Here Comes Burke!! Watch your language!

In lecture tomorrow, I’m primarily going to cover content from A Grammar of Motives, but the last question I am going to pose involves an idea from a later work of his, Language of Symbolic Action.

Why does Burke believe that the ratios “scene-act” and “scene-agent” are the most important? What significance do they hold over the other elements in the pentad? (What is the general importance of the other elements?)

Burke’s concept of language was that it did not simply describe truths, experiences, or ideas. It directs us toward seeing some things, and ignoring others. How does this compare with classical rhetoric? Was “framing” such a blatant concept?

Burke spends a deal of time discussing the distinction between action and motion. In nearly all cases, human motivation drives action. Could we have suggested that Burke take a page from Freud? Is Burke leaving enough room with his concept of motion to accommodate the possibility that “A pickle’s sometimes just a pickle?”

What is the importance of Burke’s terministic screens? Is Burke’s metaphor involving various photos of the same object helpful to understanding the screens? How often do we find ourselves adapting our perceptions retroactively?