Much of Burke's argument is that in order to know something or to successfully express yourself to an audience, you must know their symbols of language, and you must know how to use the language. "If you want to attack the Republican party, become a Republican." (p 342) This method was called "boring within". By 'boring within', you are identifying with them by talking the language, using the gestures, tonalities, orders, images, ideas, and attitudes. In this way, the speaker is sharing the same experiences and is then able to have a full understanding that is synonymous.
In relation to the understanding of language, Hellen Keller claims that she is able to understand the world around her based on the symbols of language. She says on page 345, "The deaf-blind child has inherited the mind of seeing and hearing ancestors-a mind measured to five senses. Therefore, he must be influenced, even if it be unknown to himself, by the light, color, and song which have been transmitted through the language he is taught, for the chambers of the mind are ready to receive that language. The brain of the race is so permeated with color that it dyes even the speech of the blind." If language really allows the blind to have a full sense of 'knowing', do you think she would know the difference between purple and blue? Can you describe the difference between purple and blue to her? Can you feel the difference between purple and blue? What about the different shades of purple?
Do you think Keller and Burke are contradicting each other, or themselves? Wasn't it Burke who said that there are going to be as many interpretations for the same thing as there are people? In other words, didn't he say that each person has their own filter or point of view of looking at things and that there is no way of having a harmonious sense of 'knowing'? How do you relate his past passage to what this new passage is saying?