For the meaning of the unconscious and for the power of the imagination

/, Blesok no. 03, Literature/For the meaning of the unconscious and for the power of the imagination

For the meaning of the unconscious and for the power of the imagination

2. For the ontological dominance and for the power of imagination in the narrating world of Prokopiev

In every narrative communication, except the actual, exist other virtual beginnings which are referring on the experiences, which in the process of mutual narrative communication, are transferred from the author toward the reader and the other way around. But as result of its intellectual growing, every participant in that process, first is adopting own and after the philogenetical and ontogenetical experiences of the surroundings in which is forming his own narrative style. But when we speak about postmodern prose, we are obligated to point out one important principle, which represents superior construct of her writing. It’s about productivity which according to the opinion of Brian McHale not only “produces more discourse in shape of extended research8F”, but simultaneously, is opening possibility that the postmodern writing to be accepted as one discursive artifact, which is referring on same fictional world. To remain ourselves: in difference with the modern prose which was referring on some gained and established knowledge, except the adopted compositional and semantically value of the code, the postmodern posses her own or unique component which is read as discontinuity, logical improbability, contradiction or coincidence. Said with other word those elements which in the modernistic writing were dominant, in way of postmodern prose had become secondary – “marginal and optional”. But if we don’t miss to point the metalinquistical, self-appointed of this writing, than we will be perfectly clear why the postmodern discourse simply is forcing us to find that dominance that will determine and transform the components of its structure. That allows us to say that this kind of discourse doesn’t represent some hypothetical writing of the future, but discursive construct of its author. From those reasons we will allow this conclusion: if the modernistic prose of Witold Gombrowicz for which we talk previously had discovered purely epistemological dominance, the prose of Aleksandar Prokopiev, the mystery of the narrative world is solved in one postmodern manner – by the power of imaginative projection, which in the conscious of the reader and his onirical capability is appearing as response to something that maybe had existed in some historical time. This is called “post-cognitive dilemma”, which is open by the discourse of Aleksandar Prokopiev, is introducing the ontological dominance of his writing, and we are wondering for what kind of world in fact is about in his stories, and do we really recognize those models of existence that is projecting by his artistic fiction?
So, the differential dimension of the modern and postmodern is contend in domination for which, in fact are fighting ontological and epistemological dominance, “push the epistemological questions far enough” says McHale “and will turn in ontological”, but, the process of reception isn’t one-way, but reversible. So, it’s completely understandable that we are questioning by which order, in fact we are taking the levels of narrative communication, and for what first we become conscious in the prose of Prokopiev?
If we remember that the basic semantic structure of every narrative text is contended of reduced binary relations gain to a statute of anthropological constants, that is totally clear, why in the process of reception and reproduction we are starting from the deep, and not from the surface lines of narrative discourse.
In the next part of this study we will stay on two stories, which are pointing out the material imagination9F – as one kind of ontological dominance in one postmodern prose discourse.

The Dolphin and The Snake

Retired in the ocean of identity, always hungry for new approach – as someone who is forced on originality, just to stand up to the famous decision – the subject in the narrative world of Aleksandar Prokopiev wishing all that, what is outside of him. We will tell right away: the biggest part of his stories, the word “me” is that rule, first component which is trying to manifest the hidden “essence” of his artistic structure. Maybe, because of that, the fictive world of Sasho Prokopiev owns one uncensored value, one compromising lyric which is trying to pull us in opposite direction – out of the system of general codes, values and rules, for again to feel our self young, maybe infantile, but in one positive sense, and on one specific way.
Despite the fact that the postmodern characteristics of his stories own ability to call into the conscious some previous texts, the characters of his prose – which aren’t anything else but product of confrontation between the consciousness and existence (or hesitation between the epistemological and ontological component) – are discovering some structure. I say “some” because their power for multiplication – as in the world of dreams: the woman is turn into an dolphin, man – snake.
But in the conscious of man – and this is approved by more experience – always exists one alter – ego, which is trying to come to own voice and doing that, on the previous texts – on some previous semiothical scene, which has been recalled by our conscious – to project as well as on the matrix, to imagine and to interpretative, just himself. But, if we accept that our society build on the principle of the conscious, is just an result of therefore of mutual improvement (perfection) then doesn’t mean that the artists as his construct, in his private reality, is after all something childish and elementary, something beneath his own conscious, above which rules the Eternal Control. Without her, sooner or lather, that hidden degradation on the conscious fully would shaken his system, so forced to care just some characteristic of his character, the artist would be found himself in dilemma – either to hide or to appear that his “second” nature.
But, it’s clear that the art isn’t content just from words and shapes, it can’t resist on those huge material subjects which are awaking in us our oniric power. Therefore, the dreams of hero in the story of the Dolphin more precisely – the story of the boy possessed by the dishonest, subconscious erotic desire – will direct us to the incest which according to the words of Derrida isn’t anything else but restriction that has turn to “rule” and which guide us to the complex called Ooedipusus. Because, it doesn’t reflect some situation of the spirit, but is initiating associations, every myth in its basics, is tendentious. His matrix is putting in game arhe and telos – the beginning and the end. These following pages we dedicate to the game of mutual markings which is anticipating its end in some specific mark or symbol.
We have already mentioned that the story in the story which reminds to fairy-tale, its roots are in the pushed imagination for the dead mother which in the dreams of the son is coming as wonderful doe eyed girl, as a dolphin, sea or mud. This knowledge is pointing us to the words of Gaston Bachelard10F, according to who, in difference with the imaginary, which his origin is founding in the pictures, the subconscious has a need on something which sometimes has represented more intimate and more material presence, even from the performance itself or a picture. Therefore, the symbol of the sea (water) and the dolphin (the fish with human face and smooth body) in the deep structure of the story are connected with the instinct for the mother.
Possessed by the strange symbols which are covering him, the young man awaken is seeing unusual pictures which symbolist he doesn’t understand, but therefore the role of blind predictor which – as is told in the story – even at the boring mysteriously has asked the question for the unusual destiny of the new born baby, is holding the magical fibers of the conclusion in his hand. She is pointing him to the sea as saving principle.
It is known that the symbol of the sea, contents the substantial valorization in itself which turn the water into mother, but not as unique shape, because – as it says Bachelard – in the dreamed life of every man, there is second woman: the lover which also, can be projected in the sea, and to be equal to the Nature. It’s understandable that the both projections – that of the mother, from one, and that of wife-lover on the other hand -most often are fulfilled affirming on that way, the female substantialism of the water as liquid essence of irrevocable lost presence. But, beside that the clearance of the soul initiated from the water as natural, arche-element, has any rational base, we are virtual to say that the philosophy of the clearance comes from the material imagination, and not from the experience that was given by the Culture. The reason is in the will which manage with the intention for metamorphose and rebirth.


8. Брајан Мек-Хејл, Постмодерната проза, in Lettre internationale, Скопје, 1997; 5 – 6; стр. 25
9. Imagination isn’t capability for modeling the paradigmatically copies which are given by the perception, just modification dynamite of the senses, present basic or the hole physical life”)
10. Гастон Башлар, Водата и соништата: оглед за материјалната имагинација, Скопје, 1997.

AuthorAngelina Banović-Markovska
2018-08-21T17:24:04+00:00 June 1st, 1998|Categories: Reviews, Blesok no. 03, Literature|0 Comments