[KB] [Fwd: Re: FW: Where did Burke say this?]

James F. Klumpp jklumpp at umd.edu
Fri Mar 6 13:25:51 EST 2009


i realized after sending the previous message that Greig was not talking 
about "Dancing" (responding to Wayne Booth) but a response to a later 
Jamison article.  Burke publishes "(Nonsymbolic)Motion/(Symbolic)Action" 
in the number after Jamison, but never cites it as response to Jamison. 
  Don't know if that is what Greig had in mind.

Actually, I did do a search for "Prior to symbolization" in all J-STOR 
material including all of Critical Inquiry.  There were many listings, 
but none were out quotation.

Jim Klumpp

G. Henderson wrote:
> Hi Clarke,
>  
> I can think of one thing that might be worth checking out.  I  seem to 
> remember a response that Burke made in Critical Inquiry, a response to 
> Fredric Jameson's "The Symbolic Inference," which was published in the 
> same journal if memory serves.  That might explain Burke's use of the 
> word "materiality."
>  
> It's a long shot, to be sure, and I can't find my copy of the journal.
>  
> Cheers,
> Greig
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* rountrj at uah.edu <mailto:rountrj at uah.edu>
>     *To:* kb at purdue.edu <mailto:kb at purdue.edu>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:33 PM
>     *Subject:* [KB] [Fwd: Re: FW: Where did Burke say this?]
> 
>     Thanks everyone for the help. It looks like she's barking up the
>     wrong tree on this one.
> 
>     Clarke
> 
>     ---------------------------- Original Message
>     ----------------------------
>     Subject: Re: [KB] FW: Where did Burke say this?
>     From: "Stan Lindsay" <slindsa at yahoo.com <mailto:slindsa at yahoo.com>>
>     Date: Thu, March 5, 2009 11:01 am
>     To: "\"" <blakesle at purdue.edu>
>     "Kenneth Burke Discussion List" <kb at purdue.edu>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     I searched my expanded concordance and couldn't find any use of the
>     terms "delineate," "materiality," or "symbolization."  That doesn't
>     mean he never used them, but it adds to the developing conclusion.
>      Stan A. Lindsay, Ph.D.
>     Department of Communication
>     Florida State University
>     slindsa at yahoo.com
>     http://www.stanlindsay.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     ________________________________
>     From: David Blakesley <blakesle at purdue.edu>
>     To: Kenneth Burke Discussion List <kb at purdue.edu>
>     Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:15:01 AM
>     Subject: Re: [KB] FW: Where did Burke say this?
> 
>     The closest I could find to the passage Clarke mentioned is in "What
>     Are the Signs of What" in Language as Symbolic Action where Burke
>     talks about how an infant "receives through its senses the
>     impressions of nonverbal things" (see p. 362). It's an idea that he
>     repeats in the Chapin documentary also. Burke mentions there that
>     infant means "speechless." Burke's discussion actually does sound a
>     lot like this Schopenhauer idea (nice find Drew!)
> 
>     Dave
> 
> 
>     On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Drew Kopp <kopp at email.arizona.edu>
>     wrote:
> 
>     "If anyone standing before a beautiful landscape could for a moment
>     be deprived of all understanding, then for him nothing of the whole
>     view would be left but the sensation of a very manifold affection of
>     his retina, resembling the many blobs of different colors on an
>     artist's palette. These are, so to speak, the raw material from
>     which just a moment previously his understanding created that
>     intuitive perception. In the first weeks of life the infant feels
>     with all its senses; it does not intuitively perceive, does not
>     apprehend; it therefore stares stupidly at the world" (Schopenhauer
>     _On Vision and Colors_ Payne translation 12).
>      
>     The use of the word "infant" reminded me of this passage
>     from Schopenhauer's early text (1818). In any case, the "Burkean"
>     passage is very Kantian, that is, transcendental, which invokes a
>     priori conditions (rooted in faculties such as the "understanding,"
>     or "reason," AKA symbolization) for the possibility of experience
>     (and of any cognition of that experience). Schopenhauer certainly
>     tried to extend this line of thinking in his own way, and I imagine
>     Burke was familiar with his work (though he only makes a passing
>     reference to Schopenhauer in P&C, and a not so generous one at
>     that), and so in some ways had to contend with the seductive powers
>     of transcendental reasoning.
>      Drew
>      
>      
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Jim Moore
>     To: kb at purdue.edu
>     Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:08 PM
>     Subject: [KB] FW: Where did Burke say this?
> 
>     kb folks:
> 
>     Is the quotation Clarke is trying to locate actually Burke?  It's
>     hard to
>     know out of context but, as is, it sounds more categorical than I would
>     expect when I read "the sole means by which humans come to know
>     that materiality."  I think Burke had enough of a sense of humor to
>     use an example like a baseball bat to the head to refute that bit of
>     piffle.  The final sentence sounds very Burkean but maybe isn't Burke.
>     I'm curious anyway.
> 
>     Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     ________________________________
>     Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:05:04 -0600
>     From: rountrj at uah.edu
>     To: kb at purdue.edu
>     Subject: [KB] Where did Burke say this?
> 
>     Fellow Burkelers--
> 
>     I got a request from a fellow scholar trying to locate the following
>     quotation in Burke (if it's his):
> 
>      >
>      > "believe that symbolization is the sole means by which humans
>     come to know
>      > that materiality. . . . . Prior to symbolization, the material
>     world looks
>      > much like the hazy outlines an infant might see. It is
>     symbolization . .
>      > . which enables humans to discern, delineate, order, and value
>     reality."
>      >
>     Is sounds like P&C to me, but I'm away from my office and unable to
>     check. Anyone know?
> 
>     Clarke Rountree
>     ________________________________
>     Messenger has tons of new features that make chatting more fun.
>     Click here to learn more.
>     ________________________________
>     Tell the whole story with photos, right from your Messenger window.
>     Learn how!
>     ________________________________
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     KB Discussion List
>     KB at lists.purdue.edu
>     https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/kb
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     KB Discussion List
>     KB at lists.purdue.edu
>     https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/kb_______________________________________________
> 
>     KB Discussion List
>     KB at lists.purdue.edu
>     https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/kb
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     KB Discussion List
>     KB at lists.purdue.edu
>     https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/kb
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> KB Discussion List
> KB at lists.purdue.edu
> https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/kb

-- 
James F. Klumpp
2130 Skinner
Department of Communication
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-7635
Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
Voice: 301.405.6520
FAX: 301.314.9471
Website: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm


More information about the KB mailing list