Table of Contents
(All figures are self-illustrated)
2. Disassembling of Narrative Method
3. Introduction to Dual Omniscience
4. Towards Didascalic Chronology (Imminence)
5. Non-Alignment of Narrative Didascalia
5.1 Proof of Crisis in Narrative Diegesis; when Generic Omniscience Multiplies
6. The Ir-referentiality of Dual Omniscience
7. Imminence Definitions from Experimentations
7.1 First-Rhetoric and Didascalic Truth
7.2 Dramatic Truth Contra Dramatic Fact
8. Parameters of Imminence
8.1 Imminence of omniscience (I.O)
8.2 The Sixth Wall
8.3 From Imminent Irrelevance to Imminent Salience
9. The Royal Chronology to Didascalic-Audience
10. Reading Force Or Narrative Inertia?
11. Didascalic Audience
12. Suggestion of an Un-Liberated Didascalic Energy
13. Works Cited
By the virtue of an experimental non-fictive interjection in didascalia, basically as a meta-textual liberation from narrative Drama (scripts read rather than performed) and which is in due to be tackled in this essay on a verge of criticism ; rhetorical inference, that which is intrinsic within the ideal scarcity of dialogical perlocutionary acts (since stage directions are mostly descriptive) could be claimed –under formal theoretical parameters-to propose one of independent chronologies or otherwise a differed diegetic timing against the original immediacy of authorship-if we could estrange the absent author from ontological audience. In other words, if didascalia are mostly known as to be structurally reflexive in correspondence to the linearity of time and actions (fictitious variables) whether to performers on stage, or to readers off-stage-through a medium coder of signifiers (author) would the authorial upmost reference retain the same mode of diegetic liberation when dualized; according to which signature (before dialogue and thus before reference) and omniscience (off dialogue and hence unreliable) manifest a ‘space’ of didascalic auto-logy ? On the alert of a transitional stage-direction thus from the fiction of narrative didascalia to a non-fiction of its meta-textuality, discrepancies appertaining the metaphoricity of its dialogical rhetoric are due to be rehearsed in between semiotic topographies, after which the non-dialogic rhetoric could be timed. Since the meta-textual metaphorical recognition of dramatis personae in modern drama is seemingly subjective to the omniscient rhetorical method of narration by virtue of unreliable representational comparability of signifiers (between what readers polarize by the prelocutionary force of dramatis personae against the descriptive extended allegory of the author) a syntactic “identity” seems to have been historically repressed; which, though it could be recognized as a conceptual metaphor–referring to the understanding of one idea, or as a conceptual domain, in terms of another- it proposes most fundamentally a chronological shift of signs different from those in a given text. Such chronology does seem to lurk between the diegesis of inference and the mimesis of reference that all together await a centripetal duality of rhetorical augmentation in didascalia itself (away from a given performance) that permits a meta-textual liberation of lexical heterodiegtic directions. It distances itself then, one at a time, from Saucer’s victorious opposition of values (that could be achievable by contrastive diegesis through the syntactic medium of the descriptive stage directions against the diegetic representation of dialogical directions contained within the perlocutionary forces of speech acts in script) or Derrida’s deconstructive adjournment of meaning that could otherwise be condensed by an intentional precedence of didascalia as a pre-textual story-line to the hypo-textual dialogue. If reading dramatic texts thus revive a general ad-positional contention between adjuncts of mode against arguments of Genre, pointing out in “Introductions a la architexte” for instance the consequential notion of dramatic genre according to Plato as a divorced metaphorical diegesis awaiting metathesis with both of its tenor and vehicle decoded only as a mode of diagrammatic (comparable) signifiers tangible worthwhile in performance on stage apart from monotheistic reading, what rhetorical repression hence is non-dialogically unsupervised that lingers between the underestimation of genre as a pragmatic classification of drama (exercised by Plato prior to non-existent written stage directions or read dramatic texts at their times) and mixed modes/lexis of scripts in their relationship to narrative didascaliae? What omniscient timing could be meta-textually applicable from a didascalic semiotics’ point of view, given that modern drama has proven as not to be purely mimetic and consequently not allegorically generic nor modern stage directions have been hyperbolic-ally metonymic or metaphoric to surpass its omniscient declaration by Para-textual intrusion. Such discursive dramatization of stage-directions do not entail an independent syntactic identity against the narrative medium of play’s discourse or a hypo-textual legitimate estrangement ( by proposing for example a narrative dramatic resolution or epiphany whether apparent to readers aside from dramatis personae, or by registering a divisionary per-formative metaphor to the extent of a rhetorical hyperbole) though realizing in line that one of the fundamental aspects of hyperbole is according to Oxford dictionary is “to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.” (2012)
