رمزگشایی شطحیّات بر پایه علم معانی

شطحیّات به دلیل پیوند گسترده ای که با تجارب روحی و ضمیر ناخودآگاه، زبان و ادبیّات، دین و تجارب مذهبی، اجتماع و شرایط فرهنگی دارند، در مواجهه با تفسیر، اغلب پیچیده و گاه بی معنا قلمداد می شوند. حال آنکه جستجوی معنا از جملات شطحی به طور طبیعی نیازمند علم معانی و کشف معنای ثانوی جملات است. اینکه دقیقاً بتوان به معنای اصلی و نیّت حقیقی یک شطّاح دست یافت، انتظار غیرممکنی به نظر می رسد(که البته در ادبیّات معنای قطعی وجود ندارد، بلکه هاله ای از معناهاست که متن ادبی را هنرمندانه می کند). همچنان که هرمونتیک نیز قایل به معنایی واحد و لایتغیّر نیست. امّا علم معانی با شیوه ای ادبی و نظام مند، ابهام ها و پیچیدگی های یک شطح را می گشاید و معنای درونی و نزدیک به حقیقت را کشف می کند. مسلّماً معانی ثانوی جملات، بر اساس شرایط و حالات و مقتضیات است که به وجود می آید و علم معانی نیز جملات را بر همین اساس تفسیر می کند(بر اساس مطابقت کلام با مقتضای حال). این نوشته، نظریّهْ حاضر را بسط خواهد داد

Encoding of Shath on the basis of Rhetoric

AbstractShath because of having extended relationship with spiritual experiences, unconsciousness, language and literature, religion and religious experiences, society and cultural circumstances often regarded as complex and sometimes meaningless matters confronting of interpretation. This complexity often is the result of aesthetic and literary language of shathiyat, the influence of unconsciousness mind of Arif (mystic) in the quality of shathiyat or the influence of the necessity of reader’s conditions in explanation of shathiyat. While, to extract meanings from sentences including Shath naturally one should know Rhetoric and detect implicit meanings because the surface structure of shath may be in contrast with religious and traditional beliefs and ideals. Another reason is that, according to the reason of collection of Balâghat (Rhetoric) for better discovery of holy meaning of Quran, the holy and highlevel meanings never transfer into the addressee by the words which are restricted to the primary meanings but always a set of literary tools such as Code, Symbol, Kenning, Metaphor, Simile and Trope hides a holy and sublime concept under the layers of words to keep far its superiority and reality from the damage of routine and primary meanings. Also, because of constraints and disagreements with mystic education in the many historical periods, mystics had to implicit their education so that their companions understand and outsiders do not. In fact, the interpretation of types of shathiyat weren’t unrelated to the status and spiritual capacity of addressees (the necessity of addressee). It seems to be impossible expectation that we exactly can understand main meaning and real aim of a Shatah (speaker or writer of Shath),(of course, there isn’t absolute meaning in realm of literature, but halo of meanings exist that give artistic aspect to literary text) as in hermeneutics doesn’t exist one unchangeable meaning. But Rhetoric encodes ambiguities and complexities of Shath by systematic literary ways and detects internal realrelated meaning. Undoubtedly, sentences’ implicit meanings exist by circumstances, states, exigencies and rhetoric interprets sentences on the basis of this way (on the basis of concordance of speech with exigencies of states). Rhetoric has made this capacity in terms of aesthetic relation between the text and addressee to be considered the literary and routine language by the addressee and to enjoy from this difference. Meanwhile, the discovery of secondary meaning (implicit meaning) has another pleasure. The interpretation of shathiyat based on Rhetoric is performed by considering of shathiyat’s relation with three influential branches: the relation of shath with religion, social conditions and mystic’s spiritual conditions. However, always there is a critique about the shath which is based on Rhetoric: variety of spiritual experiences among mystics and unavailability of spiritual areas (because of to be beyond of these areas from the scale of veracity and falsity). Rhetoric wasn’t efficient in the determining of mystics claims.According to what is said, it appears to be appropriate to revise the definition of shath and then to accept that shath often is a saying which is intentional and meaningful from the divinity resource that its paradoxical aspects are its capacity and location which are humane. Holy sayings are in the frame of mundane words, covering of divine message in the frame of humane expression. The key of encoding codes in this paradoxical, divinity/mundane and divine/humane relation is Rhetoric. This article extends this present theory.