Literature as methodology, criticism of formalism
Literature as methodology, criticism of formalism
The process of contextual representation is not object of analysis in formalism.
The object in here means it is the proposition in the literature creation process such as is it possible to express in the transformation of literary objects or is it impossible to express in the transformation of literary objects.
In other words, the promise of formalism is that the context is already represented as completed form. Therefore, the formalism cannot be in an analytical position for creation process because the formalism treats as an analysis the object for completed as existed context.
In the completed context the formalism find out a perspective on each element, and has an analytical purpose for the integration of each element.
But it completely missed regarding a method which provides by the object that exercises literary creation, because it only finds out in the creation process.
The following can be considered of causes of missing elements.
The purpose of process in the object that exercises literary creation
Possibility of realization for literary ideological and a presumption of representation of idea
The purpose at the creative process of the contextual object itself
The problem is the lack of these 3 analyzes points.
And if I can briefly say, the problem is through the process whether it is possible to realize or not that is needs to analyze for literary creation.
The contextual process consists in the object that exercises literary creation is following
The process begins with start verbalization.
The time transition of the present progressive form.
The process established by the terminal symbol.
For that reason, we can observe the object that exercise literary creation and the object that are created as represent object relationships and the object of temporal transitivity.
In formalism, this point cannot be logicalized.
It is very logic that the element that objects relationships and the object of temporal transitivity don’t represent in the completed context and those are only represented in currently process of creation. In formalism it cannot analyze this point.
In other words, the formalism is the position that accepting the completed context and for the formalism the process in the object that exercises literary creation cannot be included or out of investigation.
As a result, in the formalism it takes the position that those elements are omitted as unknowable, or adhere to the position that it cannot be handled as a problem.
In case that the formalism confirms as the methodology is following condition,
It is a situation in which each element analysis is assumed to have been established in the context acceptance.
It is categorized under the created form.
However, in the object that exercises literary creation and in the object that is being created, in those cases are the method categorized under the form?
Can formalistic analysis approach to the essence of literature?
In literary replacement of idealism, with regard to the attempt to express or not to express, is it possible to present it while omitting the process?
To consider that point, provide these 2 conditions.
The context is not completed define as it is not established by terminal symbol.
Analysis the usage of “first person” and “third person” in process.
And the determination and the timing of which personal pronoun usage appears
For the object that exercises literary creation, decisions are made at the beginning of verbalization.
Anywhere in the process without terminal symbols decisions are made by verbalization.
Additional: Synchronization and balance are the objectivities of the process.
Regarding that decision, what elements will be proposed and how to manipulate by personal pronoun determination for creation object.
In case of using the first person, the object that exercises literary creation identifies the same as the person in the context by the effect.
However, this is the case when the existence of “I” recognized as an identity such as same as “myself”.
Regarding that point, it is summarized in the following two points.
The position where the distance between the person who is contextualized and the person who exercises literary creation is infinitely close.
The person is the first person when uses the contextual person and the object that exercises literary creation are intentionally the same.
Needless to say, the first person usage in context categorizes a confession style.
On the other case, when the object that exercises literary creation uses the third person to perform in the process.
Regarding this point, it is summarized in the following two points.
The position where the distance between a person who is contextualized and the person who exercises literary creation. It has distance.
The person is the third person when uses the contextual person and the object that exercises literary creation are the different.
However, in the third person execution process it is not necessary to interpret that the person in the context is absolute or omnipotent.
It is presented as an independent methodology on the temporal transition because for the purpose of the object that exercises literary creation is one of the realizations of literary ideological so no need to consider as absolute or omnipotent.
Although the third person is the same personality as the object that literary creation exercises, distance appears.
In summary, this is the relationship between processual context and the object that exercises literary creation.
For the purpose of the object that exercises literary creation, it is the consequential theory that the effect was generated by using the first person or by the third person constructed literary world.
