PENTAD - FLUX OF THE SPIRIT
This is a preliminary essay by Anthony Blake, written as a starting point for a
contribution on the Pentad to his proposed Book of the World.
Study of Human Proportions According to Vitruvius by Leonardo da Vinci
c. 1485-90
Quintessence
The pentad appears in some ancient schemes as the unity or commonality underlying
the terms of the tetrad. Thus, the ether was proposed as a fifth element underlying the
other four of earth, water, air and fire. Greek and Indian thought were closely aligned in
their treatment of the five elements. In India, we find the pancha tattwa – the five
elements or principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Akasa – Ether.
Vayu – the Aerial principle.
Tejas – the Principle of Light and Heat.
Apas – Watery Principle.
Prithivi – the Earthy Principle.
In this scheme, akasa is seen as the most primordial of the five, that from which the
others derive. This top-down kind of explanation is complemented by the bottom-up
one in which the fifth is seen as the ‘underlying sameness’ of the others. In adding this
fifth element thought is following the principle of seeing the assembly or system of a set
of terms as signifying a new term, a principle that played a considerable role in
Whitehead’s metaphysics.
“Creativity” is the principle of novelty. An actual occasion is a novel entity diverse
from any entity in the “many” which it unifies. Thus “creativity” introduces novelty
into the content of the many which are the universe disjunctively.”
“Together” presupposes the notions “creativity”, “many”, “one”, “identity” and
“diversity”. The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to
conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction.
The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the “many” which it finds, and is
also one among the disjunctive “many” which it leaves … The many become one,
and are increased by one. In their natures, entities are disjunctively “many” in
process of passage into conjunctive unity.
If we have N terms, then the system as a whole becomes an N + 1th term and
leads into the N + 1th system. The new term is a transitional element that has two
faces: on the one it is a unity of the several N terms, while, on the other, it is a term
amongst N + 1 terms of the new system. What the description does not give is the way
in which the previous N terms change their character. The new term is not just ‘added
on’ but leads into a new meaning. This is because, in order to be a system, the terms
of the new system must ‘work out’ their mutual relevance, which relevance is
substantially altered by the presence of the new term (just as having sex in the
presence of another person radically alters the nature of the sexual act).
Having a special term that carries with it the unity of the other ones does not
originate with the pentad. We have already seen much the same characteristic for the
‘third force’ of the triad and the ‘ideality’ or ‘form’ of the tetrad. Hindu thought
exemplifies how we can pass to evermore inclusive views. In particular, it contains a
scheme of five states of consciousness. Here is a typical explanation:
The first state is the awakened one or the conscious state.
The second state is the Dream or sub-conscious state. When we are awake we see
everything around us limited by the power of our sense organs, while as we dream,
we gravitate between the awakened and the dream states, since we do not dream
when we are either in the awakened or in [the third state]
The third state is the ‘deep-sleep state’ when the mind passes through a state in
which we are not normally aware of anything that happens around us. In order to
pass beyond this state one has to have complete control over one’s ‘deep sleep
state’ like ‘Gudakesa’.
The fourth state is the ‘Turiya’ or the ‘state transcendental’ or the ‘Serene and
Blessed state’ that the Mystic Poets and Saints are reported to experience. It is the
Natural Law that controls the entry into the ‘Turiya State’. This entry is possible only
to one who has completely purified the mind. ‘Turiya is absolutely intuitional’ and
can be experienced only in meditation or sequestered contemplation.
The fifth state is ‘Turiyatita’. The great Saints and Sages such as Hui-neng, the
Sixth Patriarch of C’han, and the Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi remained in
‘Turiyatita’ when they attained a mindless-space (Chidakasa) in Cosmic
Consciousness. Here the Self or the one ceases to function since the ‘mind-space’
transforms itself into mindless-space in unmitigated Spirituality, that never
manifests itself. In this state, there is no question of return to the oneself, since it
becomes one with the source by the Grace of Unmanifested spirituality.
This description fails to bring out the inclusive nature of the fifth state. Some other
commentators have pointed out that in this state we can have transcendental
‘mindless’ awareness and also waking capacities such as thought.
