Burke really felt that rhetoric happened from action.  Rhetoric occurs when a person is in the moment a “dramatistic” approach to creating and defining what it is.  I take from this that rhetoric never dies but is a type of organism, always changing and evolving.   This seems true when you think about how many different cultures and people have commented on it and shaped it.  “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality”(Burke 45).  Once ideas are out there and it is part of terminology not only does it reflect reality but it defines it like a deflection.  The term becomes the defined but by its own nature it categorizes the term and contains the meaning making the meaning unchangeable, thereby deflecting it. 

As a society we contain the term and even if we theorize or create new ideas are we only reflecting what has already been labeled.  How can anyone have a fresh perspective on rhetoric without re-terming a previous term?  Much of what 5001 has already read about rhetoric reflects other rhetoric readings in some way.  “In brief, much that we take as observations about “reality” may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms” (Burke 46).  I would have to agree with Burke many of what has been said has already been discussed.  Yet another idea Burke toys with is “terministic screens” where everyone has their own perception (Burke 45).  Terministic screens are how anyone lives life, through a filter of ideas that creates reality.  Burke argues that without a screen we have no land to stand on our ideas are like water-everywhere.  The screens make me think of childhood, where, we must start out screen where we begin to see terms and keep them in our brain.  Overall the idea is that people with similar screens must make a good audience like Perleman argues in his article about argumentation.

One main concept for Perelman is selecting an argument that works with the best audience. To win an argument you must have an audience with similar views or create a speech that speaks to their particular ideas or morals.  I would think that this includes the screen concept that Burke talks about, finding people who have similar screens to connect with their terms that they function with creates a winning speech.  The orator looks for an ideal topic that will win over a specific audience.  I would assume that certain age groups or ethnicities might have similar screens.  Overall, to win at a speech you must find a common ground people agree on and that reflects back on the idea of screens because you are looking for a specific term or idea that people know and agree with.  For example, if you say the term robbery people think of what that term means-someone stole stuff.  If you paint the picture that items were stole from a little old lady while she was sleeping; people know what little, old, sleeping means in basic terms.  These basic terms pull on a person’s basic screens of morality and honor about not hurting old people.  If an orator can see that and tap into the basic screen of ideas then they can win the argument.