,? and a consequence of the naturalization of theseuniversals is to
>> convert them into the tools of the craftsman or wordsmith(reversal,
>> contrast, crescendo, repetition, balance, etc.,). Dramatismas a
>> full-fledged theory emerges from the process of refinement going on in
>> hisearly work. Rueckert sizes it upconcisely (trues it up): every poem is
>> simultaneously revelation, ritual andrhetoric. I imagine that as Burke
>> thinksthrough how ?universal situations give rise to recurrent emotions
>> then to fundamentalattitudes and finally typical actions? he recognized
>> [that] this ?pattern ofexperience? was thee creature he was tracking down.
>> Precisely when this ?pattern of patterns?came to him, and precisely how (in
>> a dream?) I don?t know, but at this earlystage, steeped in ?mountains of
>> words? and mulling over the anthropologist?s ?universal pattern? hemust
>> have felt he was getting close. Standing just behind the scenes
>> contemplating the poet/metaphysicians conditionsof appeal and the nine
>> ?potentials? of the anthropologist?s universal pattern (speech,material
>> traits like tools, art, mythology, religion, social systems,
>> property,government and war) it was the process of individuation that must
>> have beenparticularly fascinating to him. Inmaking a poem the poet
>> ritualizes his revelation (CS 168-169). Since Burke wrote that the poet
>> communicateshis idea to others I would amend the above formula: the poem is
>> the ritualized(he also says ?stylized?) revelation of the poet?s vision or
>> epiphany. Aninteresting question at this point is whether the inspiration
>> of the poet?ssymbol is passively suffered (Burke uses the example of a poet
>> suffering from afeeling of inferiority or depression). Hedistinguishes the
>> poet from the dreamer as one who not only spontaneouslygenerates images but
>> one in whom the ?desire to communicate becomes consciousmotive, dreaming
>> passes into creating.? (Rueckert 6) The conversion of the suffered into
>> ?equipmentfor living? moves through diagnosis toward illumination which as
>> Burke says isthe chief function of art as revelation. Certainly a ritual of
>> initiation isonly a beginning of the human apprenticeship, theory leads to
>> practice,revelation to knowledge, early reproductions to master works. Les
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, <wessr at oregonstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, interesting discussion. Just want to add a comment on the pentad--
>>
>> The pentad comes from drama, of course, and drama is conflict and
>> resolution. Burke sees characters and ideas as interchangeable--that is,
>> characters in a drama can be viewed as ideas and ideas in a philosophy can
>> be viewed as characters in a drama ("Poetic Motive," p. 60). Ideas can
>> conflict and their conflict can be resolved, analogous to drama. A
>> particularly clear example is Burke's analysis of Kant in GM. Agent in Kant
>> resolves conflict, both the particular conflict that Hume uncovered and
>> that awoke Kant with a "jolt" (GM 186) and more generally the conflict
>> between motion and action. Agent is where Kant positions both empirical
>> science (motion) and moral freedom (action). Philosophy's "basic ways and
>> aims," Burke insists, "are to be viewed in terms of poetic action" (GM 190).
>>
>> Drama is also arguably the archetype of archetypes.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Quoting Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>:
>>
>>
>> Jim M,
>>
>>
>> There?sno doubt that Burke did not invent or first discover and
>> explore the ?Trouble?or ?conflict? inherent in drama. Such analysis has
>> been around for a long, longtime, as we know.
>>
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>>
>> Thanksfor those quotes from your letter from Burke back in the
>> 1970s. The more we getgeneral access to those more informal statements of
>> Burke?s, the better. Thenotion of Burke urging a further ?perfecting? of
>> his philosophy by his readersand interpreters is both encouraging and
>> characteristic of his style of thoughtand composition.
>>
>>
>> JimK,
>>
>>
>> Yousay you basically agree with me. I say I basically agree
>> with you. In sayingthat I agree with the way you characterize the pentad
>> and its function is tosay, also, that I agree with the authors of the
>> ?Trouble[some]? article in the KBJ on that score. They can?t find?Trouble?
>> in the Grammar. There?s no need for ?Trouble,? i.e.,the ?conflict? of
>> full-fledged drama and all its consequences, to be in the Grammar. These
>> ?basic forms of[pentadic] thought,? as Burke calls them, for ?attributing
>> motives,? derived asStan says from the grammar of language itself, can be
>> used on what Burkeindicates is a ?general,? high level of abstraction to
>> bring to the surface ina discourse the motivational strategies at work to
>> finesse listeners andreaders into concerted action. Those twists, feints,
>> and sleights of hand maynot be apparent on the surface.