For the simplest expression, the criterion is “how can I express what I want to express?” In this query, only the problem is the first person and the third person properly used or not.
This is a criterion of an author “how to express what I want to express and is it possible to realize?”
For that it is inevitable to select properly the first or third person.
On a different note, in the process that is created by either the first person or the third person and in the literary structuring process, the selection of language structure can also affect the contextual representation.
However, the formalism does not consider the literary influence of language structure.
It means the language structure is only taken as a standard.
In addition, the presentation will only be made on the basis of the time system that the time structure has been completed.
The formalism does not consider the literary influence of language structure in the literally creation process.
In other words, the language structure is only taken as one standard because of processed.
And regarding the consciousness of the time structure is also proposed only in the time system that it is already completed, because in the context, all processes are determined by the terminal symbols.
It is not a formal category for process of creation if the object that exercises literary creation consider about language structure selection and for usage of the proper first and third person for the selected language structure.
Also, if there is a process of structuring, it is impossible to break away from temporal transitivity. In other words, it is not structured literature.
The premise of the formalism applies the formal to structured literature.
In the object that exercises literary creation, it doesn’t apply form to structure,
it applies to process by a method to synchronize.
The problem of the formalism is that it interprets literature as form, but in fact it interprets context as a completed structure. This is because, it already described, there is a terminal symbol.
The context in the object that exercises literary creation behaves as a process, it is unstructured, until a terminal symbol is fixed.
There are linguistic relationships and first and third person relativity.
In this condition the purpose is always whether the terminal symbol can be fixed or not.
Only the object that exercises literary creation engaged as element of process and it has possibility to generate a conflict between formalism.
For that reason, the object that exercises literary creation does not provide a form when selected with first person or third person, it provide as a method.
Literature is not the object of already written it is the object of being write, being process.
In its realization, there is a truth of literature and the formalism cannot analyze.
To select of method that is literary construction.
Note: This theory originally wrote in Japanese because to recognize linguistic structure deference.
14th May 2020 Tokyo
Ko Ohashi
Literature as methodology, criticism of formalism
The process of contextual representation is not object of analysis in formalism.
The object in here means it is the proposition in the literature creation process such as is it possible to express in the transformation of literary objects or is it impossible to express in the transformation of literary objects.
In other words, the promise of formalism is that the context is already represented as completed form. Therefore, the formalism cannot be in an analytical position for creation process because the formalism treats as an analysis the object for completed as existed context.
In the completed context the formalism find out a perspective on each element, and has an analytical purpose for the integration of each element.
But it completely missed regarding a method which provides by the object that exercises literary creation, because it only finds out in the creation process.
The following can be considered of causes of missing elements.
The purpose of process in the object that exercises literary creation
Possibility of realization for literary ideological and a presumption of representation of idea
The purpose at the creative process of the contextual object itself
The problem is the lack of these 3 analyzes points.
And if I can briefly say, the problem is through the process whether it is possible to realize or not that is needs to analyze for literary creation.
The contextual process consists in the object that exercises literary creation is following
The process begins with start verbalization.
The time transition of the present progressive form.
The process established by the terminal symbol.
For that reason, we can observe the object that exercise literary creation and the object that are created as represent object relationships and the object of temporal transitivity.
In formalism, this point cannot be logicalized.
It is very logic that the element that objects relationships and the object of temporal transitivity don’t represent in the completed context and those are only represented in currently process of creation. In formalism it cannot analyze this point.
In other words, the formalism is the position that accepting the completed context and for the formalism the process in the object that exercises literary creation cannot be included or out of investigation.
As a result, in the formalism it takes the position that those elements are omitted as unknowable, or adhere to the position that it cannot be handled as a problem.
In case that the formalism confirms as the methodology is following condition,
It is a situation in which each element analysis is assumed to have been established in the context acceptance.
It is categorized under the created form.
However, in the object that exercises literary creation and in the object that is being created, in those cases are the method categorized under the form?
