By BENEDICT NUNES*

The poet maintained metaphysics as a dramatic interpellation of the being

Fernando Pessoa's poetics, which absorbed several theoretical ingredients, as shown by Georg R. Lind[I], is largely subscribed by the heteronyms, and was (with the exception of Paulism, prior to orpheus) largely elaborated either as a result of them or in parallel with them, as in the cases of Intersectionism and Sensationism.

To limit ourselves to the main lines that are of interest to this study, we can say that this poetics developed upwards, to the more general level of an aesthetics or philosophy of art, and downwards, to the level of a reflection, at the same time psychological, aesthetic. and gnosiological on sincerity and pretense. In the middle, following the unfolding process of the poet himself and his work (the heteronymic scene), there is the doctrine of the degrees of lyric poetry and a Psychology of Creation.

The first degree of lyric poetry is the concentration of feelings, of spontaneous or reflective expression, generally monotonous; the second is the degree of dispersion of personalized feelings, acquiring, as in Swinburne's poetry, "so monotonous in temperament and style"[ii], the state of multiple personalities who express themselves differently; in the third, under the focus of intelligence that reflexively produces the distancing of feelings previously only expressed in different personal tones, the dispersion becomes purely imaginary, to the point that the unity of temperament disappears; and, finally, in the fourth degree, the unity of style disappears in the fictitious existence of one or more characters who, unlike the poet, are no longer himself, confronting him as other beings. Fernando Pessoa concludes: “And thus lyric poetry – or any other literary form similar in substance to lyric poetry – will have been taken to dramatic poetry, without, however, giving it the form of drama, either explicitly or implicitly” [iii].

As you can see, these degrees are steps on the way from lyrical to dramatic. In addition, they establish a typology of lyricism, classifying poets more according to their representative species than according to the modalities of lyrical expression objectively considered. Of unequal value, such modalities are also distinguished, according to the role played by sensitivity, intelligence and imagination, as they translate scales of individual and historical realization of the poetic phenomenon.

It will not be difficult to recognize in the first two degrees of lyric poetry, “in which the poet concentrated on his feeling expresses that feeling”, the romantic process that Fernando Pessoa described in one of his notes[iv]. And it will be much less difficult to recognize in the last two, accessible to poets of a reflective type, as opposed to those of an instinctive, spontaneous or romantic type, the coordinated work of imagination and intelligence, present, to a certain extent, in the classical process, capable of reaching , eliminating the individual element from emotion and transforming the lyrical into the dramatic, poetry par excellence.

It is beyond doubt that Fernando Pessoa critically rethought the poetics of Romanticism and Symbolism. His concept of lyric poem, average of the many definitions that his papers record, returns us, corrected and expanded, to Wordsworth's concept, according to which poetry is emotion collected in memory, according to the preface to Lyrical Ballads: “The composition of a lyric poem must be done not at the moment of emotion, but at the moment of remembrance of it. A poem is an intellectual product, and an emotion, in order to be intellectual, obviously, because it is not intellectual in itself, has to exist intellectually. Now the intellectual existence of an emotion is its existence in the intelligence – that is, in memory, the only part of the intelligence, properly such, that can preserve an emotion. [v].

In a passage of your erosion, Fernando Pessoa classified among the emotions capable of producing great poetry those that are false, because they are felt in the intellect[vi]. They are emotions that are produced with the poem, constructed, like this one, by an intellectual work in which imagination and logical intelligence participate. The poet called the first, in a draft of a letter to Adolfo Rocha [Miguel Torga], “direct and instinctive intellectualization of sensibility”; to the second, a critical reflection on this intellectualization [vii].

This means that reflection and construction, inseparable, dominate the genesis and encompass the result of the poetic phenomenon. From the point of view of this reflective-constructive operation, one for orthoonym poetry and heteronyms – these never being adjacent to the poetic work, but integral figures of it –, neither the poet's experience exists independently of the formation of the poem, nor the poem exists independently of this experience that forms it.

Here we are already at the limits of poetics and aesthetics. The same operation that the sentimental poet is unaware of, and which conditions the highest degrees of lyricism, would determine the different heights of the arts, some superior, others inferior. An art is all the more elevated the greater the predominance in its form of the abstraction elements of sensible matter.[viii]. Inferior arts are those which, like singing and dancing, are designed to entertain; superiors, who permanently educate, influence the spiritual evolution of man, who act on sensitivity and intelligence, either through concrete forms, such as painting, sculpture and architecture, or through abstract forms, such as music , literature and the last but not the least, philosophy.

