pentadic ratios

Mark H. Wright wright at vc.catv.ne.jp
Wed Aug 28 08:20:58 EST 2002


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C24EE1.2EF34C20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You raise a good point, Clark.  In many places Burke seems to imply that =
the motives are in the discourse, but in his analysis of Marx they seem =
to be in Burke.

In his analysis of Marx Burke seems to operate as a New Critic, who =
would avow his reading of motives even if Marx should appear and deny =
that reading.  Personally, I think this is more defensible than the idea =
that the motives exist in the discourse somewhere.  Then once you knew =
Burke's definition of motives, any critic could find them, and all =
careful readers would find the same ones.  But as we know, it's not so =
simple, and a variety of readings of motives in the same text is =
possible.

Also, his way of reading of Marx is consistent with his later addition =
of partially unconscious processes to rhetorical theory, while the idea =
of read-only, write-protected motives is not.

In any case, aren't the unintended elements and results of discourse =
sometimes more interesting or significant than the intended?

Finally, while in judicial rhetoric motives are talked about as if they =
were textually embodied, criticism is not law.

Just a few thoughts . . .=20

Mark

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C24EE1.2EF34C20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You raise a good point, Clark.&nbsp; In many places =
Burke=20
seems to imply that the motives are in the discourse, but in his =
analysis of=20
Marx they seem to be in Burke.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In his analysis of Marx Burke seems to operate as a =
New=20
Critic, who would avow his reading of motives even if Marx should appear =
and=20
deny that reading.&nbsp; Personally, I think this is more defensible =
than the=20
idea that the motives exist in the discourse somewhere.&nbsp; Then once =
you knew=20
Burke's definition of motives, any critic could find them, and all =
careful=20
readers would find the same ones.&nbsp; But as we know, it's not so =
simple, and=20
a variety of readings of motives in the same text is =
possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Also, his way of reading of Marx is consistent with =
his later=20
addition of partially unconscious processes to rhetorical theory, while =
the idea=20
of read-only, write-protected&nbsp;motives is not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In any case, aren't the unintended elements and =
results of=20
discourse sometimes more interesting or significant than the=20
intended?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Finally, while in judicial rhetoric motives are =
talked about=20
as if they were textually embodied, criticism is not law.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just a few thoughts . . . </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mark</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C24EE1.2EF34C20--




More information about the KB mailing list