Transflux Equilibrium
In reference to the unification of the four elements to make five, we have the special
case of Chinese thought in which we find five elements to begin with: Wood, Fire,
Earth, Metal, Water. No one has worked out why the Chinese adopted these symbols,
but it has been pointed out that the five terms do not represent ‘substances’ but
dynamic states of change. Thus, there is a considerable emphasis placed on the ways
in which the five terms influence each other. Two main ones are distinguished, called
conducive and controlling. The conducive relationships are where the terms enhance
each other or lead into each other, and can best be shown as a circle. The controlling
relationships can then be represented as connections across the circle, as in this
example of the ‘weakening’ cycle.
The pentad is the first system in which we can see clearly two different orders of
connectivity, the one outer and the other inner. The idea of two types of connectivity in
the Chinese scheme shows how the two working together
can produce a state of dynamic equilibrium. Enhancement
(increase) or controlling (decrease) by themselves leads to
unstable or untenable states. Much the same idea is found
in modern systems diagrams, but in a simpler form, where
there is a mixture of positive and negative linkages.
The traditional image of the pentacle shows us that each
term is connected to the other four. In this, it follows the
systematic principle in which the form of the whole system is
replicated in every one of its terms. It also replicates the
Renaissance image of Man as ‘the measure of all things’ by
Vitruvius (see above). The top point is seen as the ‘head’ of brain of the whole
organism and if we were to place the five elements around the circle then the
quintessence or the akasa would be placed there.
Now, the relationships between the terms - Bennett’s ‘mutual relevances’ of each
pair of terms – can be more than the rather quantitative ideas of increase and
decrease. Bennett proposed a more subtle kind in his proposition of the
complementary flux of spiritualization and realization. We will speak of this in the
section on Spirit.
For the moment, we remain with the idea of flux. When he first looked at the five
term system, Bennett decided that it was best exemplified by a flow of energy through
a substance. There is the source and the sink as the ‘outer’ terms. There are also the
two interfaces through which energy flows – in and out of the substance – which are
‘inner’ terms. Finally, there is what is happening in the substance itself.
Source
Interface
Centre
Interface
Sink
This simple pattern can have elaborate implications in scientific experiments. In the
classical apparatus designed by Berthelot there are the following features (see
diagram).
Heat (1) is supplied to the flask (2) containing a
liquid (3) that evaporates through T (4) and then
condenses at G which is immersed in cold water (5).
(The tube A refers to a further refinement of the
experiment and is not included in our description). We
should note that the description involves both elements
of things, as in the case of the flask, and also of ‘flows’,
as in heat supplied to. The structure of the apparatus
as an object corresponds to the structure of the
process – converting liquid to vapor at a certain rate –
and there are important separations, in particular the
insulation of the water coolant from the source of heat
above it. Also, the whole apparatus is insulated from
the environment to minimize heat loss; it is then
possible to calculate how much heat energy is required to produce how much
condensate, from which the latent heat of vaporization of the substance can be
derived. It should be noted that it is the condensate that provides the key information of
the experiment. This simple example shows that there is an essential relationship of
heat input, internal process and quantity of condensate. We can anticipate the
metaphor Bennett later used of considering the central term as ‘feeding’ on the first and
‘being food’ for the second. Finally, we should also note that the experiment only works
when the whole system has reached equilibrium.
Another example of transflux, this time involving light rather than heat, is in the way
that incident white light is refracted into a spectrum of colours by a prism.
The five terms are: (1) source of light, (2) first face of prism at which refraction
takes place, (3) the internal transmission inside the glass medium, (4) the second face
of the prism at which a second refraction occurs, and (5) the issuing beam of spectral
colours. The internal transmission is not trivial since it slows the speed of light, though
this is not visible. This example is important not only for its simplicity but because it
refers forward to what happens when (a) we collimate the incident beam, and (b) focus
the issuing beam. This turns the structure into a heptad and enables the phenomenon
to be controlled in experiments. Ken Pledge, a pupil of Bennett, has developed this
further to designate an ennead or nine-term system as used in the design of
apparatuses. This illustrates the principle of progression that Bennett considered to be
integral to the method of systematics and also that it may well be concretely manifested
in the realm of design and intentional work. Though the pentad has only five terms, it
does encapsulate the essence of the structure of any process, where there is a flux
that engages with and supports an identity. In broad terms, the flux is that which runs
through the whole system and is continuous, while the identities of the apparatus are
discrete and separated. The pentad is perhaps the first system in which this articulation
can be made, that is the conjunction of the continuous flow with the discontinuous
structure.