It seems that we are hearing in all of this the refrain of Hegel's aesthetics: art at the service of the needs of the spirit. And this classification becomes even more clearly Hegelian when we realize that it includes philosophy, and when its author tells us that all art, whatever its natural place, must tend towards the abstraction of the greater arts, that is, for literature after music, and for philosophy after literature.

The arts do not thus aspire to the status of music. Even music, in this reply to Symbolism, aspires to the status of literature. “All art is a form of literature”, recorded Álvaro de Campos, in “Outra Nota ao Chance”[ix]. But the inclusion of philosophy among the arts and its consequent reduction to literature, from which it would only be distinguished as “an exercise of the spirit in figuring out impossible worlds”[X], is not casual and even less a whim of this provocateur of ideas, which was provoked by philosophy until the end of his life. “I was,” he said, “a poet driven by philosophy, not a philosopher endowed with poetic faculties.” [xi].

Fernando Pessoa devoted, however, to philosophy, as an attentive disciple of thinkers who studied and commented on a large number of notes, sketches, articles and essays. We see him traveling, sometimes on behalf of a character – “António Mora” or “Rafael Baldaia” – and having in hand the map of idealism, traced from Descartes to Kant, and from Kant to Hegel, the classic script of metaphysical questions, which start from the problem of being and which always return to it.

Pragmatist like António Mora, he admits the utilitarian purpose of science deviated by the anthropomorphism of philosophy[xii]. Science only serves life, without penetrating the external world, and philosophy satisfies the spirit, without penetrating consciousness. But this reader of Kant, who dwells on the examination of the difference between phenomenon and noumenon, rebels against critical relativism in the name of “the desire to think deeply”; and, knowing that metaphysical truth entails a demand for the Absolute, he thinks that the path of philosophy must “start from the unknown in the known to the unknown in itself” [xiii].

Certain trends or sympathies stand out in our poet's philosophical speculation. Inclined to a monism of conscience, he is at the same time suspicious of substantialist spiritualism, and assumes, towards religion and logic, a pragmatic-vitalist attitude, more in tune with Nietzsche than with William James. Furthermore, the problems of consciousness and being catalyze, like two constants, the investigations of this rigorous autodidact dominated by pathos of negation and contradiction. Due to the breadth it reached, even in detective stories, and above all in Or Anarchist Banqueiro, that pathos of negation and contradiction conditioned his way of thinking, and imposed a singular radicalism on the treatment of metaphysical questions, when he dealt with them, which combines a skeptical or agnostic attitude with the principle of transcendence.

It would be enough for us, to illustrate this radicalism, to bring up, outside the collections of philosophical texts by Fernando Pessoa, his “Arte de Raciocinar”, where the detective Quaresma, when developing an entire analysis of knowledge, shows that there is, above the concrete intelligence of the scientist and the abstractive intelligence of the philosopher, a third type, in whose name both the presuppositions of science and the abstractions of speculative philosophy can be criticized. It is an eminently negating and negative intelligence, still philosophical, which converts, however, all affirmation into negation, and which makes philosophy a non-philosophy. Establishing antitheses, establishing contradictions, without dwelling on the Kantian balance of antinomies or without advancing to the Hegelian synthesis, denying opposites or affirming them at the same time, generating paradox – these are the principles of the magna art of the philosopher’s negation, which he himself summed it up as a probable introduction to writings that he considered to be bearers of counter-opinions and exercises in unmasking: “To the certainty with which everyone thinks, it is appropriate to oppose the certainty with which one can think the opposite, with which one manages to become logical the absurd” [xiv].

In this line that characterizes his radicalism, and which he came to call sometimes nihilism, sometimes transcendental agnosticism, Fernando Pessoa exercised in dismantling the objectivity of knowledge and the criteria of truth. If, on the one hand, it maintains the requirement of the Absolute, on the other hand, the concept of Truth, subjected to a disaggregating analysis that disconnects it from the traditional criteria of the adequacy of reality and understanding or concordance idearum, becomes, less than an ideal of Reason in the Kantian sense, “an idea or sensation of ours we know not of what, a meaning therefore without value, like any other sensation of ours” [xv]. Thus, it seems to him that metaphysics is reduced to a single problem: that of knowledge, whose terms, subject, object and relation, constitute insurmountable ontological limits to the verification of any truth and harmful to the establishment of certainty, which has a “purely subjective character” [xvi].

