home literary living area

  prospecting archetropality
gary e. davis
March 31, 2016

A trope (as such—whatever the kind: allegorical metonym, metaphor, ironical pretense of definite reference) can be usefully modeled—troped, concepted—as persona in relation to selfness. Tropes commonly have large-scale implicature (like persona implying implicit selfidentity of a life), being focal gravities for narrative scales (like persona serves its called-upon scene).

Typically, metonyms are associated with allegorical-ness. Yet, there’s an analogical pertinence here. Though metaphor is analogy, metonymy is analogized by persona troping temporality of selfidentity: A storied life is, in a sense, allegorized by a resonance of persona or flexibility of oneself in interaction. Metaphoricity itself shows in the ways that we habitually script our days, like the life itself can be reconstructed as an ongoing drama or Project (long-term family ideals, career ideals, heartful aspirations of self-actualization). Discernible habitations (ways of going along) may analogically trope the entire narratability of one’s life. More obviously, an irony expresses a self-differentiality of implicature, like persona may betray hidden selfidentity (commonly shown with dramatic characters who are supposed
to be easily transparent for an audience). Episodic ironies may trope dynamic resonances or dissonances of one’s era of life, doing so metonymically or metaphorically: Situational irony may be metaphorical of an implicitly prevailing mis-scripting of one’s day; or metonymous of an implicit way of living that is miscarrying.

Literary theory is commonly involved with arrays of tropes and concerns about tropality, of course. An anthropology of tropes would be about broadly common ways that persons throughout a culture conceptualize their lives and times. Analytical Psychology has been historically about that, in terms of “archetypes.”

But actually, archetypes are archetropes. I prefer to think in terms of archetropality rather than archetypality, since the latter tends to imply an untenable bio-ontologism; but the difference is too involuted for now. [I just extracted an obtuse discussion, which I’ll use later, fleshed out—but I say this now to attest that I’m not
in denial about understanding the issue. Commonly, people defer attention to something because they really can’t clarify it. But I would love to flesh out what
I just extracted.] For now, anyone who is comfortable with the notion of archetype can just equate the two, but I’m expressing preference for a notion of archetropality as basis for understanding what Analytical Psychology calls archetype.

Phenomena can be windows, but also mirrors. An address may invite entrance into someplace (or a time); or the phenomenon may reflect where one is seeking to go.
If mirror pertains, but as window, then presence conceals its mirroring in the appeal of open address (pretense; e.g., the “spirit” of the wind is largely one’s own—or there “is” spiriting of the trees via doctrine about The Wind).

If another’s truly open address (window of wholly candid presence) is seen as an extension of oneself (mirror), then presence conceals potential for insight (e.g., psychologizing “spirit” as mere projection maybe conceals its potential appeal to imagination or for appreciating historical conceptions of Spirit).

Another person may be openly appreciated; or their presence is partially confused with one’s own understanding; or they’re largely concealed by one’s presumptiveness (or understanding of oneself is concealed by depending on others’ views).

Life is rough—manifold, multi-faceted, auratic (i.e., aura-ic: having an aura), protean, fun.

S/p differentiality (short, now, for that earlier series: S/s/P/s) belongs both to the other and to oneself—not probably one as for the other, but probably there’s ambiguity in being with each other that’s potentially auratic. Another’s s/p differentiality, inasmuch as it’s appreciated, informs one’s own, as well as mirroring solidarity, kindredness, or “oneness of mind.”

Phenomenality—receptiveness and responsiveness to there being “here”—is potentially a windowmirror of s/p-differentiation there and here, and appreciation is potentially a fruitful interplay.

So, too, it goes with great conversations! We learn our shared understanding in appreciating different identities. We may identify with our differences—a beauty
of difference, singular for us. We may differ about our shared understanding—
an ironical bond which is all ours.

One definition of ‘aura’ is “a distinctive highly individualized atmosphere surround-ing or attributed to a given source” (Merriam-Webster Unabridged online).
Another, later definition (same source) is “a luminous radiation : enveloping glow.” And later than that: “an energy field that is held to emanate from a living being.” There’s an aura to ‘aura’, like any word (any so-called “lexical item”) with a history (etymology): atmosphere—> luminosity—> energy field. Echoes of early usage in current usage—eros of presence—depend on context, of course, like depth/surface difference in a phenomenon; or meaning in relation to significance (I won’t say meaning versus significance) of an image, of a symbol, of a trope, of a concept. Liminality is the auratic character of phenomenality.

Depth of self expressed in address may resonate delightfully—or portentiously,
which brings me to the Hellenic goddess as historical tropality (phenomenal windowmirror) of mind evolving.



< previous -|- Next: oracular aura -|- topic: As Aide of Sophiana