The world correlate chapter 4 continuation

   At this point a distinction is needed as to separate the direct studies of culture, on the one hand, the study of culture by studding another text previously afforded the same issues in sociology and anthropology on the other hand and finally the study of literary fictions and the art

    In a synthesis, the arts are without doubt also susceptible of the textual exegesis it is more textual as we take distance from the genesis créates it, enunciation, emission, and as consider it in its material autonomy, recorded, reproducibly, transported, communicated in distance, conservate, memorized, but at the same time sited upon of those forms of texts as soon as we understand it beyond its autonomy toward nature or toward culture a phenomenological concept of text start to be also needed to replace by stratus’s what was before cutted as an autonomous text according to its material dimension toward sense and meaning in the interpretative work and exegesis

   the relation between form and semantique here goes to the forefront when we confront again the necessity of a more extended sense of text such as the weaves and texere

    Why this happen?, why a phenomenological concept of geological basis such as stratus and a phenomenological concept as weaves conceived from the immediacy of nature, world life, society and culture may be applies to fictions works of art and even to a certain point some time needed as when we research semantically?,

  well it happen precisely according to an issue I have discussed and insisted on many times in several books, even in this one when I discussed the cares of positivism regarding all that which might be considered not as alterity to the subject or as another moment of him or herself, but something related with non-subject issues, like for example when immanence’s is not the self or another moment of the subject existential sensibility, but substance or religion, in fact, the answer to why is easy to be located, it happen because there is a moment in the ousia of gramme, as derrida discussed, when substance entrance from the non-language world to language, in fact, the idea itself of substance of expression presuppose the presence of substance in language and as such we have several forms of the fall out coming from immanence and ontology to the interior of language

    as discussed in this book notions such as weaves and texere are the result of significants chains instead of the interpretants, we should then identify at this point that this is not the same weave and texere evolved in the study of the immediacy of the intramundane horizont and world of life, the relation between experience and language considered outside art and fiction, than weaves and texere when we are speaking on the internal mimetic universe of the fiction languages that generally constitute works of literature of fiction, film, theater, body arts and visual arts, over there weaves and texere are affected by substance in language, the socalled ousia and gramme discussed by derrida, out of there, in the immediacy of the world of life as in experience weaves and texere are defined by inmaterial chains of meaning links experience and and non discoursive issues with the way hermeneutic participates in elucidating experience itself, situations in which quotidian languages are sited as islands and or archipelagos in between non-discursive stratus’s and were the islands of language are ruled by the immediacy of experience without resort to mimesis and fiction.

   Differently to the direct study of culture without the mediation of art, and differently to the study of culture with resort to previous sociology or anthropology studies, the literary work of fiction and the visual arts replace its references in culture by a prototype declaring unnecessary the resort to culture directly as well as the affording of culture directly as topics or themes, under this fictional kinds of symbolic universes the original referent is unneeded, the art work of fiction in fact offers itself precisely as a substitution of those reality in the mode of signs without exit to an exterior, it offers itself as a prototype which substitute the object by its significations, in this sense the literary work of fiction or of visual art and of any kind of the arts must be considered itself as an interpretation and then our interpretation of the work of art must be understand as an interpretation of the interpretation,

   it is a duplicitous work, dual even to a certain level, we can’t say that interpreting art we are interpreting culture directly, such an affirmation is unduly it disatended the mimetic principle by which the work of fiction stablish a replacement of reality that offers itself as what should be considered instead of reality or culture, there is not in the work of art an interest as in sociology and anthropology in the real cultural phenomena that is being under study, research or analysis, nor as topic, not as real phenomena in society, but all the opposite, a processing about that which proposes itself as the ultimate regard from which everything that is not the work of art must be abandoned to be seize according to how fiction deliberate that, the interpretation of the work of art is thus again interpreting interpretation and in such a sense another form of the text on the text and seen from the exegesis of art, a form of the text on text on the text

     This fact distinguish and separate forms of the exegesis of the text on the text between those recently discussed about resort to archive materials of sociology and anthropology on a same topic or issue previously afforded to which the things out there in real culture and society stay to be major and pivotal to the reasons, and the forms of exegesis of the text on the text which as a literary fiction and the visual art are duplicitous and duals forms of mimesis regulated by a prototype of replacement with propose itself as what should be considered and as the ultimate elaboration about which everything should be abandoning the world out there from which it is supposed to be source

   That the physical autonomy of such Works of art is undiscussable and constitute as Jacobson said something factical and phatic, conative and physically tangible is out of discussion, measure in the cases of the visual arts, duration in the case of films, music and theater, documentary reproducible, when the body is evolved.

  But the forms of general material culture outside the arts are also physically tangibles, the urban popular markets, the carnivals, the forms of ceremonial rituals, the mise in scenes of culture are all factic and fatic things.