At times, Fernando Pessoa's intellectual radicalism, with the logical tourniquet of his analysis, reminds us, when recommending that efforts be spared to express what is unknown [xvii], or to formulate problems that cannot be solved, the therapeutic intentions of Wittgenstein's philosophy: “The problem of the eternity and infinity of the world cannot be posed, because we do not have the elements to solve it” [xviii]. But since the Unknown is the Absolute, which haunts us through Metaphysics and Religion, its mediators, it is impossible to content ourselves with sharing the truths proposed by Spencer's sensible relativism, which is still deposited in these conceptualizations of our poet. Interstice between error and error, manifest from error to error, Truth is a deceptive value before the Absolute, which condemns all ideas to insufficiency, lending them the character of fiction. Undefinable itself, the Absolute is also fictitious.

As there is nothing that makes it possible to distinguish reality from the set of its appearances, Rafael Baldaia will be able to write in his treaty of denial: “All creation is fiction and illusion. As Matter is an illusion, demonstrably, to Thought; Thought an illusion for Intuition; Intuition an illusion for the Pure Idea; the Pure Idea is an illusion for the Being. And the Self is essentially Illusion and Falsehood. God is the Supreme Lie” [xx].

In this perspective of a fictionalism to the outrage, fits, in our view, the occultism of the so-called “Gnostic Christian”, and close both to Holy Kabbalah and to the essence of Freemasonry and Alchemy. The infinite worlds, the degrees of hierarchy and improvement, the smaller distance between man and the gods, the greater distance between the gods and the divinity – all these items of a belief that Fernando Pessoa confessed himself to be an adherent of, and that appears in another portion of the aforementioned text by Rafael Baldaia – all these points of doctrine, which would integrate, as an object of revelation for the initiated, the multiple scales of Being, also modulated the dialectic without synthesis of errors and truth, referring us, in a appearance in appearance, to a reality that unfolds from a permanently hidden center.

For the “Detailed and Analytical Reasoner” [xx], who needed to understand everything until “the faeces of understanding”, occultism would have been the experience of hiding the meaning of things and existence. The mystic and the metaphysician in him turned to a transcendence that was empty as well as hidden, although sustained in consciousness itself, to which Fernando Pessoa granted the privileged status of pure metaphysical fact, whose being, unconditioned and indeterminate, approaches of "pour-soi sartrian.

Consciousness, which cannot be known, under penalty of becoming an object, is modified in the reflective form. There is no “awareness conscious of itself”, a consciousness that knows itself and that becomes an object for itself. But, despite this, the being of consciousness suffers from internal unfolding. Reflexivity takes the lead, shrouding consciousness with the pseudo-identity of the reflective subject. “Self-consciousness is the bipartition of self into 2: subject and object”, wrote Fernando Pessoa in one of his philosophical notes [xxx]. In this way, it would pass through the arc of reflexive unfolding, bringing to the interior the rotation between appearance and reality that dominates the outside world, the objectified image of the human subject that, similarly to Sartre’s “pour-soi”, is a mixture of being and of non-being. Finally, to employ categories that we can find both in sonnets in English and in orthonym and heteronym poetry, our existence is conjugated in the unfillable ontological difference, which poetic heteronyms intensify, reopen or try to suppress, between being and having, between the I that we have and what we are, between the owner and alter, the Self and the Other.

The poet concludes in another sketch: “Everything is illusion. The illusion of thought, of feeling, of will. Everything is creation and all creation is illusion. Creating is lying. To think non-being we create it, it becomes a thing. All occult thinkers absolutely create a whole system of the universe, which remains real. Even if they contradict each other: there are several systems in the universe, all of them real” [xxiii].

