رمزگشايي شطحيّات بر پايه علم معاني

Encoding of Shath on the basis of Rhetoric

شطحيّات به دليل پيوند گسترده اي كه با تجارب روحي و ضمير ناخودآگاه، زبان و ادبيّات، دين و تجارب مذهبي، اجتماع و شرايط فرهنگي دارند، در مواجهه با تفسير، اغلب پيچيده و گاه بي معنا قلمداد مي شوند. حال آنكه جستجوي معنا از جملات شطحي به طور طبيعي نيازمند علم معاني و كشف معناي ثانوي جملات است. اينكه دقيقاً بتوان به معناي اصلي و نيّت حقيقي يك شطّاح دست يافت، انتظار غيرممكني به نظر مي رسد(كه البته در ادبيّات معناي قطعي وجود ندارد، بلكه هاله اي از معناهاست كه متن ادبي را هنرمندانه مي كند). همچنان كه هرمونتيك نيز قايل به معنايي واحد و لايتغيّر نيست. امّا علم معاني با شيوه اي ادبي و نظام مند، ابهام ها و پيچيدگي هاي يك شطح را مي گشايد و معناي دروني و نزديك به حقيقت را كشف مي كند. مسلّماً معاني ثانوي جملات، بر اساس شرايط و حالات و مقتضيات است كه به وجود مي آيد و علم معاني نيز جملات را بر همين اساس تفسير مي كند(بر اساس مطابقت كلام با مقتضاي حال). اين نوشته، نظريّهْ حاضر را بسط خواهد داد

Abstract "Shath" 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.