2. Disassembling of Narrative Method
In the process of such chronological shift from fictive semiotics to didascalo-sphere (didascalic semiotics), the unsettled meta-textual method of narration in didascalia presents itself as a viable overture towards another chronology of omniscience. In as much as narrative didascalia being modally a mimetic epicization of reference against the perf-formative argument of diegesis ( inherent in the perpetual circum-positional due of rhetoric between the immediacy of absence “ author/narrator” and the prominence of position “actors”),crossing space with diction, or timing with fiction, has been restricted to interdependent denouement or catastrophic interpolations considering a reflexive narrative structure where literary resolution is subjectively hetero-diegetic in the narrative view of the author or objectively intrusive in that of the actors. Due to the generic didactic archetype of stage directions as an allegorical pre-textual or meta-textual hetero-diegetic soliloquy of the absent/dead author with its dual dedication to performers and readers (not audience) the fictive voice of the narrator exclusively within narrative didascalia has not mimetically or metaphorically acclaimed a resolute method of narration as a literary element independent rhetorically for acclaiming a discursive dramatic resolution (since that stage directions could always be metonymically extended against the discourse of signifiers) parallel in argument and augmentation to that of script. In other words, if dramatic resolution has always been exclusive to the syntactic rhetoric of dialogue as concerns immediacy of signature apart from the spatial ad position of didascalia as a suggestion of pre-text, meta-text or even extra-text, would a rhetorical mutation in the signature of the umwelt* (when didascalia is a counter-presence against dialogue) from concurrent omniscience to imminent omniscience, from third-person view to an auto-logical voice for instance (which entails a non-credible or untrustworthy argument though not the classical rhetorical reticence) propose an equivocal hierarchy of signifiers, leading henceforward to a divisionary resolution in the logic/pathos of script, retaining as its supreme counterbalance what could be claimed as a conditional script. Codification of didascalia -as a mode of rhetorical metonymy (since that it’s extended analogy is chronologically comparable to its closest dialogical domain;” script”) and which metaphorically could be accused of committing the rhetorical fault of catachresis such as the mixed per-formative metaphor of independent actors or directors against the per-illocutionary speech acts of stage direction or in cases such as Shaw’s Arcadia where didascalia commits an intentional rhetorical fault through its narrative structure by Shaw’s own didascalic dialogue with the reader rather than other actors or audience-, has hetero-diegetic-ally been assessed as a collective omniscience with a logical semio-sphere reconcilable with the classical thematic account of plot and dialogue. Strictly speaking, it renovates a poetic approach on how to”write [a character] so that he (author) may prevent it-his character-from perishing in the process” (Barker, 29) of an actor's interpretation. On the other hand, and by means of estranging the rhetorical imperativeness of a stage direction as a parallel meta-text towards a mode of hypo-textual production that defies intra-textual “set speech” and directorial conditionality towards an escalation of diexis, modern theorists have ironically proposed a fictive generic (not elementally gradational), extra-textual (not meta-textually hypo-textual) diegesis of structural reflexivity in narrative didascalia by generalizing that “Every producer of plays must know that the action and stage business of the play are often a more effective source of comedy and tragedy than is the dialogue, and that an objective representation is often less tedious than dialogue.” (McCague 48) Narrative didascalic/mimetic mutation thus has been theorized as a modal metonymy within correspondences of signifiers themselves (whether pre-textual or extra-textual) together with the dialogical hypo-textual mutation of script only in behalf of its per-formative instructiveness as an omniscient speech-act or of its complimentary objectiveness as a narrative digression from the omniscient attentiveness of performance. (Since that in the representational code of metaphor, performers act omniscient to the perlocutionary domain of didascalia and in this case, metonymy is a tripartite vehicle.)
