Haris Imamoviæ: Year one hundred dfl fifty eight "(sic!)
Literature only lives while killing herself. It survives only as herself, letting blood. Progresses resembling Krone, while crippled and depose, prevalent and wipe out what it's become. Literature is such a time. It also happens in his three modalities: there is now and will be. Ranges and therefore not homogeneous; openness is therefore no nothing static in it, is not given. Since mercury dfl is always wants to transcend themselves past and present. Therefore, any attempt to establish its concept is encryption: one that prepokriva different, complex, contradictory in itself. dfl "This is literature and what is not!" And so every day, as it is generally known what it is, as it is known at all, as there are algebra literature that everyone knows. How did they know? Somehow. They have learned in school ... But what is generally known not known. What is literature, it is not known completely, nor can it be described as a whole, can not be known completely, theoretical consciousness, nor does it exist at all, as a single idea, that we could describe in abstracto. Indescribable, fluid, it is irreducible to a single formula, essential, dfl timeless.
Why then give her mark, if not theoretically determined? Why do I say that it lives while killing herself? How do we reconcile the fact that we have finished the term literature with the statement dfl that there is literature? Because then what is it?
But in reality I have not finished the term, and yet claim to exist. Although I do not know what reality is in its entirety, though I know what she did. It is one thing - talking about it directly and mediated experience - nor anything in it repeated, nor has the identical things. Only thus argue that it is abundant. But when I say plenty, it's a formula that would positively and fully explained the whole reality: an abundance of remains, in essence, the negative category. Is reality even a whole? To be able to explain. Does she have Structures? Hardly. Is it then true suitable word? Probably dfl need a plural.
So when I talk about literature. It is possible that at the same time I say that I do not know what it is, in general, to have completed the term of literature, but on the other hand claim that literature exists. Without getting into a contradiction.
When I say that she kills herself and thus survives, it is one of her label, not the definitive description. Comprehensive description of literature, just like real life - it does not exist. How, then, to recognize something as literature? Why today is a text written literature?
Literature today, first of all, is not what is not literature. Acts as praznoslovje but not stupid tautology. If it became clear that the case is too big and too complicated, too vague, it could be positively described dfl in its entirety, if you do not already know what it is, I know at least what is not. The method of negative theology, perhaps the only one that will allow the less wrong when talking about literature in general. Literature as a whole is similar to God, elusive as a whole for the human retina, blurry because the overwhelming: I can say that my finger is certainly not God, and on literature. Thinking about literary work that could occur tomorrow, I can not say what this work should be - the possibilities are immense literature as well as all its previous forms - I know, however, what it should not be: it should not be what it is today Literature . One natural history study, historiographical study, philosophical treatise, feuilleton, stories, news, fatwa, obituary, prayer, a political statement, an excerpt from an encyclopedia or horoscopes, popular or less popular joke, an anecdote that tells the friend, dfl a handbook on sex education or fishing, recipe for cooking Indian food, etc. It is clear that non-literary texts are, and may be material to the literary process, however, the work is to soak yourself in these genres, such, however, must remain the literature: as a kind, meaningful, purposeful, whole, must be different out its functions and the nature of their language, not just the nature of their covers. In better times - if not the worst all the time - all this would imply, dfl that this difference is most important for the one who reflects on the literature. For us, and I will show it later, this simple and seemingly tautological principle perhaps notorious - everyone will say, "Well, dfl that well, it means" dfl - but certainly not known.
Literature today, too, is not what is literature. That is to say that epigonija not literature. Literature can not be something that it already is, what was, what is now. Because if it is, it repeats itself, dfl identical to itself, it would be very easy to get to her positive descriptions, they would have a clear and complete notion of Literature in the prescription. That there is a ready concept of literature, she would have been dead. Fiction has to be something other than the current itself. It is pre
Literature only lives while killing herself. It survives only as herself, letting blood. Progresses resembling Krone, while crippled and depose, prevalent and wipe out what it's become. Literature is such a time. It also happens in his three modalities: there is now and will be. Ranges and therefore not homogeneous; openness is therefore no nothing static in it, is not given. Since mercury dfl is always wants to transcend themselves past and present. Therefore, any attempt to establish its concept is encryption: one that prepokriva different, complex, contradictory in itself. dfl "This is literature and what is not!" And so every day, as it is generally known what it is, as it is known at all, as there are algebra literature that everyone knows. How did they know? Somehow. They have learned in school ... But what is generally known not known. What is literature, it is not known completely, nor can it be described as a whole, can not be known completely, theoretical consciousness, nor does it exist at all, as a single idea, that we could describe in abstracto. Indescribable, fluid, it is irreducible to a single formula, essential, dfl timeless.
Why then give her mark, if not theoretically determined? Why do I say that it lives while killing herself? How do we reconcile the fact that we have finished the term literature with the statement dfl that there is literature? Because then what is it?
But in reality I have not finished the term, and yet claim to exist. Although I do not know what reality is in its entirety, though I know what she did. It is one thing - talking about it directly and mediated experience - nor anything in it repeated, nor has the identical things. Only thus argue that it is abundant. But when I say plenty, it's a formula that would positively and fully explained the whole reality: an abundance of remains, in essence, the negative category. Is reality even a whole? To be able to explain. Does she have Structures? Hardly. Is it then true suitable word? Probably dfl need a plural.
So when I talk about literature. It is possible that at the same time I say that I do not know what it is, in general, to have completed the term of literature, but on the other hand claim that literature exists. Without getting into a contradiction.
When I say that she kills herself and thus survives, it is one of her label, not the definitive description. Comprehensive description of literature, just like real life - it does not exist. How, then, to recognize something as literature? Why today is a text written literature?
Literature today, first of all, is not what is not literature. Acts as praznoslovje but not stupid tautology. If it became clear that the case is too big and too complicated, too vague, it could be positively described dfl in its entirety, if you do not already know what it is, I know at least what is not. The method of negative theology, perhaps the only one that will allow the less wrong when talking about literature in general. Literature as a whole is similar to God, elusive as a whole for the human retina, blurry because the overwhelming: I can say that my finger is certainly not God, and on literature. Thinking about literary work that could occur tomorrow, I can not say what this work should be - the possibilities are immense literature as well as all its previous forms - I know, however, what it should not be: it should not be what it is today Literature . One natural history study, historiographical study, philosophical treatise, feuilleton, stories, news, fatwa, obituary, prayer, a political statement, an excerpt from an encyclopedia or horoscopes, popular or less popular joke, an anecdote that tells the friend, dfl a handbook on sex education or fishing, recipe for cooking Indian food, etc. It is clear that non-literary texts are, and may be material to the literary process, however, the work is to soak yourself in these genres, such, however, must remain the literature: as a kind, meaningful, purposeful, whole, must be different out its functions and the nature of their language, not just the nature of their covers. In better times - if not the worst all the time - all this would imply, dfl that this difference is most important for the one who reflects on the literature. For us, and I will show it later, this simple and seemingly tautological principle perhaps notorious - everyone will say, "Well, dfl that well, it means" dfl - but certainly not known.
Literature today, too, is not what is literature. That is to say that epigonija not literature. Literature can not be something that it already is, what was, what is now. Because if it is, it repeats itself, dfl identical to itself, it would be very easy to get to her positive descriptions, they would have a clear and complete notion of Literature in the prescription. That there is a ready concept of literature, she would have been dead. Fiction has to be something other than the current itself. It is pre
No comments:
Post a Comment