Once again, Burke has impressed me with his ideas. I am particularly fascinated by the idea that Burke presents regarding observations. He says, "Not only does the nature of our terms affect the nature of our observations, in the sense that the terms direct attention to one field rather than to another. Also, many of the "observations" are but implications of the particular terminology in terms of which the observations are made." (Burke 46) I feel like this idea is relevant to more than just literature (obviously), and I think that this concept means a lot in daily life.
So I feel like Burke was trying to make an interesting point: First, I think he is saying that the nature and meanings of the terms that we as individuals have for understanding our world and the things in it affect the way we make our observations. Burke believes that this happens in the sense that the terms that we have cause us to be attentive to/observe one field over another. I think this is interesting in terms of what it means for our understandings of the world as individuals. This may be a bit too abstract- but it seems that this means that our experiences and observations of the world are highly individualized because everyone's preconceived notions and perspectives are different from each other.
I guess I just wonder what this means for us as observers. I mean, is the idea that each experience or observation is individualized limiting or liberating? I can see it being both. On one hand, I think that there are limitations to individualized terms and observations because then it is hard to happen upon a universal meaning/term. Each thing we observe makes a different impression on different people, and in that sense it seems that nothing can be absolutely defined. But I also see liberation in this in the sense that it seems that our individual experiences give us freedom from definition. We are free and able to see the world the way we wish to, and we are also free to define and label our observations of the world the way we see fit for ourselves. So really, there limitations and freedoms in this idea of individualized observation.
1 comment:
I see your point, and I think its an interesting and noteworthy one. I guess I read "Terministic Screens" not as an individualized approach to language symbols though, but as sort of a collaboration, if that makes sense...? I think Burke's examples made terministic screens seem to appeal to groups of people with an agenda more so than an individual. Like when he talks about "directing the attention" and the duelers conveniently taking a stroll and encountering armed men whom they conveniently need to fight, since dueling was banned by the church (Burke 45). Or (I actually really enjoyed this one) Augustine using different terms to record the baby's behavior that imply the involvement of a God (49). Both of these represent a group of people presenting a screen, or directing the attention for another group who is going to choose to accept this screen. I think that it takes a unit to make terministic screens necessary, in a sense, because they need someone to "direct," someone to appeal to in order to be effective.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.