3. Introduction to Dual Omniscience
In hopes of regionalizing the rhetorical esthesics* of omniscience then from unreliability of fiction (where a first method of narration in a meta-text for example would be catastrophic to per-formative drama) towards an Omni-direction of didascalic semiotics (pre-sign and thus before narration where omniscience is meta-textual only to another omniscience ) it renders logic the most fit in this essay to propose coefficients of space in a given umwelt according to which arrangement of masses that which precede dialogue (and thus macrocosmically narration) does not necessitate the linear synchronization of rhetorical subjects (who range from signifiers, sign till signifieds) but the cyclic imminence of their inwardness (when rhetoric chronologizes itself.) Against pierce’s semiosis of triadic signs which entails a dependency of rhetoric across the dialogic cycle of predicaments/resemblances “admitting that there can be no isolated sign. Moreover, signs require at least two Quasi-minds; a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi-interpreter; and although these two are at one (i.e., are one mind) in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct…” (Peirce, 1906) didascalic semiotics and its auto-logical entailment towards a non-fictive stage-directions (including the meta-text’s adoption of a different timing than that of a proposed hypo-text) individualize another possibility which in itself is a proof of discrepancy appertaining the chronologies of such repressed syntactic rhetoric (that non-fictive space awaiting identity) inherent between readership and performance. Consider for example diegetic (stage) directions said by an actor himself from paper (upon an accidental or purposeful fall of parenthesis) against their authoritative immediacy on stage, being as such delegated by a Quasi-author non-linguistically or neutrally through immanent description. Such cyclic non-linearity of “Interpretants” (Esthesics Process) entails a dependency of dual omnisciences where audience comes vis-à-vis readers; and when rhetorical speech-acts retain their metaphor (either mixed or non-linguistic) through its informal subtraction of chronologies (of diegetic audience/readers or mimetic characters/author) rather than through abundance/contiguity of modal resistance (when narration strive cognizant unreliability).
This crisis of the hetero-diegetic omniscience of didascalia (audience versus readers) which relies on the conditionality of rhetoric (since the fictional status of stage directions suggests either a pre-textual, meta-textual or extra-textual propositions of imperative resemblances-imperative semiotic objects- which differ in signature and quasi-alliteration) against the mimetic/corollary absence of interpretants* -either as readers in case of performance for example or audience in case of reading- entails a dual object domain, the sign domain, and the interpretant domain where the sign relation L is only a narrative subset during per-formative speech acts, achievable through dialogue. However, it is a rhetorical superset in case of a parallel omniscience (narrative didascalia) where sign-domain’s mimesis is enriched at the expense of audience-secondary interpretant domain- by Para-notation, that is, object domain (mimesis of dramatis personae) and interpretant domain (exclusive readers) would henceforward divide the set-theoretic extension of sign relation L and accordingly the three-place relation (ternary relation or triadic relation) by -/+ 1. Accordingly, the correspondent traces of Pierce’s dialogic process and which exhibits even "non-psychological conception of logic" extending as such the consequent multiplication of signs’ semiosis “namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C ;” ( Peirce, 20–21) do not process a didascalic identification of autology ’s dual omniscience/s. (Since that his sign-object in the proposed didascalic semiotics would not prioritize the quasi-reflexivity to the quasi-audience of performativity (readers of actors intrusive within stage-directions) and which entails not a divisionary omniscience to the very interpretant-sign of diegesis). In no place save from didascalic semiotics, Omni-directional (rather than inflectional or derivational) meta-textuality of sign-hood entails a multiplication of quasi omniscience which entails a monadic estrangement of the metonymic hierarchy of intention rather than extension (or of non-commutation rather than mediation) requiring in the process passageways of transcendental inwardness or ir-reference vis-à-vis the relational requirement of at least “two Quasi-minds; a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi-interpreter;” (Peirce, 1906) This does not wield a necessity of dialogical logic-whether dyadic or triadic- but a chronology of a transcendental omniscience whose outlines are to be spotted later in definitions of didascalic imminence.
