Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations
The Blind Owl of Hedayat, The Heavenly Kingdom of Bahram Sadeghi, poems of Sohrab Sepehri are Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s efforts to access some personal writing through an interpretation of these works which are fundamentally paradoxical. If the “second” character of interpretation writing is not in o...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fas |
| Published: |
Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS)
2018-05-01
|
| Series: | پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_3108_75466ce90b13b71970154195bc80c9af.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841543870314184704 |
|---|---|
| author | Maziar MOHAYMENI |
| author_facet | Maziar MOHAYMENI |
| author_sort | Maziar MOHAYMENI |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Blind Owl of Hedayat, The Heavenly Kingdom of Bahram Sadeghi, poems of Sohrab Sepehri are Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s efforts to access some personal writing through an interpretation of these works which are fundamentally paradoxical. If the “second” character of interpretation writing is not in opposition to the writer’s aspiration to singularity, the dispersion of interpretation text would be a proof of the absence of the consciousness which assumes the innovatory order of speech and the original recomposition of knowledge. Ghiassi’s ego is too ingrained in his lent science to manipulate it. The elementary image of this science in the text shows the ego’s disability in appropriation and subjectivity of a reason reached by the other in a step of his transcendental suspension. Ghiassi’s interpretations search for their lever between two suspensions. His use of French theories for interpreting Iranian works is not for the purpose. The intention is to speak about somewhat physical presence of his ego in the connecting process. This presence does not unify the text; moreover, it enfeebles its consistency. There is no organic connection between the works and the theories. The unique connecting element is ego, which cries its singularity in the climax of its dependence in someone else’s speech. Belief in the superiority of the speechless ego over the silent people seems paradoxical where the learned reason of ego is inclined to vulgarity. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e6f46c4f3764489b90ea53cb79322ca6 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2383-1650 |
| language | fas |
| publishDate | 2018-05-01 |
| publisher | Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی |
| spelling | doaj-art-e6f46c4f3764489b90ea53cb79322ca62025-01-13T05:31:13ZfasInstitute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS)پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی2383-16502018-05-011831351643108Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s InterpretationsMaziar MOHAYMENI0Assistant Professor of French Language and LiteratureBu-Ali Sina UniversityThe Blind Owl of Hedayat, The Heavenly Kingdom of Bahram Sadeghi, poems of Sohrab Sepehri are Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s efforts to access some personal writing through an interpretation of these works which are fundamentally paradoxical. If the “second” character of interpretation writing is not in opposition to the writer’s aspiration to singularity, the dispersion of interpretation text would be a proof of the absence of the consciousness which assumes the innovatory order of speech and the original recomposition of knowledge. Ghiassi’s ego is too ingrained in his lent science to manipulate it. The elementary image of this science in the text shows the ego’s disability in appropriation and subjectivity of a reason reached by the other in a step of his transcendental suspension. Ghiassi’s interpretations search for their lever between two suspensions. His use of French theories for interpreting Iranian works is not for the purpose. The intention is to speak about somewhat physical presence of his ego in the connecting process. This presence does not unify the text; moreover, it enfeebles its consistency. There is no organic connection between the works and the theories. The unique connecting element is ego, which cries its singularity in the climax of its dependence in someone else’s speech. Belief in the superiority of the speechless ego over the silent people seems paradoxical where the learned reason of ego is inclined to vulgarity.https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_3108_75466ce90b13b71970154195bc80c9af.pdfegotextpeoplereadingpersonal writingsecond writingmohammad taghi ghiass |
| spellingShingle | Maziar MOHAYMENI Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی ego text people reading personal writing second writing mohammad taghi ghiass |
| title | Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations |
| title_full | Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations |
| title_fullStr | Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations |
| title_short | Text, Ego and “People” in Mohammad Taghi Ghiassi’s Interpretations |
| title_sort | text ego and people in mohammad taghi ghiassi s interpretations |
| topic | ego text people reading personal writing second writing mohammad taghi ghiass |
| url | https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_3108_75466ce90b13b71970154195bc80c9af.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maziarmohaymeni textegoandpeopleinmohammadtaghighiassisinterpretations |