The question of identity or of ‘being something’ is crucial to understanding of the
pentad. If we look at identity as an absolute given in-itself, it is singular, and was given
the name of haecceitas in Scholastic times, or ‘thisness’; that which makes something
be what it is. If we look at it in terms of cosmoses, we have the essential relationship of
three domains. The idea of cosmos is that of any self-organized whole, complete in
itself, having its own essence. By drawing a diagram such as the one shown here, it is
easy to see how the idea of five terms arises. It is critical that the points
identified in the figure are in locations of transition or interface, a concept
that embraces both flow and discontinuity. The figure also suggests a
secondary feature to do with the conjunction of centre and periphery.
The latter relates to the classical distinction between ipseity and alterity,
or ‘self’ and ‘other’. The range of the pentad contains the symbiosis of
subject and object.
The diagram can be
transposed into the form
that Bennett came to give it.
In broad terms, he uses the
vertical direction as an indication of
‘higher and lower’ and the horizontal one
as an indication of ‘nearer and further’. In
this figure, we see a
move from the simple
linear picture of flux
towards a greater
emphasis on structure.
It is also a move closer to the traditional pentacle form.
Spirit
Spirit is what is itself. The flux (and reflux) of the spirit is how ‘identity’ is derived and
transmitted in reciprocal maintenance. An important background idea is that all spirit is
God. The reciprocal maintenance of spirit is the preservation of God known as Vishnu
in Hinduism. In Gurdjieff it is the trogoautoegocrat (I eat in order to be). Every spirit has
its own hyparxis, or ableness to be; but it is co-dependent on the hyparxis of other
spirits. Co-dependence is regarded as a positive in Gurdjieff, in contrast with Buddhism
where it is a negative.
In the flux and reflux of the spirit (geist) the levels of Being are woven together into
a self-renewing fabric.
The pentad combines being and becoming
One way of thinking about the interweaving of identities is as an interchange of
information. Instead of ‘laws’ we can see the objective aspect of will as information. In a
modern context, an entity such as an organization is only ‘something’ if it learns. The
flux of the spirit is a chain of learning. We are not used to thinking of the manifestation
of recognizable wholes as requiring a processing of information. The interiorisation of
information is a gaining of identity. The contemporary idea of autopoeisis or ‘selfcreation’ fails to recognize the need to take in the means of ‘informing oneself’ from
other autonomous wholes. Gurdjieff’s model of the human food factory includes
impressions as the ‘third being food’, where the term ‘impression’ can be related to
information. This is to see reality not in terms of objects in interaction but as a dialogue.
In a developed and long-term dialogue process between humans, individuals discover
a specific role for themselves. This is self-realization through participation, not through
isolation, also a major theme of Gurdjieff’s teaching.
It is supposed that there are a cosmic set of nodes of identity, which have to be
distinguished from the normal schemes of classification that are based on visible
appearance and location. Cosmic identity, in contrast with local identity, or existence, is
called essence. This means in particular that we humans must belong to an essence
class that has a role in regard to the whole cosmos. This is the class referred to by
Gurdjieff as that of three-brained beings.
The class of three-brained beings is subject to retrogression and progression. Its
members can degenerate into the equivalent of animals or evolve into the equivalent of
angels. The force for this hazardous state of affairs comes from what is called the
germinal essence. This is multifaceted. In nature, it is exemplified by the grains that we
eat, or the seeds that played such a critical role in our history as the basis of
agriculture. The seeds as the sexual part of plants represent the hazards of sexual
reproduction and all kinds of polarity. It is in human nature to feed on conflict, as any
dramatist knows. In our social life, the germinal essence manifests as politics. This
essence then is more like a kind of experience than an existing entity. As a novelist put
it, ‘God does not have to choose but you do’. The germinal essence plays a part in our
thinking as the conflict of right and wrong. To be truly human we have to be able to eat
conflict and ‘metabolize’ it into meaning. What might appear here as mere metaphor is
intended as a literal truth, but only in terms of essence. In terms of existence, myth
appears as fiction, but in terms of essence, it appears as truth.