Excluding parallelism of omnisciences ,transcendental through rhetorical subjects i.e. audience of actors who say something else on paper through stage directions, or readers reading different characters dwelling in stage-directions only, “to say, therefore, that thought cannot happen in an instant, but requires a time, is but another way of saying that every thought must be interpreted in another, or that all thought is in signs” including representament, semiotic object whether immediate or dynamic and interpretant sign, denies the non-commutative experimentation of the didascalic autology prior to divisions (accident) of references/mimesis. In other words, modal extension of sign relation (which suggests the sign as to be formally a way of mediation, not a way of being in itself) excludes sign’s exclusiveness or promptitude of such auto-logy (self-reflexivity) as a non-commutative chronology of dual omniscience which abnegate the notions of both its sign-hood as a determiner of its indicative reaction (towards the subsequent reduction of object which it represents) and the interpretant sign to which it corresponds). This proposition of a transcendental login should dislocate “A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time” (Peirce, 20–21) and its relative motivation synchronous with other hierarchical privileges of signifiers (according to Saussure) leading as a result to its difference only when its semantic value (sign) could be distinguished from other denotations. If an intrusive narrative didascalia as an extra-textual immediacy to a given umwelt would say ;”Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representament of the sun” (Pierce, 193) didascalic semiotics would suggest the meta-textual imminence of objects view-points as a space-chronology of their quantifications (such as a prior knowledge of the order of their moves and the un-liberated spaces between each of them) according to which auto-logical specifications are themselves proofs of parallel omniscience-s; from the Ir-referentiality of the sunflower to itself up to the equilibrium of the sun (producer of a unilateral light).
4. Towards Didascalic Chronology (Imminence)
Regionalizing a chronology of omniscience as such in the above exemplification of narrative didascalia according to which a given space-through autology- is a signal of imminence apart from correspondent values of objects, should outline a dual hierarchy of a given timing, untraced through the extensive traces of semiosis (neutral level). Accordingly if narrative-didascaliae as a meta-textual or extra-textual immediacy necessitates a singularity of omniscience (whether fictive or non-fictive) according to which methods of quantifications are circularized, didascalic-semiotics should suggest dual-omnisciences of those objects themselves, which necessitate as an introduction towards transcendental logic on a same field, an exclusion of narration or a precedence of didascalic signals according to which rhetoric is equalized. Hence, if the lyrical semiosis of relative signification which “appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can no more deny that it is really there, than that the colours, the shapes, etc., of objects are really there” (Peirce, 1906 ) trace the narrative enablement of relative dialogues via the tripartite semiotic elements (representament, semiotic object and interpretant), that “ it may further be declared that there can be no isolated sign” (Pierce, 1906) in the interest of a Quasi-mind, Quasi-utterer and Quasi interpreter, what would a Quasi-reader of didascalic timing suggest on the perceptive and productive levels of sing’s predicate as an equal regionalization of reaction, an auto-logy of mediation, a rhetoric of intension, or finally as an esthesic functionality of dual omniscience . Such hypothetical interjection would dismiss sign’s relation in terms of extension, intension, information or even specialization in favour of sign’s reflexive didascalia away from “a definition of a sign given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.” (Pierce 23, 24)
Only before proposing a double-walled reader whose dual-omniscience enables sign’s autology/mimesis against the infinity of trace, it’s modally Cartesian to suggest that such quasi-reader of the didascalic index against the mere performativity of intention is chronologically repulsive to the poetic conditionality of the quasi-interpreter –who according to the reduction thesis is a belated (”predecessor”) and not a final product of an extensive process. In other words, the entailing methodization of didascalic semiotics through a quasi-reader of a given sign should propose a statistics of Omni-directional logic where irreversibility is not the privilege of an anthropological space but the equal growth of its timing. As such, assigning a meta-textual quasi-reader as a cue of didascalic sign and whose mode of rhetorical metonymy –or in other words of allegorical auto-logy would suggest a didascalic diagnosis (and therefore mostly related to associative space – not associative trace-where multiplication is not commutative) on the hierarchies of imminence ; the ‘determination of non-narrative measure’ which (usually) invokes a broader commitment of spectral rhetoric than the temporal similitude of proposition, formalizing a determination for instance that “two points determine a line”, would by the dual omniscience of auto-logy be statistically chronologized -in terms of theatrical decoding not fictive pragmatism- as to being ;“two points determine a line” of 23; (as a first didascalic measure-for quasi readers); but