Only consciousness subsists in the general illusion that implants the split between the subjective and the objective, which separates being and non-being – however identical when thought considers them – and which decenters the real in a series of appearances. Consequently, every sense that originates from consciousness is a fictitious sense; exists as possibility and never as reality. It's creation and lies. With that, Nietzsche's vitalism is grafted onto Fernando Pessoa's thought.

when explaining The Origin of Tragedy, in one of the drafts for his project work, The Will to Power (Der wille zur macht), which remained unfinished, Nietzsche asserted that the malignant pessimism of his first great book lacks the opposition between the apparent world and the true world. There is only one true world, which is false, cruel, contradictory, seductive, meaningless (ohne sinn). From the perspective of nihilism – the devaluation of all values ​​– as the extreme limit of the cultural-historical process that sapped, with the framework of Western thought, metaphysical in its origin and evolution, the platonic bond of truth, linking the superior order and visible from essences to the inferior and visible world of appearances, it became necessary to invent, create and therefore lie in order to live.

“That one needs a lie to live is yet another aspect of the dreadful and problematic character of existence (fürchtbaren und fragwürdigen Charakter des Daseins)” [xxiii]. Science, religion and metaphysics want to maintain the image of truth, and that is why they lie with the bad faith of those who presume to flaunt what they do not have. The loyal lie, and therefore paradoxically true, is art as a tragic affirmation. Instead of hiding the truth that does not exist, she asserts her “will to appearance, illusion and fiction”. And thus it constitutes the only possible movement within nihilism and against nihilism. Under these conditions, appearance ceases to mean just the denial of reality; and the truth, which becomes appearance, takes on a new meaning. “Chez Nietzsche”, sums up Deleuze, “nous les artistes = nous les chercheurs de connaissance ou de verité = nous les inventeurs de nouvelles possibilites de vie” [xxv].

To the philosopher and the poet, sharing the tragic feeling – love fati – by accepting appearances, there would remain, for the pursuit of knowledge and truth, common to both, sub species artis, the oblique tactic of, creating new possibilities of life or new possibilities of being, pretending that man understands the world and understands himself. Nietzsche's vital lie leads us to pretense, to the artistic lie of our author's lyricism. Mainly thematized by the “impure and simple” Fernando Pessoa of songbook, pretense, which takes us back to the problem of knowledge, truth and being, at the heart of poetic creation, is the link that connects poetry and philosophy in the work of this extraordinary artist.

According to the well-known verses of “Autopsicografia”, the poet is a pretender, and the more poet he is the more completely he pretends his feelings and thoughts, reaching sincerity through insincerity. Index of suspension, transformation and construction of experience in language, a sign of what Fernando Pessoa also called detachment, pretense, which will thus be an artifice of sincerity, and as such performing an aesthetic function, has, for this very reason, as already noted Jorge de Sena [xxiv], a non-ethical and more than psychological-empirical meaning: a gnosiological and ontological meaning, based on the questioning around reflective consciousness.

No one knows what he truly feels, said the very acute poet, who, completing his psychoanalytic-existential cut in defense of artistic sincerity (which does not occur in emotion as the inferior artist believes), added that “it is possible to feel relief with the death of someone dear, and thinking that we are feeling sorry, because that is what one should feel on these occasions”[xxv]. Psychological sincerity is insincere because it presupposes, moreover in an act of bad faith, the impossible fixity of feelings that, always changing and always modified by reflexivity, only stabilize when they become conventionalized, starting to appear in the sentimentality of a “specification of specifications” account of the I in which we objectify ourselves.

The Self, objectifying instance, masks the place of this Other that we can become – of this Other that, as possession of the other's subjectivity, Fernando Pessoa externalized in his heteronyms, which would allow him to enrich himself “in the capacity to create new personalities, types of pretending that I understand the world, or rather pretending that one can understand it”[xxviii]. Fernando Pessoa tells us nothing else in several of his poems: “To be one is to be a prisoner. / To be me is not to be. / I will live pretending / But I live for real.”; “You will always be your own dream / You live trying to be.”; “I am already who I will never be / In the certainty that I lie” [xxviii].

When, therefore, Fernando Pessoa wrote that “to pretend is to know oneself”, he was not just indicating a way of circumventing the falsifications of inner life, the disguises of reflective consciousness, the masks it is covered with. At the same time an expression of tragic irony, which accepts to consecrate appearances, this pretense, negative self-gnosis, anti-Socratic and anti-Cartesian, mediating the victory over the sincerity of the naive poet and the sentimental poet (and sincerity of this type is the “big obstacle that artist has to win"), constitutes the only consistent attitude towards the being who claims the artist's word.

