• Philosophy of Religion
»
• Science of Methodology

The Text Has a Third Element With a New Reading

Yahya Mohamed

We have previously revealed the presence of a third element of the text that is added to the pronunciation and the context, and we called it the Field. We meant by it a kind of textual axis that everyone realizes when he wants to understand the text, whether he was able to determine the reading or not. It expresses the knowledge of the linguistic events overall and the general address. It is distinguished from the context in that the latter leads to the awareness of verbal appearance, while the former does not incite this specificity. The Field is like the borders of a country separated from other countries geographically. Baghdad is located in Iraq, not Egypt, and Cairo is located in Egypt, not Iraq, and confusing them is like confusing different Fields.

Therefore, we considered that the text has two appearances, verbal and Field. And the Field appearance expresses the overall perception of the whole that precedes the realization of the parts, and from it begins defining the joints of the parts represented by verbal semantics. Thus, the Gestalt formula applies to it in which the whole precedes the parts, and this whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. Also, the whole laws are different from the laws of the parts. The same applies to the Field, as it does not express the totality of the verbal semantics, just as its appearance is not from the detailed verbal appearance. Its realization takes place by direct initiation, and it is prior in its appearance to the appearance of the verbal semantics; rather, its presence is a condition in determining these semantics, although its presence depends on the presence of words and context.

The Field has an appearance according to literally or figuratively, Just as the word has an appearance according to literally or figuratively, and the semantic of this appearance is an initiation in both cases. Whether the initiation refers to the real Field meaning as shown by the words of the text and its context, or it refers to the figurative Field and symbolic apparent in the text, in both cases, there is a Field appearance. For example, the symbolic stories of the sages have apparent meanings of the term and Field, but the term and Field are not intended by themselves but rather symbolize the esoteric meanings behind them according to the ontological priori. 

Therefore, in this consideration, it has an appearance that differs from those initiation semantics, which we call the symbolic and Field appearance. The symbolic appearance considers the word as a symbol of an inner meaning that is not the initiation semantic, whether it is literally or figuratively. And the appearance of the Field is in terms of considering the Field, not that taken from the apparent meanings of the words, but rather from that symbolized.

But this type of apparent field contrasts with another Field that we call the esoteric Field. The latter cuts off the connection between the signifier and the signified and did not find evidence for it according to the semantic clues of the text and its hints. In it, the reader is oriented towards linking everything with anything and every text in any way without appearing or associating. The textual significance is in a valley, and the other meaning is in a valley. All this indicates the transformation of the Field and its replacement with another distant esoteric Field. It is commonly used by esotericists and mystics when reading religious texts.

We add that the mechanisms of reading the linguistic text have two levels: indicative and illustrative. The indicative reading seeks the meaning, but the illustrative reading seeks to explain this meaning. It is the meaning of meaning and the understanding of understanding. Rather, it represents a text of the indicative text, which is the first text of the original text, which we call the unknown as a thing in itself. This means that the illustration is the text of the text of the text.

Due to the Field's discovery, the reading patterns become three, not two, whether at the level of indicative or illustrative. It is either exoteric the text, or interpretation (Ta’weel تأويل), or esoteric. The exoteric of the text is that which preserves the Field appearance in which the verbal semantics are known in initiation. The interpretation of the text is far from these apparent semantics, even if it adheres to the appearance of the Field. As for the esoteric of the text is in contrast to both exoteric and interpretation, which is characterized by a lack of commitment to both verbal and Field appearances.

Therefore, we consider that the realization of the three mechanisms (exoteric, interpretation, esoteric) depends on the nature of the link between verbal and Field appearance as follows:

The exoteric mechanism has two conditions: the Field and the verbal appearance, and the hold on of the apparent requires the hold on of the Field without the opposite.

In contrast to this mechanism, the esoteric mechanism works, as it abandons both of the previous conditions. It suffices that it does not work in the Field; it will require not to use verbal appearance.

As for the interpretation mechanism is a middle ground between the two previous ones, as it retains the Field without the verbal appearance.

The differences between the three mechanisms can be expressed in mathematical form as follows:

appearance + Field → exoteric

- Field - appearance → esoteric

Field - appearance → Interpretation

Thus, we reached important results in reading the text, including the religious text, and we put forward a table to compare this new vision with the traditional one as follows:

 

The reference

https://mail.fahmaldin.net/index.php?id=2572