20241007--Some Advanced Thoughts

 To discuss the philosophical meaning of the devices, I have to analyze their working and how they abstract our attention. That would be something related to concern and attunement. 

When it comes to the rhetorical devices I  have analyzed in the Godot paper, I will link them to attunement. They shift my and our attentions to topics that we are not initially caring about. Our attentions are diverted to other places. This divergence is created by language, something that is present. Our thought will be somehow imprisoned by it. HOwever, if fiction and languages are merely "ways" of revealing, then we have to bear in mind that there are other possible ways of doing so and what people might have in mind when they are presenting certain ways of revealing to us. 

The foregrounding and defamiliarization process calls our attention to these possibilities through making us aware of the working of the device. 

When it comes to Odysseus, I think something similar is also needed. I want to talk about how frame narrative as a device reveals the dialectic of enlightenment. But there should be more. The dialectic of enlightenment happens in the ways we think. 

The discussion on prototypes can link Adorno to Jung. And the discussion on Pun can be put in my discussion. The discussion on artifice can be added to the discussion on Gestell.

The point of discussing the working is not to provide another self-improvement skill, although they certainly overlap with each other. The difference lies in an insight of the artifice of composing and an philosophical justification for such description of the working of human Being. Yet, maybe psychology and advertising is more relevant to these issues. What can literature do? What can I do?

The kind of insight I'd like to provide is that we are asked to read critically and to live critically. Yeah, so where's the critique of the philosophers? What are the insights that can only be provided by literature? Maybe it lies in the process of reading. As a craftsman who utilizes other fields to perfect his work, I think this is my potential contribution to the world and to the field. Maybe the mechanism is what only us, the literary scholars, can accurately describe. SO, the mechanism and how it can be a non-reactional reaction. Maybe the Reader-response will leads to psychology. Not Psycho-analysis, but the scientific ones. 

Maybe the discussion on Pun, meaning, lies, exchange, structure, strategies, devices can provide us some psychological facts about human being, but I want something more ultimately . . . something that is related to a core way of living our lives . . . 無為？To be amazed by the text . . . To invite other people to be amazed with me . . .

That is a problem that I myself is facing too. I constantly feels something resisting about other people's interpretation of a work . . . but I am quite addicted to other kinds of interpretations . . . something that concerns the work itself . . . The point is, I have to respect the work itself. And my analysis of devices is based on this appreciation of the work itself. Everything should start with the work . . . okay, I will have to change the structure of my Godot Chapter. I talked too much about Heidegger already. All the TOWA and Young and Modernity discussions should be fine with a few footnotes. 

My current thesis: the working of literary devices affects our ways of living. And an insight and an awareness into the working of the devices can help us live a better life and read better.

For now, my discussion regarding life is a negative one. I only points out the problematic ones and how a certain kinds language supports a bad kind of life, which is the way of life that restrains other kinds of ways of life.

What's next? The next may be lies in ethics, the least favorite subject of mine . . .

Because I have to picture an alternative life . . . I think the craftsmanship and Taoist philosophy will be my next step. The kind of ideal life which should be lead out my my technical analysis. Well, that explains my passion in technique and craftsmanship. Well, I think that is the foundation of civilization and there's danger and benefits in it. 

Okay, so now I am aware of my future path. I should settle down with the tasks I have now. DE and Godot.

I think I should adjust the structure of the Godot Chapter. Maybe insert more Beckett paragraphs. That's the trick, heh. And IFR. All the additional Heidegger discussion should be added in footnotes. The definitions of the Heideggerian terms should be added right before they are discussed. The Godot part should be added as example or complement for the overly abstract philosophical discussion. The Sein is always the Sein of a Seiende should be added.

As for the DE paper. I need an outline. 

1. The summary of The Odyssey and DE.

2. The problem of DE: not enough formal analysis/ technical analysis

    justified by AT

3. Why is this problem crucial? Art, society, and language. How art can redeem us from the life of modernity.

4. The problem revealed in DE: modenrity, fascist, The instrumental reason runs out of control.

5. How to complement DE's discussion through AT? 

6. Frame narrative as the core device in this epic. 

7. An analysis on frame narratives--which should be discussed through Trickster Archetype. 

The device has some features: framing, foregrounding, fiction-making, expansion, related to the relationships between audiences and authors. This can be discussed through the trickster archetype. 

Language as trickster and the tricksters' language. I want to add in Prometheus. 

Story telling as one of the most important artifice, techne. What about it? The audiences are asked to be aware of it. For what? Where's the mythological or epic purpose? The exposition of the working of fiction and stories and human strife. Human strife is the endless process of fiction-making. And there is not eternal fiction. Right? How should I address it? The relevance lies in "basic text of European civilization." The hope of renewal lies within this text too if they wish to keep their basic. Then we need a new interpretation of it. A critical interpretation of it. What I offer is nothing new in terms of content. But when it comes to form, this is the most crucial thing to do. "It's the way of doing it that counts"

Technique, Rhetoric, skill. The way and the goal. 

Populist, the ways to manipulate other people, drama, advertisement, narrative . . . all these are important to us. This is what just start beginning to be studied in the CHinese literature field in Taiwan. I think the Russians are dealing with this earlier than us. But we need something more specific than RRT, and something more particular than the Formalists.