After reading the article by Kenneth Burke I have come to some idea of what identification means to him. I know that identification functions in three basic ways, and the first way it may be used is as a means to an end. An example of this would be if someone running for mayor was talking with a swim team and he told them he used to swim when he was in school. Therefore, they …showed first 75 words of 433 total…

…showed last 75 words of 433 total…be able to be identified without differences because they would all be the same. Therefore, the reason people communicate is to eliminate their differences and proclaim their unity. The two discussion questions that I came up with after reading the articles are: 1) Can “consubstantiality” be explained in some other way then in terms of A and B? 2) Is there another example of what “proving opposites” means besides the one given to us in the book?