    However, at the same time, as soon as we return to be far from that physical minimum, sides, height, weight, duration, to move among the exegesis of its creation, the authorial conscience when is about communication with enunciations, emisors or authors or in the opposite direction, the point of view of the reader, the receptor, the viewer, as also when we made the exegesis of symbolic productions under less authorial forms of material culture such as artesanies, or simply culture, the group, the community or parties, ceremonies ritual or religious symbols, the interpretation allow us to work with a more phenomenological and extended concept of text far to that physical sense of the measures

  This last one phenomenological concept of text is evolved within the continuum of the world of life, the first distinctions between world itself and the phenomenological world, meaning appearance and subtracts, world and language, reality and representation, pregiven world and symbolized one including the pass by between the world of reality and the worlds of representation, the world of the quotidian life with its intramundane horizonts and the world of the sobreordinations that repit the world of life through forms of supradiscourses

    Whence, in the literary discourses of fiction and visual art the mimesis in respect to world and reality with its usual oscilations between representational and abstracts forms renounce to the direct representation of reality considered as an object to a subject to instead construct a subject of the object ordered according to in the world of fiction of the symbolic autonomous world

  by the way the exegesis of culture through the exegesis of such fictions forms is not about how to put in relation two relations on a same topic in reality like it happen between my research on a direct theme of culture and my references under it to another previous research in sociology and anthropology on the same referent, my sociological or anthropological research on such a referent in culture and a previous research in sociology and anthropology on the same issue are defined and focused equally by that issue out there in the real world call our attention

   Differently to that the relation of a work of fiction with such a referent is not , instead defined to be a vehicle on something external to it in the outer world, but all the contrary, such a work of fiction is no passive in respect to the outer world instead it offers itself as a world around which everything should be and to which the referential must be subordinated, it is a replacement of the object by the sign, of the meanings by the referents, of the world of fiction as mimesis over the world of reality, the referent is forgotten under it

   If we don’t understand this difference then as such as someone is train to extend the textual model of the work of fiction on the general culture as for example tent to happen with intertextuality conceived from the model derivated, we will not understand how a disjunction is being created between two quite distinct model of phenomenological organization of the world

   Culture is itself seen as an alive direct phenomena from the first distinction between subject and object, language and reality, an immediacy of world phenomenologically consist in something quite different to the mimesis principle that organize the idea of world in a form of fiction defined by the replacement of the objects and references by signs and meanings.

 What is legible, intelligible and interpretably in culture as a direct alive phenomena is phenomenologically organized exactly as the intramundane horizont is like whence extending toward it a textual parameter extracted from literary or visual Works of fiction is like superposing to quite different phenomenological orders

     A writing by an anthropologist on a culture have in a last instance as objective of its investigation or research the alive real culture out there is reality and world so that not matter how much are we paying attention to style and modes of rhetoric’s or the aesthetic as something formal, the referential horizont will ever be the main reason to be of its existence

    When the object of an investigation is a form of direct culture I understand by direct the immediacy of the world of life, but also its accessibility outthere in the outer world, so that such a form even supposing it to be an expression of symbolic forms as ritual ceremonies, carnivals, parties, scenifications or cultural patrimonies it is not oriented to destine as an organized forms of discourse in the same terms than we see a discourse, enunciation or writing, so that to comply direct forms of culture as intercorporeal communications, fashion, the codification of mass culture, a village, a community, certain groups or their expressions in forms of rituals, markets, mise in scene or religion are of another kind far to the usual pragmatic of emissary, message, receptor and more fast yet to discourses organized according to fiction

      So the point that the critic of form of the text on text require distinctions to separate epistemologically, ontologically and methodologically interpretation and exegesis.

  In this sense we must said that no one of the examples discussed of direct exegesis of the texts of culture, exegesis of another texts by an anthropologist or sociologist afforded before the same issue are the same than the exegesis of literature and art and overall, that in not one of the cases we have intertextuality

   We might of course do a metaphorical modified use of the concept of intertextuality to make references to it by arguing that all that is concerned with form to set in relation a variety of forms of texts, but such textual forms are not themselves stablishing in between them ones in respect to the others a work of intertextuality, intertextuality start when in the formation of a text considered in its own autonomy another text is intentionally called to the inside of the text to be a part of it and overall when it happen in reference to a single author about another author, meaning, between the text of an author and the text of another author when the former quote in his text a text of another author

   It is true that all in intertextuality is not reduced to quotes, for example, is studding literacy works according to the institution of genres we may find intertextuality in the form of clues of another texts in the author text in the forms of reminiscences or clues of the genres, or according to how the literary acervo of the writer in respect to the history of literature may be defined as something that participate in that with which the author was in a certain indirect dialogue, like for example, in the study of a literary work according to its sources, the so-called philological studies of the fountains

