Burke's third clause in his definition of man, "Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making," when viewed in light of contemporary technological advances offers scholars an interesting point of analysis. When reading this essay, I was struck by use of the phrase "second nature" in describing the third clause. He writes, "The implements of hunting and husbandry, with corresponding implements of war, make for a set of habits that become a kind of 'second nature,' as a special set of expectations, shaped by custom, comes to seem 'natural.'" (13) When I read that phrase I thought of the recent move to "Second Life" that academics have made, and I began to wonder what Burke would think of this virtual environment. Would he be bothered by the fact that many people feel more natural communicating, using symbols, in their second life as opposed to their first life? Is Second Life another example of the Helhaven he later refers to?

Burke’s fourth clause is that man is “Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making” (13). Burke explains that man’s “natural condition” is his “sheer animality” (13). I think this is an insight that is becoming an evermore prescient as man devises and “moves himself into” some his most abstract tools. As Burke seems to suggest with this passage, tools aren’t just things to pick up and use, they are actually things to inhabit. Burke uses the example of the strange feeling of panic experienced by New Yorkers during a black out. The darkened street, utterly routine in the country, became a strange place haunted with danger in the city.

The clause that I'm focusing on is inventor of the negative, and more specifically, Burke's discussion of Existentialism. He says:

The Existentialists may amuse themselves and bewilder us with paradoxes about le Neant, by the sheer linguistic trick of treating no-thing as an abtruse kind of something. It's good showmanship. (LaSA 10)

His attitude towards the existentialists is, I think, very interesting, but I wonder how he would feel about Nihilists, since they're people interested not in linguistic play, but in the concept of nothing as having moral, spiritual, and existential (as in pertaining to existence) consequences. I suppose what I'm asking is...why wasn't there a discussion of Nihilism? Burke describes how the concept of "No" and the negative can motivate people in various ways, but not how Nihilism can likewise motivate people. While fascinated by the "era of negativity", he ignores the era's poster children.

NEGATIVE

a. Consisting in, characterized by, or expressing the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features; devoid of or lacking distinctly positive attributes.
b. Of an attitude, opinion, response, etc.: critical, unfavorable, carping; hostile, destructive, antagonistic. Also of a person: having such an attitude, response, etc.

--OED, 2d ed, 1989

So here is Burke’s summation regarding his definition of “human":
“the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal
Inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)
Separated from his natural condition by instrument of his own making
Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) and rotten with perfection
” (Language as Symbolic Action 16)

The first qualification in Burke's definition of a human--that is "the symbol-using animal"--reminds me of linguistics, in which human language in set apart from other forms of animal communication by two distinct features: "creativity and freedom from external stimuli" (the features are quoted from Victor Raskin). Creativity means that, unlike other animals, we can shape unique messages. The second feature calls to mind Behaviorist studies where an animal is conditioned to respond in a certain way to a given stimulus.