Pretending interests the poet as a poet, that is, as an agent of poiesis, which creates or gives form in language to a possibility of being. This is your freedom and your truth. “I want to be free insincere / Without belief, duty or rank”. Surrendered to the founding word, it is free to translate itself, and it is insincere to become another: “Be I varied reading / For myself”. But this reading, this legibility of being, is conditioned by the writing that precedes it.

Fernando Pessoa revealed himself, in one of his critical notes, to be sensitive to the tortuous power of writing: “Talking is the simplest way of becoming unknown. And that immoral and hypocritical way of speaking, which is called writing, more completely veils us from others and from that kind of others that our unconsciousness calls ourselves. [xxix].

For this reason, it should be considered here, as an essential part of Fernando Pessoa's pretense, the converting and transforming mechanism of writing, insofar as, revealing and concealing, it is in this mechanism, an open field of the difference of signs, that is processed, by the irreducibility from signifiers to signifieds, both the evasion and the construction of the meaning of things and of the lyrical subject itself. There, in writing, word or book for the first of 35 Sonnets, the subject who forms and transforms himself, who exposes and conceals himself, pretending to be able to be, participates in the gears of an aesthetic and cognitive game.

In the Psychology of Creation, which occupies, as we have seen, the middle layer of Fernando Pessoa's poetic theory, imagination appears between sensitivity and reason. She is even considered "a combination of emotion and reason, having the non-rigid character of emotion (the mildness), and the coldness of reason" [xxx]. Due to its role in the synthesis of experience, the imagination was, for Kant, the guarantor of the “free play of the representative faculties” [xxxii] (free Spiels from the Vorstellungskräfte) corresponding to aesthetic judgment, a free game that, without being objective knowledge, is nevertheless exercised as if it were knowledge. It could be said that it is a game that pretends to know, which is the fictitious possibility of knowledge.

In this sense, Fernando Pessoa's pretending to know himself is an eminently playful act, outlining a rational-imaginary field, in which to understand the world, question the being, investigate the truth, on the one hand, and say things, express themselves. if and translate, on the other, intertwine in the moving unit of a single poiesis. Since knowing is creating and creating the only way of knowing and being, in the suspension of beliefs and assumptions, authorized by the philosopher's transcendental nihilism and corroborated by the poet's pretense, poetic creation, made an instrument of understanding, and philosophical speculation , made a founding language, complement each other.

This does not mean that Fernando Pessoa was a poet as a philosopher and a philosopher as a poet. It just so happens, a fact of serious importance, that the question, regarding the work of Fernando Pessoa, can no longer be put in these terms, since this work, heir to Nietzsche's aestheticism, already participates, on a large scale, in the intertwining, consummated today in Western intellectual culture, parallel to the crisis of metaphysics, of literature with philosophy.

It would be a mistake to look for a philosophical doctrine for the great writer's poetic work, a system of thought internally or externally elaborated, either as a summary of ideas that it secreted from the inside, or as an intuitive and conceptual framework that substantiate it from the outside. In it, the encounter and confrontation of the poetic and the philosophical begin to take place, breaking with the traditional molds, revealing to us an aspect of that intellectual situation of philosophy as a written work, and therefore of philosophy as a literary genre, that Paul Valéry registered in the his Notebooks – and that here we can only refer [xxxi].

In this way, the thesis, espoused by António Mora and Álvaro de Campos, and formulated in different ways and on different occasions, of philosophy as a work of art or of metaphysics as an artistic activity, deserves all the respect that is due to an integral idea of same intellectual situation, in addition to being a perfect expression of Fernando Pessoa's, let's say, philosophical irony.

Making metaphysics “various metaphysics, seeking to arrange coherent and funny systems of the universe” or, still, in terms of Ultimatum, making the philosopher “an artist of thought”, are expressions of the same need to create an understanding of the world that no longer provides us with the pure and simple use of philosophical discourse.

Considering all this, metaphysics is for poetry, in Fernando Pessoa's work, far from the kinship relationship that Schelling saw and that would make both, one as intuition and the other as deduction, equivalent forms of the Absolute. It doesn't just represent what it was for Marvell or Donne: the presence of an abstract thought, stimulating the poetic experience. [xxxii]. Without the shelter of a totalizing conception, such as those that Antero de Quental was still able to elaborate in the last century, the creator of heteronyms, who only had, in terms of certainty, via occultism, a Neoplatonic support - and even so, eaten away by the pathos of negation and contradiction –, was a metaphysical poet, but already committed to the crisis of metaphysics that marks current thinking.