   But all this are forms if not of quote of examining a literary work of visual art or of any of the arts under fiction. There was also under literary criticism since its first conception a tendency to identify intertextuality by the fact that the subject of enuntiation defines sentences take shape by the author according to an anticipation of an idealized further reader which is yet not a real one but one idealized inside language and as such a prototype which participate in the form to give language or take shape of the form of discourse and a such a kind of dialogicity, this dialogicity, differently to the main dialogic principle as defined by mijail bajtin in the study of novels, the idea of characters in dialogue dialogizing from their controversies the sense of the novel as a generic whole, suggested to kristeva the possibility to replace dialogicity by intertextuality, if the subject of enunciation is addresses to toward an inclusive anticipated idea of reader, then the relation between the author, his subject of enunciation and its toward consist about relating texts in between, she called it intertextuality

   Well, still and yet such a kristeva perspective which founded intertextuality in literary criticism is presupposing a work of fiction as the implicit model from which defining such forms of relation between forms of the text as intertextuality and as such it is a matter of literary criticism about which we should attain to identify that any extension of it to the outer culture evolved the disjunction of juxtaposing quite different forms of ontology, on the one hand the ontology of direct culture defined by immediacy and on the other the mimesis of the work of fiction, the consequences of such an extension of the parameter of the work of fiction to general culture is one first of saturation since nothing there is about culture itself or directly but about the culture that the work of fiction creates

   In a few words if we are interested in the methodological possibilities of intertextuality as an option to certain moments of a research in sociology and anthropology we must be attentive to recognize that the concept it self should be completely retheorized outside literary criticism parameters

   If I am investigating or research a form of direct culture around which I become interested in how another sociologist or anthropology research it before me and as such to make references in my text of such previous efforts on the same themes, topics or motives, we must retheorize there intertextuality, we must even retheorize it more even if the interest on intertextuality is not as much addressed in reference to another sociologist or anthropologist, but to issues of methodology for example within fieldwork in the forms to read textual forms in direct culture, and again, if my text never call inside it a text done by another sociologist or anthropologist nothing as intertextuality is there, it is yet less intertextual. In this last sense only forms to call the text of another inside my text must be defined as such

    Let supose for example that we start to use the concept in a form significantly modified in its semantic meanings, but empting it of its meanings in literary criticism and instead using it to define for example, as Stephen A Tyler was the first one to do in a semiotical sense regarding for example translation, well we may do that but not without retheorizing the concept as to inscribe it in an axiological context in which we are speaking about how putting in relation different texts in translations evolve intertextuality in the form to research the cultural basis of those texts or idioms

    We must read Derrida margins of philosophy from the perspective of the very classical side in philosophy and phenomenology

Bibliography

Derrida Jacques, Communication on Austin, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida Jacques, Comunicación sobre Austin, Pp, 349-372, Márgenes de la Filosofía, Catedra

Derrida Jacques, Notes on the phenomenology of language, Margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Notes a la Fenomenología del lenguaje, Pp, 195-212, márgenes de la filosofía, catedra

Eagleaton Terry, Phenomenology, Hermeneutic and reception Theory, Pp, introducción a la crítica literaria, lumen

Eco Umberto, Peirce: el Universo del sentido, La Estructura Ausente, Lumen

Habermas Junger, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, IUESAPAR library

Habermas Junger, The Theory of communicative action, Beacon press

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Subject in Creativity, Complete Works, Tome II

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Presentational Linguistic, Complete Works, Tome III

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Given and the Ungiven, Complete Works, Tome V

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Pp, The Intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, Tome V and Pp, The Constelations of Common Sense, Selected Essays

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, Complete works, Tome VII

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Thresholds of the Couple, Pp, The Thresholds of the Couple, Complete Works, Tome VIII

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Hermeneutic and Axiology, Pp, The Subject in Creativity, Pp, The Interpretations of Art: Hermeneutic and Analysis of Visual Discourses and Rhetoric’

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Anthropology of Archaeology, Selected Essays, Book

Todorov Tzvetan, Symbolism and Interpretation, Cornell University Press, Feb 18, 1986

Todorov Tzvetan , Genres in Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Published August 31st 1990 by (first published 1978)

Todorov Tzvetan, Simbolismo e interpretación Todorov, monte avila editores, pasa monte books

Todorov.Tzvetan "Los géneros del discurso" (Waldhuter editores, 2012)

Todorov Tzvetan. Teorías del símbolo, monteavila editores

Todorov.Tzvetan. Critica de la Crítica, Editorial Paidós

Tyler Stephen, A Point of Order, Rice University studies