We here confront a mere matter of terministic policy. And since the body does, beyond question, affect our thinking by providing us with analogies, to that extent the policy can serve. We'd go along with him, just for the ride, were it not that he later uses this terministic device to the ends of faulty interpretation as regards our current quandaries. On that point, more anon. (Pg. 412)
If the dramatistic screen reflects reality, we can view it through a terministic policy, because terministic devices affect our thinking with analogies. As part of the symbolic action, our body exercise the necessarily suasive nature. The body, arguably, affects our thinking. The body provides us with analogies, and also with the most unemotional scientific nomenclatures. We often proceed along those lines, accepting this terministic policy to serve as analogy.
Any given terminology, something like “terministic policy,” can be a reflection of reality. It can serve as an analogy the body provides. By its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality. However, humans go along with the body because it also functions as a deflection of reality. The body work as a ride, or using Burke’s word, as symbolic action of a methodic tracking down of implications.
The body is the terministic device and man is the kind of being that is particularly distinguished by an aptitude for such action. Humans use the body (as a terministic device) towards the end of faulty interpretation. The medium is the message, thus the faulty interpretation creates our current quandaries. One should at least pause en route to note that the current quandaries make our thinking become more anon/ eventually.