Rejecting and accepting it at the same time, the Portuguese poet maintained metaphysics as a dramatic interpellation of being. And this interpellation was all the more dramatic the more the poetic work of Fernando Pessoa internalized, in language, the very movement of wandering of being, which is hidden in simulacra, in masks, which reveals itself without ever fully revealing itself: “ Of the eternal mistake in the eternal journey / The most that is expressed in the soul that dares / Is always a name, always a language / The veil and cover of something else”.

Possible ways of being and understanding the world, the Others that Fernando Pessoa projected outside himself, in the imaginary space of a dialogue – of a theater without drama or a drama without theatre, in the words of Álvaro de Campos –, were nothing more, like of the author who created them and who became their actor – and in this lies the tragic irony of the unfolding – if not the disguise of the unfathomable and profound reality, mask over masks, modeling individuals and strange to them. “Everything that is profound likes to mask itself”, says Nietzsche's aphorism that can serve as an intro to Fernando Pessoa's poetry of metaphysics in crisis.

* Benedito Nunes (1929-2011), philosopher, Professor Emeritus at UFPA, is the author, among other books, of paper sieve (Rile up).

Originally published on Colóquio/Letters Magazine, N^o. 20, July 1974.

Notes

[I] Georg Rudolf Lind, Fernando Pessoa's Poetic Theory, Porto, Editorial Inova, Ltda.

[ii] “The Degrees of Lyrical Poetry”, in Aesthetics and Literary Theory and Criticism Pages, texts established and prefaced by GR Lind and Jacinto do Prado Coelho, Lisbon, Édições Ática, p. 68, and Intimate and Self-Interpretation Pages, texts established and prefaced by J. do P. Coelho and GR Lind, Lisbon, Edições Ática, pp. 106-9.

[iii] Intimate and Self-Interpretation Pages, P. 107.

[iv] Aesthetic Doctrine Pages, selection, preface and notes by Jorge de Sena, Lisbon, Editorial Inquérito, pp. 350-352.

[v] Aesthetics and Literary Theory and Criticism Pages, P. 72. Emphasis mine.

[vi] Ibid., P. 267.

[vii] Ibid., p. 69-72.

[viii] Presentation of ver. Athenain Aesthetic Doctrine Pages, P. 121.

[ix] Aesthetic Doctrine Pages, P. 289.

[X] Ibid., P. 129.

[xi] Intimate and Self-Interpretation Pages, P. 14.

[xii] António Mora, “Introduction to the Study of Metaphysics – Basic Principles, in Philosophical Texts, established and prefaced by António de Pina Coelho, Lisbon, Ed. Attica, vol. I, pp. 7-9.

[xiii] Philosophical Texts, vol. I, p. 20.

[xiv] Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 3-4.

[xv] Ibid., vol. II, p. 220.

[xvi] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 249.

[xvii] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 235.

[xviii] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 70.

[xx] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 42.

[xx] Intimate and Self-Interpretation Pages, P. 74.

[xxx] Philosophical Texts, vol. II, p. 183.

[xxiii] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 44.

[xxiii] Nietzsche, “Die Kunst in der Geburt der Tragedie”, Werke, p. 691, III, Carl Hanser Verlag.

[xxv] Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche et la philosophie, P. 117, Presses Universitaires de France.

[xxiv] Pages of Aesthetic Doctrine, p. 348.

[xxv] “Random note”, in Aesthetic Doctrine Pages, P. 285.

[xxviii] Letter to Casais Monteiro on 20/1/1935, in Aesthetic Doctrine Pages, P. 275.

[xxviii] In the verses by Fernando Pessoa cited in this article, we limit ourselves to the edition of the Poetic Work (organization and notes by Maria Aliete Dores Galhoz, Rio de Janeiro, Editora José Arguilar, Lda., 1960).

[xxix] Aesthetics and Literary Theory and Criticism Pages, P. 42.

[xxx] Ibid., P. 124.

[xxxii] Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, § 9.

[xxxi] See Derrida, Qual Quelle, Marges de la philosophie, P. 349, Les Editions de Minuit.

[xxxii] TS Eliot, “The Metaphysical Poets,” in Selected Essays, P. 287, Faber and Faber, London.