>>
>>
>> WhatI disagree with in the KBJ article inquestion is the
>> authors? broader statement that ?Trouble? is not to be foundanywhere in
>> Burke?s corpus, that, indeed, this implicit and ultimatelynecessary
>> dramatic concept should be attributed to Jerome Bruner, as Bruner
>> hasinterpreted and employed Burke. Various terms and uses of the
>> ?Trouble[some]?guilt-sacrifice -redemption cycle are scattered throughout
>> Burke?s earlywritings, and then in more detailed anatomical analysis,
>> starting at least inBurke?s Princeton conference paper (1951), published as
>> an appendix to the 2ndedition of P&C in 1954. Thechapter, ?The First Three
>> Chapters of Genesis,? in RR, we surely know, brings this trajectory to a
>> most thoroughgoingconclusion.
>>
>>
>> Now,in my Primer, I do two relevantthings: In the first three
>> chapters, I show, I do believe, how theguilt-redemption cycle, or terms
>> implicit in the idea of order, devolve fromthe pentad, or the basic grammar
>> of language. Drama in all its aspects isimplicit in the language humans use
>> even ?trivially,? as Burke says early in RR, the book that brings this
>> trajectoryof implications into full view, ifelliptically. I entitled
>> Chapter 1 in the Primer, ?The General, Implicitly MoralPattern of Verbal
>> Action?; Chapter 2, ?The Specific, Explicitly Moral Patternof Verbal
>> Action?; Chapter 3, ?A Paradigm for Invention of Discourse andAnalysis of
>> Texts That Combines the Two Patterns.? This generic pattern thenbrcomes the
>> basis for distinguishing Burke?s notions of ?tragic? drama, ?comic?drama,
>> and ?burlesque? drama, by way of various levels of dramatic intensity. Iadd
>> my conception of ?melodrama,? about which Burke does not have as much tosay.
>>
>>
>> In my Addendum 3, Iexplain, in my humble way, how the pentad can be
>> detached from the trajectoryof implications Burke explicitly offers in
>> ?Terministic Screens? in LASA, and used as a ?Separate CriticalTool.? I
>> highlight three aspects of Burke?s creative employment of thesefundamental
>> grammatical concepts:
>>
>>
>> First, in discurse, asin philosophies, one pentadic term, one of these
>> basic forms of thought, tendsto get emphasized. I tie this tendency to
>> Burke?s notions of ?perfection? or?entelechy.?
>>
>>
>> Second, another pentadicterm will often be coupled with this source of
>> overarching explanation in whatBurke calls a ?ratio.?
>>
>>
>> Third, these basicforms of thought that imply one another are, in each
>> case, not tied down to anyparticular entities or processes whatsoever.
>> Pentadic terms are eminently?flexible.? I use ?war? and the ?human body? to
>> show how they each can be anagent, act, purpose, means, or scene, depending
>> on the route of strategicambiguity a rhetor chooses. Burke?s metaphor of
>> the ?alembic? of transformationvia the melting of metal serves as
>> descriptive such strategic transformation. Ireference Clark Rountree?s
>> superb book on ?Motives in Bush vs. Gore? asillustration.
>>
>>
>> So I don?t think I?mstinting on the value and uniqueness of pentadic
>> theory and criticism. I justhave not personally used it. I excuse that
>> lacuna by reference to my admittedly?morbid? personality. That?s what Burke
>> says is the drawback in pentadic theoryand criticism alone. It?s not MORBID
>> enough. And ?morbid[ity]? is ?Trouble?!
>>
>>
>> All this raises theissue of late Burke in relation to early Burke. My
>> simple mind sees morecongruities than dislocations between Burke before the
>> 1950s, and Burke afterthe turn of the half-century.
>>
>>
>> But time?s up fortoday. That question for later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 23, 2017 4:57 PM, James Klumpp <jklumpp at umd.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am not certain that I disagree at all with Ed Appel. But I do think
>> that we err when we try to overburden the pentad by loading all Burkean
>> insights on it. Trouble is one of those. We need to remember that the
>> pentad was a vocabulary designed to work with variety of accounts.