In this vision, the human class is depicted as having an essential role in ‘eating’ the
forces of conflict and disorder and transforming them into cosmic meaning. The theme
of eating is paramount. Here, we emphasize yet again, that Gurdjieff was almost
unique in his emphasis on the material basis of our experience and identity. Added to
this, he regarded the human essence class as necessarily having a role in feeding
something higher. As we eat, so are we eaten. The modern common view of ourselves
as the top of the pile is, in this view, a serious delusion. A compromise might be
reached by treating the community of selves as in what we grasp as cultures as
standing for the higher intelligence that can eat what we produce. In other words, we
can consider our personal task as involved in becoming food for the emergent Mind of
humanity. We eat food to be able to be eaten. The flux involved is the flow of energy
that becomes ever more intelligible or meaningful. The sufferings we undergo in life,
occasioned through the germinal essence, are to be transformed into meaning. Such a
picture reminds us of the portrait of the artist as in Rilke’s view of the poet.
Every essence class serves as a boundary or limit to other essence classes. What
is transported across a boundary is a lesson or message. The essence classes keep
themselves in tune by adjusting to the signals of other essences. Each is responsible
for the authenticity of its own nature. However, any given essence class has a
‘bandwidth’ of possibilities, which is described simplistically as having a lower and a
higher nature. In the case of ‘man’ the least he can be is an animal and the most he
can be is a demiurge (or higher intelligence). However, it is more important to realize
that the task of an essence class is to integrate its higher and lower natures to create
something new.
Gurdjieff makes much use of a cosmic law he calls harnelmiatznel or ‘higher
blending with lower to actualize middle’. This is an important formulation for
understanding both the triad and the tetrad as well as the pentad that concerns the
structure of spirit, which we are discussing here. It means that every essence class is
realizing itself more and more uniquely. This amounts to another kind of ‘creation’, in
which everything can attain its own reality. Reality is more than existence but less than
essence. Man can never quite become an angel because he has to be embodied. But
neither can he quite become an animal, because he can never entirely lose his self-
consciousness. Demiurge and animal represent asymptotic limits to what a man can
be. His task is to become truly what he is, that is, an individual.
Each essence class is three-fold in this way. Man is the lower nature of the
demiurge and scriptures suggest that at one time demiurgic intelligence appeared on
earth as men. The higher nature of the demiurge is called the Cosmic Individuality.
Known to Christians as Christ, He appears in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin in this
guise. This Individual is source of Compassion and can take on the suffering of every
sentient being. The demiurge or Universal Individuality is too caught up in ideas and
hierarchies to be capable of compassion. In Gurdjieff, it is portrayed as totally
insensitive to the suffering of individuals and identified with the maintenance of world
order; an idea somewhat similar to the rejection of the demiurgic as a ‘false god’ by the
Gnostics.
Each three-fold essence class has its own relative ‘God’ or deity, as it itself in turn
is as ‘God’ to some lower class. Put in other words, the lower can be ‘made use of’ by
the essence class as this class can ‘serve’ what is higher to it. Men makes use of the
germinal essence (as in agriculture) while the demiurge made use of animals (to make
the human vehicle). In a relative sense, every essence class (except the lowest) can
‘act as god’ in its own realm. In our own case, our food is what is expressed in the
phrase ‘fruits of the earth’. It is tragic that the affluent at this time tend to treat food with
indifference or as an indulgence. Nature has laboured long and hard to produce what
we can eat. We put God at the top by default. The essence of this term is the
realization of pure individuality, which Bennett identified with Christ, reminding us of the
mystery of the sacraments in which we partake of the body and blood of Christ! In this
we see once more the image of the pentad in which it is portrayed in a circle, such that
it implies, in this context, God = Food.
GOD
Higher Nature
Essence
Lower Nature
FOOD
The structure leads us to consider a whole chain of being in which the work of one
level or class feeds into or is made use of in another. Spirit is liberated in ascent and
realized in descent along the chain. The whole interlocking dynamic chain exemplifies
synergy or co-operation between levels and takes the form of an eleven term system.
THE COSMIC HARMONY
THE COSMIC INDIVIDUALITY
DEMIURGES
MEN
ANIMALS
GERMS
PLANTS
SOIL
CRYSTALS
SIMPLES
HEAT
totality
compassion
responsibility
self-hood
sensitivity (sentience)
strife
growth
nutrients
minerals
water, air, light
randomness
The Cosmic Harmony is the trogoautoegocrat or ‘ultimate ecological system’. The
terminology of the middle section might usefully be updated to correspond more with
modern biological classification as suggested by John Allen:
Demiurge
Man
Animal
Germ
Plant
Soil
Demiurgia
Symbolica
Animalia
Fungia
Vegetalia
Microbialia
In his account of the essence classes, Bennett points out that man is in a duality
concerning his nature, on the one side being an animal, while on the other being of a
different order. Man in his ‘true essence’ serves the cosmic individuality and not the
demiurge. His deepest connection is to the source of compassion, beyond the creation.
