“A Grammar of Motives”

Burke is confusing to me.  I did not quite understand the pentad.  I am thinking that when presented with a philosophy, a problem, or a question, it is necessary to look at the origin of the thing/scene/action.  Since, the scene stems from the term even though the scene may appear different.  Burke goes on to explain the “rival philosophic terminology” and the subject that the term features: materialism – scene; pragmatism – agency; mysticism – purpose; realism which includes nominalism & rationalism – act.  This is where I completely lose it because Burke states that nominalism &rationalism are a binary.  Realism can be collective or individual.  He all of the terminologies can be either collective or individualistic that depends on the philosophy.  A problem is either collective meaning part of the whole, inseparable from the whole, or a problem is individualistic.  I have read this thing four times and I am not getting it.

The part I did find interesting was the idea of solving a problem.  First one ahs to choose a philosophy and not get caught in the questions upon questionsinflatables, :The term does not merely create other terms in its image.  Also, it generates a particular set of problems—and the attempt to solve these problems may lead the philosopher far from his beginning” (130).  But, this all goes back to the terminology and the binary of nominalism/rationalism.