>> "This book is concerned with the basic forms of thought which, in
>> accordance with the nature of the world as all men experience it, are
>> exemplified in the attributing of motives. . . We shall use five terms
>> as generating principle for our investigation. In a rounded statement
>> about motives . . ." Now when we accomplish this task of understanding
>> the ways in which the symbol using animal attributes motives, provides
>> symbolic accounts of situations, we have not said all that is to be
>> said. Very well. Why does the pentad need to capture all of the world's
>> insight? Let Ed say that the dramatistic process is necessary to a
>> fuller statement about diachronic narrative (and to human conflict). I
>> am fine with that. I agree. And, drama is a natural metaphor because,
>> Burke argues elsewhere, the state of Babel creates disorder and
>> conflict, as Jim Moore adds. But let us not lose sight of the necessary
>> work that the pentad does so well -- illuminating the variety of motives
>> that mark the Babel of human speech. Let it do that work well and let
>> other insights take that necessary work and proceed further in the human
>> drama.
>>
>> In short, the addition of Trouble into the pentad does not enhance its
>> ability to clarify accounts, in my judgment. Save the insights that
>> flow from Trouble and the many other terms of disorder that Ed has
>> cataloged for a fuller discussion of the rich complex of terminologies
>> of which the pentad is one. Let the humble pentad do its work well. If
>> we do, I think that we will have less chance of losing the point that
>> the pentad was posited for in the first place: to capture ways that
>> symbolic accounts carve up the world differently.
>>
>> Jim Klumpp
>>
>> --
>> -------------
>> James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus
>> Department of Communication, University of Maryland
>> 409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754
>> Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
>> Voice: 828.689.4456
>> Website: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jk lumpp/home.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________ _________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/l istinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Leslie Bruder <bruderian at gmail.com>
> To: wessr at oregonstate.edu
> Cc: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>, "kb at kbjournal.org" <
> kb at kbjournal.org>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:38:59 -0600
> Subject: Re: [KB] Editing Redux
>
> Ed, James Klump, Robert Wess, Stan Lindsay and other Burkophiles,
>
>
> Ed, I do wish I had more time on my hands (not to say blood) in order to
> respond to the excellent posts in this thread. The list of related
> concepts you provided from Archetype and Entelechy is certainly exhaustive
> and there isn’t any obvious or damning evidence that Burke strategically
> avoided the term “archetype,” as you and Robert Wess have pointed out. My
> impression had been that he didn’t want his line of thought confused with
> the Jungian vein and that until he could readily distinguish his ideas of
> symbolic action from the archetypal symbols central to Jung’s theory of the
> collective unconscious he would find ways to avoid or talk around those
> ideas. I look forward to reading Archetype and Entelechy as I am sure it
> will enrich and deepen my understanding of the interplay of the diachronic
> (dramatism) and the synchronic (logology).
>
>
> The Pentad is a good candidate for the symbol, a sort of verbal equivalent
> of the pentagon or pentagram. As a generator of the basic forms of thought
> its thorough employment would appear to be holistic and organic. I find it
> easy to agree with James Klump and Stan Lindsay that its terms are not so
> much separate categories as they are sets of relationships. While the
> Pentad’s terms are “stripped of specifics” the texts or phenomena examined
> through its lens certainly are not. Analogies are never total but the use
> of the Pentad is something like taking an X-ray; clothing, the flesh seem
> to disappear and we are left with a structure, a skeleton, which is no less
> individuated than the outward form. Unlike an autopsy, however, the X-ray
> is taken of a living, still acting being. Instead of trying to determine
> cause of death, reconstruct the crime or even set the atomized and
> dissected Frankenstein monster back into motion, a more organic and
> minimally invasive procedure is used to understand what makes the living
> thing tick. Perhaps Burke is simply moving us toward a more organic and
> ecologically sound way of being and thinking already manifest in the world
> as perennial philosophy or any number of working world views, but that
> conclusion would mask what is unique about his vision.
>
>
> As archetype of archetypes or pattern of patterns, the conflict and
> resolution of drama, as Wess reminds us, is analogous to the conflict and
> resolution of ideas. That “characters in a drama can be viewed as ideas”
> (allegory) and “ideas in a philosophy can be viewed as characters in a
> drama” (reverse allegory) not only alleges the interchangeability of idea
> and character, it proves an excellent interface for the diachronic and the
> synchronic, the two halves of Burke’s Symbolon. Of the four kinds of form
> outlined in Counter-Statement, progressive form was further broken down
> into syllogistic and qualitative (It may be more accurate to say “broken
> up”). So when we say that it is the “tragic rhythm” of a well constructed
> plot that makes it comparable to a “well conducted deductive and inductive
> argument,” (Rueckert 22) we are on the verge of determining the perhaps
> intimate relationship between epiphany and proof.