Can formalistic analysis approach to the essence of literature?
In literary replacement of idealism, with regard to the attempt to express or not to express, is it possible to present it while omitting the process?
To consider that point, provide these 2 conditions.
The context is not completed define as it is not established by terminal symbol.
Analysis the usage of “first person” and “third person” in process.
And the determination and the timing of which personal pronoun usage appears
For the object that exercises literary creation, decisions are made at the beginning of verbalization.
Anywhere in the process without terminal symbols decisions are made by verbalization.
Additional: Synchronization and balance are the objectivities of the process.
Regarding that decision, what elements will be proposed and how to manipulate by personal pronoun determination for creation object.
In case of using the first person, the object that exercises literary creation identifies the same as the person in the context by the effect.
However, this is the case when the existence of “I” recognized as an identity such as same as “myself”.
Regarding that point, it is summarized in the following two points.
The position where the distance between the person who is contextualized and the person who exercises literary creation is infinitely close.
The person is the first person when uses the contextual person and the object that exercises literary creation are intentionally the same.
Needless to say, the first person usage in context categorizes a confession style.
On the other case, when the object that exercises literary creation uses the third person to perform in the process.
Regarding this point, it is summarized in the following two points.
The position where the distance between a person who is contextualized and the person who exercises literary creation. It has distance.
The person is the third person when uses the contextual person and the object that exercises literary creation are the different.
However, in the third person execution process it is not necessary to interpret that the person in the context is absolute or omnipotent.
It is presented as an independent methodology on the temporal transition because for the purpose of the object that exercises literary creation is one of the realizations of literary ideological so no need to consider as absolute or omnipotent.
Although the third person is the same personality as the object that literary creation exercises, distance appears.
In summary, this is the relationship between processual context and the object that exercises literary creation.
For the purpose of the object that exercises literary creation, it is the consequential theory that the effect was generated by using the first person or by the third person constructed literary world.
For the simplest expression, the criterion is “how can I express what I want to express?” In this query, only the problem is the first person and the third person properly used or not.
This is a criterion of an author “how to express what I want to express and is it possible to realize?”
For that it is inevitable to select properly the first or third person.
On a different note, in the process that is created by either the first person or the third person and in the literary structuring process, the selection of language structure can also affect the contextual representation.
However, the formalism does not consider the literary influence of language structure.
It means the language structure is only taken as a standard.
In addition, the presentation will only be made on the basis of the time system that the time structure has been completed.
The formalism does not consider the literary influence of language structure in the literally creation process.
In other words, the language structure is only taken as one standard because of processed.
And regarding the consciousness of the time structure is also proposed only in the time system that it is already completed, because in the context, all processes are determined by the terminal symbols.
It is not a formal category for process of creation if the object that exercises literary creation consider about language structure selection and for usage of the proper first and third person for the selected language structure.
Also, if there is a process of structuring, it is impossible to break away from temporal transitivity. In other words, it is not structured literature.
The premise of the formalism applies the formal to structured literature.
In the object that exercises literary creation, it doesn’t apply form to structure,
it applies to process by a method to synchronize.
The problem of the formalism is that it interprets literature as form, but in fact it interprets context as a completed structure. This is because, it already described, there is a terminal symbol.
The context in the object that exercises literary creation behaves as a process, it is unstructured, until a terminal symbol is fixed.
There are linguistic relationships and first and third person relativity.
In this condition the purpose is always whether the terminal symbol can be fixed or not.
Only the object that exercises literary creation engaged as element of process and it has possibility to generate a conflict between formalism.
For that reason, the object that exercises literary creation does not provide a form when selected with first person or third person, it provide as a method.
Literature is not the object of already written it is the object of being write, being process.
In its realization, there is a truth of literature and the formalism cannot analyze.
To select of method that is literary construction.
Note: This theory originally wrote in Japanese because to recognize linguistic structure deference.
14th May 2020 Tokyo
Ko Ohashi
