Se balĕn žulĕd lĕč naťemef
The irrational language of poetry
Miňot luđiz doġąm ďąš lůn žu ďĕdaz čaš liš ďuđut ġiš ċiš ďuđut žu žăr ċiš ďuđut. Ġiš liš ďuđut, žăr ċiš ďuđut, ċaš čiťąr ğiš siřočaz ċa gušŏr. Se miňot lĕč liš ďuđut se košĕl lĕč ğiš gušŏr. Se žuląlima ťek se miňot lĕč se ďašăm lĕč bağęn toňet ďid se košĕl lĕč ğiš gušŏr. Šůl se kaťum bolŏš, se ďašăm zažąt žuląz žu ďĕdaz doġąm lĕč se žežĕten lĕč se neťačet. Ġąk ďĕdaz ġiš žu nařůšaz ďuđut se neťačet ġiš řęš? Ďĕdaz se ďašăm; řuk žĕrže žoďur ďąš se ďašăm žašam čeřăt žĕrže se đeċąteni doġąm ďąš ċiš ďuđut se ďašăm ďąš řuğęr doğon se neťačet gašen žăr zuċ đeċąteni lĕč žăš bağęn:
What in truth is the thing, so far as it is a thing? When we inquire in this way, our aim is to come to know the thing-being (thingness) of the thing. The point is to discover the thingiy character of the thing. To this end we have to be acquainted with the sphere to which all those entities belong which we have long called by the name of thing.
Se neťačet ďuđut se miňot lĕč se ďašăm. Se ďašăm ďuđut se miňot lĕč se neťačet. Šŏš ďuđut ġęl se đŏš. Ďuťam, šŏš ďuđut se čaňoz naďuč lĕč se đŏš. Ťid ċeš žu ťid ġuš žoġůmima neťačet žu ďašăm zižąr žĕš lĕč čŏš ďĕdaz loťůr lĕč zuċ zeďęk viňănra čaš ďuđut bušąš žĕrže ďiš, jořĕtiz ďąš čaš đučur řilĕze neťačet žu ďašăm lĕč bağęn ġuš ďiğĕš bağęn:
The poetic character of thinking is
still veiled over.
Where it shows itself, it is for a
long time like the utopism of
a half-poetic intellect.
But poetry that thinks is in truth
the topology of Being.
This topology tells Being the
whereabouts of its actual
presence.
Žăr řaťamiz žăr se neťačet ďuđut se miňot lĕč se ďašăm ťid zuċ kiğęr vučŏn lůš se ďašăm ďuđut se miňot lĕč se neťačet, žuďąt ċiš ďuđut dilak ġačęr ďąš, ťid zuċ žošek kiğęr vučŏn, bağęn ďuđut se miňot lĕč ďiš neťačet žu ďašăm. Ġąk zičąt bağęn đaďoz goġuš miňot ďĕš ađ? Zeġĕt žu žulet žašam bağęn ďulŏč? Bağęn, ċĕš ďuđut điš gudak, lůš zuċ vižąm žĕrže čaš điš lušęk ňuš žižălže žižuz. Ċiš jařuš fušŏk řuk zuċ vuċĕr žoġęk duťŏš ďŏt čaš ċaš žoğăt zuċ lileš řuk ďąš čaš ročęt ďuđut lušęk ťid bağęn: ğařăz žu meďąkad. Dišak žoċom se vižąm "bağęn" fuťůr šolen žĕrže roďudet gudak lůš zuċ vuċĕr žoġęk šođĕčima, ġiš ďuđut žiřąt nužŏd ďĕdaz se vižąm šožăr ġuğiket jidak šůl se foťęz lĕč se julučef lĕč ğařăz žu meďąkad:
Poetry, however, is not an aimless imagining of whimsicalities and not a flight of mere notions and fancies into the realm of the unreal. What poetry, as illuminating projection, unfolds of unconcealedness and projects ahead into the design of the figure, is the Open which poetry lets happen, and indeed in such a way that only now, in the midst of beings, the Open brings beings to shine and ring out.
Ċa ďuđut se gečŏz se ġiğal? Toďaz ğařăz žu meďąkad ġuğiket jidak začęr bağęn ďeďolad žăr ġuš miňot?
Řăš se ďuġon jařuš đaďoz, se žuląlima lĕč se miňot lĕč se ďašăm lĕč bağęn zuċŏt zuċ žuląlima ďid se gušŏr lĕč bağęn. Řač se žuląlima čoġimže žu žulet bağęn ťid tiđęr ďeďolad čašoš žošek řiđęd ġiďęk, ċaš řařůč žulat žĕrže žiđŏzže se gušŏr lĕč bağęn ťid se lileš zeġĕt bağęn taďęčiz kađĕn ťid zuċ lušęk vučŏn. Bağęn ďuđut keďęk ťid se bağęn ďašăm. Ġąk ġiš žu žulet ďuđut zuċ ďašăm lĕč bağęn?
Abramson M., and S. Goldinger 1997. What the reader’s eye tells the mind’s ear: Silent reading activates inner speech. Perception and Psychophysics 59: 1059-1068.
Brown, J. W. 1999. On aesthetic perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 6: 144-160.
Dutton, D. 2008. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution. Bloomsbury Press.
Hernandi, P. 2002. Why is literature? A coevolutionary perspective on imaginative worldmaking. Poetics Today 23: 21-42.
Kawabata, H. and Zeki, S. 2004. Neural correlates of beauty, J Neurophisiology 91: 1699-1705.
Kolaiti, P. 2007. Celesteia. Athens: Nefeli publishings.
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Polenakis, S. 2007. The blue horses by Franz Mark. Athens: Odos Panos.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought.
Tye, M. 2006. Absent qualia and the mind-body problem. Philosophical Review 115:139-169.
Wilson, D. and R. Carston 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21: 404-433.
Zangwill, N. 2003. Aesthetic realism. In Levinson, J. (ed.) The Oxford Companion in Aesthetics. Oxford University Press.