>
>
>
> There is a third category of reasoning which Burke all but abstracted
> (abducted) from Poe’s *The Philosophy of Composition* and I anticipate it
> will throw a lot of light on the resolution of the conflict between the
> poetic and the mathematic mind, but for the moment I need to shut down.
>
>
> Les
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, <wessr at oregonstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all, interesting discussion. Just want to add a comment on the pentad--
>>
>> The pentad comes from drama, of course, and drama is conflict and
>> resolution. Burke sees characters and ideas as interchangeable--that is,
>> characters in a drama can be viewed as ideas and ideas in a philosophy can
>> be viewed as characters in a drama ("Poetic Motive," p. 60). Ideas can
>> conflict and their conflict can be resolved, analogous to drama. A
>> particularly clear example is Burke's analysis of Kant in GM. Agent in Kant
>> resolves conflict, both the particular conflict that Hume uncovered and
>> that awoke Kant with a "jolt" (GM 186) and more generally the conflict
>> between motion and action. Agent is where Kant positions both empirical
>> science (motion) and moral freedom (action). Philosophy's "basic ways and
>> aims," Burke insists, "are to be viewed in terms of poetic action" (GM 190).
>>
>> Drama is also arguably the archetype of archetypes.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Quoting Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>:
>>
>> Jim M,
>>>
>>>
>>> There?sno doubt that Burke did not invent or first discover
>>> and explore the ?Trouble?or ?conflict? inherent in drama. Such analysis has
>>> been around for a long, longtime, as we know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanksfor those quotes from your letter from Burke back in the
>>> 1970s. The more we getgeneral access to those more informal statements of
>>> Burke?s, the better. Thenotion of Burke urging a further ?perfecting? of
>>> his philosophy by his readersand interpreters is both encouraging and
>>> characteristic of his style of thoughtand composition.
>>>
>>>
>>> JimK,
>>>
>>>
>>> Yousay you basically agree with me. I say I basically agree
>>> with you. In sayingthat I agree with the way you characterize the pentad
>>> and its function is tosay, also, that I agree with the authors of the
>>> ?Trouble[some]? article in the KBJ on that score. They can?t find?Trouble?
>>> in the Grammar. There?s no need for ?Trouble,? i.e.,the ?conflict? of
>>> full-fledged drama and all its consequences, to be in the Grammar. These
>>> ?basic forms of[pentadic] thought,? as Burke calls them, for ?attributing
>>> motives,? derived asStan says from the grammar of language itself, can be
>>> used on what Burkeindicates is a ?general,? high level of abstraction to
>>> bring to the surface ina discourse the motivational strategies at work to
>>> finesse listeners andreaders into concerted action. Those twists, feints,
>>> and sleights of hand maynot be apparent on the surface.
>>>
>>>
>>> WhatI disagree with in the KBJ article inquestion is the
>>> authors? broader statement that ?Trouble? is not to be foundanywhere in
>>> Burke?s corpus, that, indeed, this implicit and ultimatelynecessary
>>> dramatic concept should be attributed to Jerome Bruner, as Bruner
>>> hasinterpreted and employed Burke. Various terms and uses of the
>>> ?Trouble[some]?guilt-sacrifice-redemption cycle are scattered
>>> throughout Burke?s earlywritings, and then in more detailed anatomical
>>> analysis, starting at least inBurke?s Princeton conference paper (1951),
>>> published as an appendix to the 2ndedition of P&C in 1954. Thechapter, ?The
>>> First Three Chapters of Genesis,? in RR, we surely know, brings this
>>> trajectory to a most thoroughgoingconclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now,in my Primer, I do two relevantthings: In the first three
>>> chapters, I show, I do believe, how theguilt-redemption cycle, or terms
>>> implicit in the idea of order, devolve fromthe pentad, or the basic grammar
>>> of language. Drama in all its aspects isimplicit in the language humans use
>>> even ?trivially,? as Burke says early in RR, the book that brings this
>>> trajectoryof implications into full view, ifelliptically. I entitled
>>> Chapter 1 in the Primer, ?The General, Implicitly MoralPattern of Verbal
>>> Action?; Chapter 2, ?The Specific, Explicitly Moral Patternof Verbal
>>> Action?; Chapter 3, ?A Paradigm for Invention of Discourse andAnalysis of
>>> Texts That Combines the Two Patterns.? This generic pattern thenbrcomes the
>>> basis for distinguishing Burke?s notions of ?tragic? drama, ?comic?drama,
>>> and ?burlesque? drama, by way of various levels of dramatic intensity. Iadd
>>> my conception of ?melodrama,? about which Burke does not have as much tosay.
