The objective contents of an artistic text: from phenomenology towards mereology

Ihor Yudkin-Ripun

Institute for Cultural Research, National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Kyiv.

ORCID ID 0000-0002-4616-302X

DOI:

Keywords: anaphora, reference, cue, detail, eidetic images, objects making, distance.

Abstract. Textual semantics is studied on the basis of subjective – objective reciprocal feedback, where the objective field is reconstructed from the eidetic images with the inversion of their inner relations. The priority belongs to the textual inner world, and the objective field is determined with an epoch’s concrete historical conditions. Mereology is developed within the framework of phenomenology as the logical theory dealing with the relation of “part –whole” that in difference to hermeneutics is based on the irreducibility of the whole to the parts and the reciprocity of this relation. The parts are divided into the autonomous and dependent, inner and outer ones. A text is regarded as a hologram where each part represents its functions within the whole. It is the textual frameworks that play the decisive role in textual integration together with reciprocal references of the distant parts and complementary relations. The paragon of framework is to be found in the cues of a role of a dramatic persona. It is due to distanced relations that the dimensionality of a text grows, it surpasses linear and planar limits, its depth and volume are revealed. Such means of frameworks as anaphora procure the textual division onto closed cycles.     

Author Biography.

Ihor Yudkin-Ripun, Doctor of Art Studies, Corresponding member  of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Institute for Cultural Research, National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Kyiv.

dr.iyudkin@gmail.com

References:

Eremin, M. (1978). Podrobnosti i smysl celogo [Details and meaning of the whole]. V Mire Tolstogo. Sb. statei. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel. P. 221–247. (In Russian)

Hegel, G. W. F. (1972). Kto myslit abstraktno? [Wer denkt abstrakt?] In Hegel, G. W. F. Raboty raznyh let. Vol. 1. Moscow: Mysl. C. 387–394. (In Russian)

Ingarden, R. (1963). Z badań nad filozofią współczesną [From research on contemporary philosophy]. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (Ingarden R. Dziela filozoficzne). 664 p.  (In Polish)  

Ingarden, R. (1972). Z teorii języka i filozoficznych podstaw logiki [On the theory of language and the philosophical foundations of logic]. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (Ingarden R. Dziela filozoficzne). 508 p. (In Polish) 

Kalmanovskii, E. S. (1984). Kniga o teatralnom aktere [A book about a theater actor]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo. 224 p. (In Russian) 

Kron, G. (1972). Issledovanie slojnyh sistem po chastyam. Diakoptika [Diakoptics – The Piecewise Solution of Large Scale Systems]. Translation from English. A. V. Baranova (Ed.). Moscow: Nauka. 544 p. (In Russian)

Losev, A. F. (1982). Znak. Simvol. Mif [Sign. Symbol. Myth]. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta. 482 p. (In Russian)

Lukach, G. (1987). Svoeobrazie esteticheskogo [The originality of the aesthetic]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Progress. 572 p. (In Russian)

Maiskaya, M. I. (1981). Pizanello [Pisanello]. Moscow: Iskusstvo. 210 p. 92 p. il. (In Russian)

Mihailov, A. V. (1977). Varianty epicheskogo stilya v literaturah Avstrii i Germanii [Variants of the Epic Style in the Literatures of Austria and Germany]. Tipologiya stilevogo razvitiya XIX veka. Moscow: Nauka. P. 267–307. (In Russian)

Rubinshtein, S. L. (1976). Problemy obschei psihologii [General psychology Issues]. Ed. 2. Moscow: Pedagogika. 416 p. (In Russian)

Sardjveladze, N. I. (1989). Lichnost i ee vzaimodeistvie s socialnoi sredoi [Personality and its interaction with the social environment]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. 208 p. (In Russian)

Uspenskii, B. A. (2011). Deiksis i vtorichnyi semiozis v yazyke [Deixis and secondary semiosis in language]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya. № 2. P. 3–30. (In Russian)

Uznadze, D. N. (1976). Problema obektivacii [Objectification problem]. Hrestomatiya po vnimaniyu. A. N. Leontev, A. A. Puzyrey, & V. YA. Romanov (Eds). Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta. P. 260–270. (In Russian)

Vaiman, S. T. (1981). Balzakovskii paradoks [Balzac’s paradox]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel. 368 p. (In Russian)

Vasilko, V. S. (1967). Fragmenti rejisuri [Fragments of directing]. Kyiv: Mistectvo. 384 p. (In Ukrainian)

Yarkeev, A. V. (2012). Obektivaciya socialnoi istorii v strukture mifologicheskogo diskursa [Objectification of social history in the structures of mythological discourse]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo univeriteta. Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Psihologiya. Pedagogika. Issue 3. P. 83–94. (In Russian) 

Yudkin-Ripun, I. (2013). Aphoristic Foundations of Dramatic and Lyrical Poetry. Kyiv: Osvita Ukrainy. (National Academy of Arts of Ukraine. Institute of Culturology). 444 p.

Yudkin-Ripun, I. N. (2021). Detalizaciya portreta v sonete kak monodrame: «Medalony» Igorya Severyanina [Detailing the portrait in a sonnet as a monodrama: “Medallions” by Igor Severyanin]. Rodnaya slovesnost v sovremennom kulturnom i obrazovatelnom prostranstve. Tver: Tverskoi gos. un-t. Issue 10 (16). P. 16–22. (In Russian)

Yudkіn-Rіpun, І. (2020). Fenomenologіya kulturi yak metodologіya іnterpretacії [Phenomenology of culture as a methodology of interpretation]. Kyiv: Іnstitute for Cultural Research, NAA of Ukraine. 352 p. (In Ukrainian)

Zaikina, N. V. (2014). Uchenie o chasti i celom kak osnova dlya postroeniya semantiki [The doctrine of the part and the whole as a basis for constructing semantics]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya «Filosofskie nauki». № 3. P. 6–10. (In Russian)

Zimovec, L. G. (2011). Obektivaciya i ekzistirovanie kak osnovy metodologii N. A. Berdyaeva [Objectification and existence as the basis of N. A. Berdyaev’s methodology]. Izvestiya vuzov Severo-Kavkazskogo regiona. Obschestvennye nauki. № 3. P. 5–8. (In Russian) 

PDF (Ukrainian)

Published:

Vol 20 No 2 (2021).

Section: THEORY AND HISTORY OF CULTURE.