In keeping with this belief, Bennett proposed that our salvation was closely connected
with love of Nature, in the realization that ‘Nature loves us’, another expression of the
cyclic spirit of the pentad in which the highest translates into the lowest.
The outer terms can be looked at as the cosmic view, while the more inward terms
represent the local view. For us, the local view relates us to the planet. The ipseity
remains our own sphere of responsibility.
In the flux of the spirit (from above to below) what exists is given reality by being
seen. In the reflux of the spirit (from below to above) what does not exist (essence) is
given reality by being nourished. The philosophical assertion ‘to exist is to be
perceived’ is replaced by ‘to be seen is to be realized’. The possibility of seeing comes
form above but its substantiation comes from below.
In evolutionary terms we can make a shift from function to experience. Evolutionary
theory properly addresses the development of functions, but there is another approach
that looks at evolution as a progression of experience. It is salutary and intriguing to
realize that our sensual and emotional life must derive from the experiences of billions
life forms in the animal kingdom millions of years before humans ever existed on earth.
This means that something like the ‘very stuff’ of experience is continuing to be
processed on this planet. This ‘stuff’ can be regarded as an energy, but one that has
qualities such as intelligence.
Bennett’s conception of the essence classes enables us to use the pentad to see
anything and everything as playing a role in the through put of energy, a flux along
which its qualitative characteristics are being transformed. Gurdjieff called this the
iraniranumange. One essence class makes a certain difference to the nature of the
energy before it is passed on. It is only able to take in energy when it has reached a
certain quality of experience. The pentad is both an open system and a self-renewing
one. Portrayed in a line it suggests a through-flux. Portrayed in a circle it portrays what
Varela coined the term autopoeisis for.
Entity, Significance and Potentiality
Bennett first proposed that the pentad be taken to symbolize potentiality. This was
partly because the fifth dimension in his framework is that of eternity, the store house of
potentials. It was also to express that with the pentad we have a possibility or hope but
not whether it is fulfilled or not. Later, he modified his view and came to ascribe the
attribute of significance to the five-term system. According to both views, the central
point or ipseity is a point of maximum hazard. In an early diagram of the pentad,
Bennett depicted it as follows.
This form clearly shows the central term as ‘at the crossroads’. It is the in-between
of both an outer and an inner tension. It is being pulled in four directions. In a way, this
figure shows the pentad rather as the tetrad ‘turned inside out’. Instead of four terms
representing sources coming into each other, they are turned into locations or entities
that attract a central domain of uncertainty. One important thing it does is to give equal
weight to contrary tendencies. The higher terms relate to ‘seeing’ and to ‘creativity’
while the lower ones relate to ‘doing’ and ‘mechanicalness’. Instead of regarding the
latter as inferior and to be escaped from, Bennett considered them as of equal
significance, not least, as always in regard to his view of systems, because one cannot
have the one without the other. The figure is evocative of an entity as an embodied and
yet spiritual being. Our sweat and tears serve the purity of spiritual knowledge as this,
in its turn, gives meaning to our sufferings.
However, there is no need to restrict ourselves to spiritual matters. Bennett insisted
that the pentad was the first system where we could reasonably talk of an entity at all.
To change language somewhat, every entity should be seen as both for-itself and forother. It cannot exist at all unless it is ‘fed’ by something else. It disappears into the
universal flux if it does not cling to itself and has its own world. A living department in
an organization has its own world yet exists in a larger world without which it could not
do so. An entity is defined both from inside and from outside. Portraying these inner
and outer worlds by means of two terms each was a way of expressing the idea that
there was a range of experience involved in both. Go beyond a certain degree and it is
no longer part of that world.
The diagram here was made by combining several pentads of the previous form,
adding one for each of the terms in a single pentad. The geometry is somewhat
arbitrary but it serves to illustrate the contention that the inner and outer worlds of any
entity have their natural limits of relevance. An entity is embedded in a certain location
in the whole nexus and can be largely understood in that context. The extreme terms
for any pentad serve to transmit or stand for elements which go beyond its scale of
experience. The entity sees no further than them. Thus our food stands for all of earth’s
bounty while our ‘eater’ or ultimate individuality stands for the whole cosmos. We do
not have any experience of what lies behind them. Similarly, we might say, the
department of a an organization cannot see beyond the market the organization has.
