French dialect is a challenge. My personal thesis: : 'of the French language'. . .
Its inventive nature often requires as "something-or-other" of itself interest, which can not be surrounded as non-specific narrative related to linguistically reduced terminology. (In logic is called non-sequitur) My point being that to understand French ideals, there is no parallel between French and English literature. (Non-sequitur) Think about you putting language into a box. (If true, then the box is closed.) With your conscious mind, incredibly you failed in not considering it open, even with or without being told about this box. There is no idea stored in the box. You just want to get this 'hidden' idea out of it! (Did you fail to realize what is in the box?) I never told you - in which case you were guarded against seizing the box, what if then, you decided to alter what's inside of it - instead. This is French without the logic at work. (Deliberately charged non-sequitur can work in language.)
My question when reading French philosophers: What is the speaker trying to relate to me on subconscious level? The French like to romanticize this as a love affair, with language, out of its own poetically charged neo-liberal cause. I think of this as 'the particular or peculiarity of language in a transfer of non-sequitur.)
This archetypal language acts opposite in search of natural criticism toward it. This "opposite" (i.e. mystery) of the French dialect compels me to believe the literature as something that is best read as imagined without words. This allows me to describe what is the language (e.g. what acts as information) can be interpreted, into various forms of thought. What I am arguing, that invariably speaking French made literature offers its own dimension of how thought metaphorically intercedes for its reader. What is taking place goes beyond reasoning. This would help understand the challenges of reading inspired as French literature as a whole. Just my observations.
- Marco
- Marco
No comments:
Post a Comment