>>>
>>>
>>> In my Addendum 3, Iexplain, in my humble way, how the pentad can be
>>> detached from the trajectoryof implications Burke explicitly offers in
>>> ?Terministic Screens? in LASA, and used as a ?Separate CriticalTool.? I
>>> highlight three aspects of Burke?s creative employment of thesefundamental
>>> grammatical concepts:
>>>
>>>
>>> First, in discurse, asin philosophies, one pentadic term, one of these
>>> basic forms of thought, tendsto get emphasized. I tie this tendency to
>>> Burke?s notions of ?perfection? or?entelechy.?
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, another pentadicterm will often be coupled with this source of
>>> overarching explanation in whatBurke calls a ?ratio.?
>>>
>>>
>>> Third, these basicforms of thought that imply one another are, in each
>>> case, not tied down to anyparticular entities or processes whatsoever.
>>> Pentadic terms are eminently?flexible.? I use ?war? and the ?human body? to
>>> show how they each can be anagent, act, purpose, means, or scene, depending
>>> on the route of strategicambiguity a rhetor chooses. Burke?s metaphor of
>>> the ?alembic? of transformationvia the melting of metal serves as
>>> descriptive such strategic transformation. Ireference Clark Rountree?s
>>> superb book on ?Motives in Bush vs. Gore? asillustration.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I don?t think I?mstinting on the value and uniqueness of pentadic
>>> theory and criticism. I justhave not personally used it. I excuse that
>>> lacuna by reference to my admittedly?morbid? personality. That?s what Burke
>>> says is the drawback in pentadic theoryand criticism alone. It?s not MORBID
>>> enough. And ?morbid[ity]? is ?Trouble?!
>>>
>>>
>>> All this raises theissue of late Burke in relation to early Burke. My
>>> simple mind sees morecongruities than dislocations between Burke before the
>>> 1950s, and Burke afterthe turn of the half-century.
>>>
>>>
>>> But time?s up fortoday. That question for later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 23, 2017 4:57 PM, James Klumpp <jklumpp at umd.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not certain that I disagree at all with Ed Appel. But I do think
>>> that we err when we try to overburden the pentad by loading all Burkean
>>> insights on it. Trouble is one of those. We need to remember that the
>>> pentad was a vocabulary designed to work with variety of accounts.
>>> "This book is concerned with the basic forms of thought which, in
>>> accordance with the nature of the world as all men experience it, are
>>> exemplified in the attributing of motives. . . We shall use five terms
>>> as generating principle for our investigation. In a rounded statement
>>> about motives . . ." Now when we accomplish this task of understanding
>>> the ways in which the symbol using animal attributes motives, provides
>>> symbolic accounts of situations, we have not said all that is to be
>>> said. Very well. Why does the pentad need to capture all of the world's
>>> insight? Let Ed say that the dramatistic process is necessary to a
>>> fuller statement about diachronic narrative (and to human conflict). I
>>> am fine with that. I agree. And, drama is a natural metaphor because,
>>> Burke argues elsewhere, the state of Babel creates disorder and
>>> conflict, as Jim Moore adds. But let us not lose sight of the necessary
>>> work that the pentad does so well -- illuminating the variety of motives
>>> that mark the Babel of human speech. Let it do that work well and let
>>> other insights take that necessary work and proceed further in the human
>>> drama.
>>>
>>> In short, the addition of Trouble into the pentad does not enhance its
>>> ability to clarify accounts, in my judgment. Save the insights that
>>> flow from Trouble and the many other terms of disorder that Ed has
>>> cataloged for a fuller discussion of the rich complex of terminologies
>>> of which the pentad is one. Let the humble pentad do its work well. If
>>> we do, I think that we will have less chance of losing the point that
>>> the pentad was posited for in the first place: to capture ways that
>>> symbolic accounts carve up the world differently.
>>>
>>> Jim Klumpp
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------
>>> James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus
>>> Department of Communication, University of Maryland
>>> 409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754
>>> Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
>>> Voice: 828.689.4456
>>> Website: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KB mailing list
>> KB at kbjournal.org
>> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> KB mailing list
> KB at kbjournal.org
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
>
>
--
Jarron Slater
PhD Candidate, Rhetoric and Scientific and Technical Communication
<http://cla.umn.edu/writing-studies/graduate/degrees/ma-phd>
Department of Writing Studies
University of Minnesota--Twin Cities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kbjournal.org/pipermail/kb_kbjournal.org/attachments/20170201/38326a0b/attachment.htm>
More information about the KB
mailing list