To truly be something is to be for oneself and to be for what is not oneself.
The pentad is the minimal structure in which this
can be accommodated. A small further explanation is
as follows.
We take the bare idea as consisting of ‘I’, me and
other. We then take any line through these as shown
below. It cuts the circles at five points (including the
assumed central one). Why make such a line?
Because we hold to the view that we must include a
sense of flux, which has linear characteristics. Time is
an essential ingredient here. We picture a flux of
experience coming into and out of the given entity. Thus, as children, we take in the
material of our minds from the society in which we live, and come to be able to make a
contribution of our own.
The pentad then can also be seen as the birth of story making, of myth and
explanation.
The inner circle is that of ipseity or self while the outer circle is that of alterity or
other. In this view, the central term belongs to both. The emergence of the central term
of the pentad as of the nature of both ‘in-itself’ and ‘for-itself’, as the uniqueness and
reality of uniqueness of the individual, is a bare indication of the question and enigma
of concrete reality, in which the ‘that’ or ‘such’ is more than an exemplar of a universal.
This was a controversial theme in the history of scholastic philosophy. The standard
explanation for a thing was that it exemplified a Form - that which made it intelligible –
and was individuated only in so far as it was made of this particular quantity of Matter.
However, Duns Scotus in particular argued against this view and it is possible to say
that he introduced the third factor of the Will (of God) to explain haecceitas or
‘thisness’. The doctrine of Forms deals with the Intellect of God and not the Will of God.
Implicit in this approach is the awesome suggestion that the will of God is in everything
and every entity there is or can be represents God, here understood in particular as the
uniqueness that is the supreme characteristic of the will.
The Dramatic Hand
Another famous town planning concept, the Finger
Plan for Copenhagen, was based on a metaphor and
shown by a diagram, of a great hand resting over that
city (Figure 7.5). Since 1947, that great hand has
guided Copenhagen's development. The merchant's
harbour, after which the city was named, sits in the
palm of a guiding hand. Fingers point ways to new
development. Power lines, telecom lines, and rapid
transit lines follow the bones, arteries, veins and
nerves of the fingers. Between those fingers we find
the green land of Denmark. Copenhagen was made
into a garden city but the hand itself, of urban
development, was grey.
These days, we tend to neglect the concrete experience of structure in our own bodies,
unless they are turned into literary metaphors. An interesting avenue to explore is that
of the hand. The hand signifies that by which we act on the world and has immense
significance as in the evolution of human kind), but also as the characteristic way in
which we exercise our will. The hand articulates its intelligence and power through the
five fingers, each of which has a physical and even cultural role. When I ‘point the
finger’ I use my index digit, which has the character of command. When I grasp
something, I have to use the strength of my thumb. The middle finger is used to make a
rude gesture. The fourth is the ring finger and may signify a sense of union, while the
little finger is used in a gesture of politeness. Can the fingers of the hand count as a
symbol of the significance of the pentad?
The fingers, of course, were used in ancient times in a system of counting and
calculation and it was considered essential to be both deft and swift in this practice.
The pentad links with the hand indirectly as being associated with ‘reasons why’ or
purpose. This obviously links with the commonly known questions of Why, What, How,
Who, When and Where, when we take the latter two as combined into one. This is then
how they appear in Kenneth Burke’s dramatism.
1. Act: What happened? What is the action? What is going on? What action; what
thoughts?
2. Scene: Where is the act happening? What is the background situation?
3. Agent: Who is involved in the action? What are their roles?
4. Agency: How do the agents act? By what means do they act?
5. Purpose: Why do the agents act? What do they want?
Put into an order closer to that of our discussions, we read this list of five reasons
as follows, through which we can see a movement from the scene to purpose, through
the realm of agents. In the same light we could look at the natural order and life as
agents seeking a destiny. In these terms, Burke’s pentad can be read as sympathetic
to Bennett’s idea of the dramatic universe.
PURPOSE
AGENCY
AGENT
ACT
SCENE
What is curious about exemplifications we can find of five-term systems is that very
rarely are they afforded any structural insight and investigation. The five are largely
treated as a bunch, reminiscent of the expression ‘a bunch of fives’ for a fist. It is as if
the hand is closed for the most part. It is more than interesting to unclench our hand
and reach with our fingers into understanding.