Spatters of Lava
The molten mass is an expanse of lava bubbling up (I'm picturing it much the same way I picture primordial soup) and spitting forth particles that may later be reintegrated into the soup and re-incarnated as new bits of of spewed forth particles (xix). Which is an intriguing way of looking at language.
These particles can be seen as terms which are used in a certain context by a certain critic to mean one thing and which may morph into something else under the gaze/use of another person. Herein, it would seem, lies ambiguity.
Beyond a discussion of ambiguity, another key term surfaces: distinctions.
Burke writes, "Distinctions, we might say, arise out of a great central
moltenness, where all is merged" (xix). As I understand it, every term is part of an amorphous mass until it is thrown out on its own distinct from other terms and possible meanings, singled out by a person who chose to set it apart and who chose to attempt to make it a little less ambiguous.
Rhetoric is an attempt to bring together, to overcome the ambiguity. I suppose rhetoric could be the isolation and examination of a drop of lava.
Circumference
Rather than posting multiple entries on the blog site, I decided to post a few other ramblings below here.
As I was reading from Part I, I was also thinking in terms of the 19th century Am. lit class I'm taking right now, and the term "circumference" stood out because it's one of the phrases used by Emily Dickinson. In her lexicon, it is a stand-in for "conscious." Her circumference is the outermost reaches of her own conscious and that circumference touches upon the circumference of the truth that is beyond her conscious and is the most that she can know beyond herself. Her own circumference limits her, but as I understand it, it can expand.
In the Burkeian sense, circumference seems to be more under the observers' control. While the terms are not interchangeable between Burke and Dickinson, placing them side by side intrigues me because they seem to share some of the same attributes and, perhaps, limitations.
Dickinson and Burke
I like this essay into a Burkean reading of Dickinson, and sort of relatedly, I wonder if that placing them side by side intrigues you so because it illuminates the molten mass that both Burke and Dickinson are drawing from.
I think that there is an
I think that there is an overlap between their meanings of circumference, and I'm wrestling with figuring out just how extensive that overlap is.
God
Reading Part I, I was also struck by just how much Burke knows. He seems to have a fairly extensive knowledge of theology in addition to 19th century literature, psychology, and much more besides. How anybody had time to read so much and produce so much baffles me. But I was wondering whether Burke had any "formal" education in theology and whether theologians use Burke as a lens.
I was also
I was also surprised by the extended list of sources Burke seems to be able to draw on in his work, especially in Part II and his use of philosophical movements and specific philosophers to carry the point he is trying to make about the terms of the pentad. Do you think that by using so many sources in his illustrations that Burke inadvertently creates a layer of ambiguity in his own work or do you think the amount of sources he includes helps to illustrate his points more clearly?
All the theological
All the theological discussions intrigue me because I have an interest in that sort of debate, and when he's talking about action, it seems very appropriate to wrestle with the ultimate action--that of creating, particularly creating out of nothing. But I get lost sometimes in his wealth of examples. I feel as if I need to go read everything he's discussing before I can really grasp what he's talking about. I've just entered the parlor and I'm grasping about for things that I have a background in. I cling to Hamlet and Portrait of a Lady because those are the texts I'm familiar with. But I get lost when he discusses the philosophers and the literature I haven't read. To ask him to narrow his scope to suit my narrow experience, however, would be egotistical and unwise. But sometimes just as I feel that I'm beginning to get the hang of things, he jumps to something else, and I feel disoriented again. I'm struggling with the fact that I'm trying to come to an understanding of the content of his examples and his theories all at the same time. What's more, I sometimes get lost in how some of this can be applied. Some of the examples seem so theoretical and abstract that I feel as if I can't possibly turn them around and apply them to anything. I like examples that are based a little more in the concrete, but I understand that he had a purpose in using the examples he did. I just find that it does add to the ambiguity of his work.
LKC, I like your image of
LKC,
I like your image of the lava bubbling up and your bringing the term "distinctions" into your analysis. I guess I am struggling with your choice of the word "overcome." How do you think that we utilize rhetoric in an attempt to overcome ambiguity?
I am still coming to
I am still coming to understand what Burke means by ambiguity. Sometimes it seems to be a positive, but I think sometimes it also can be a stumbling block.
When I was talking about "overcoming" ambiguity, I was thinking in terms of the goal of rhetoric being to reach identification. I was trying to figure out how ambiguity fits into this scenario of ambiguity and how making distinctions could help bring about identification.
In the reading for today, I came across a quote that seems to apply to ambiguity--and to bring in circumference, which is a concept that intrigues me. The quote runs, "Dialectically, any conflict between two concepts of justice can be removed by the adoption of a remoter term broad enough to encompass both, as a distinction between farmhouse and palace can be resolved in classing them both as 'dwellings'" (GM 173). I'm trying to decide what this says about ambiguity, if the expansion of the circumference here can be counted as ambiguity and if this can bring about some form of identification. The less specific can form a false sense of having everybody on the same page. And right after this quote, Burke begins talking about unity and unification--a discussion which I believe looks upon unity as something that we may think we can have but don't necessarily have it.
The problem with language is that there are so many ways to define words. And that, I think, is what the spatters of lava are all about. Each time the term gets reincarnated as a new spatter, it means something different. The term ambiguity is such a word. I come to it seeing it as one thing, but as I read Burke, I can sense and not always understand that he has decentered the meaning of ambiguity. The meaning has shifted, and I'm still trying to get my bearings.
I think part I of your
I think part I of your discussion about "distinctions" is explained by Burke in "Anatomies of Definition" where he traces the meaning of "substance" and its linguistic relatives back to Latin and Greek meanings. Burke's discussion here reminds me very much of deconstruction in, though perhaps Burke's performance of deconstruction's method it is a bit cheerier than Derrida's!