would equal 23 be omni-directed to these two points ” as the second stage of defining imminence. According to formal reductions of normative fields, including in line privileges of neutral co-occurrences –“units as values” -and hierarchies of differences till potential (strict or proper)denotations and which Saussure called “relative motivation” that we recognize “as the solidarities which link them; these are of the associative and syntagmatic kind, and it is these which limit arbitrariness”(Saussure 28), reflexivity of imperative and accusative denotations apparent discursively in narrative didascaliae for example is proportionally/stagily/diegetic-ally secured to the kinship chronology of ‘mode’-that is mode of co-reference and dual recognition, not dual chronologies/omnisciences of that same mode. Any dialogic/narrative omniscience which awaits an exchange of information by reduction of signifieds- rather than hierarchies of dual-omniscience itself where Omni-direction of signs rely on the chronology of generic coefficients rather than modal variables-signifies a discursiveness of diegesis against the proposed non-commutative values -for example-where reconciliation is conditional on an auto-logy of omniscient performance; on the behalf of topographical alignment between two contrasts. In short, by the virtue of sign’s formal relations as a conjugative continuum of subsets where ‘the set of all sets are not members of themselves’, relativity paradox of representament/specialization resides in the mutational forces of semiotic trace within the navigational/discursive/cyclic diegesis of a given syntactic domain-according to which, estrangement of nominative semiosis relies on the perlocutionary satisfaction of modal logic rather than satisfying a generic duality of didascalic one where logic is of dual-succession without reverse. The suggested didascalic imminence in its general definition as such, consolidate the meta-textuality of associative space-which here regionalizes multiplication of sign relation on an un-reversed logic (parallel to formal logic/formal semiotics) or what could be called transitional logic where dependency of diegetic forces entails a rhetorical liberation of chronologies towards generic fraction; from cyclic accumulation of representament to omnidirectional conditionality of omniscience (dramatization of coefficient), from the mediation of trace as a property of normative or accusative predecessors to an equal assignation of contrastive spaces as a time-line of an irreconcilable (applicable) theatre preserved on dual-notation. Accordingly, a mutational accident of syntax for example would not be attributed to the formal paradox of Catachresis ( rhetorical fault) by the virtue of its solecism, but otherwise could be ascending(ly) or descending(ly) didascalized to (including but not limited to) the non-commutative imminence of omniscient space against which precedence/immediacy/prominence of the hypo-text (Formal Logic) cannot be extended by correspondent asides; that is a multiplication of XY for instance doesn’t accordingly/give an equipoise to YX. If omniscience henceforward is to be ‘didascalized’ as a dual coefficient towards the Omni-directional logic of the essay in hand, there should be a clear critical attitude towards the immediacy of dialogical omniscience committed by narrative didascalia where space and time are anthropologically meta-textual. Such critical consideration treats narrative didascalia as a commutative semiotics with singular omniscience as a coefficient of rhetoric. This should consider henceforward that such singular omniscience might include multiplicity of direction, but which itself is not dualized or transcendentalized. Since omniscience of narrative didascalia is singular though extensive, it relies on ‘immediacy’ of narration as the coefficient of multi-directional logic. As such, it falls short at the proposed didascalic semiotics where omniscience should be dual/ parallel (not dialogic) with a spotted meta-text and according to which, the different chronologies of such experimental omnisciences should perform such irreversible logic of the meta-text where ‘imminence’ against ‘immediacy’ is the coefficient of non-commutation and most importantly ‘anti-narration’. This non-dialogical, non-dramatic meta-textuality of the relatively linear rhetoric to the relatively non-linear performativity of discourse (although the non-commutative didascalia suggested in this essay would not exemplify hypo-textual dialogue since the dual-omniscience under assessment is pre-sign) suggests a transitional rhetoric ( in a metonymic, not metaphorical sense) from stochastic syntax to transcendental semiotic (dual-logic) where imminent chronologies of given objects (subjects of assessment) entail a duality of reflexive representation and thus a duality of omnidirectional/auto-logical omniscience against general adages about narrative didascalia as “arbitrary or 'absurd' events that both confront and mystify the characters and often seem like allegories of our own indirect and confused lives…that clearly distorts instead of illuminating its text.” (Worthen 423) At this early stage of discursive analysis, its notable to mention that the above idiomatic pedantry and lexical interpolations are contextually provisional and conditional to a formal discrepancy or in-discrepancy of a theoretical consensus which could be taken as a by-product of an accusative prose rather than a result of possessive rhyme.
 Autology: expressing a property which it also possesses itself or derived from organisms of the self-same individual
 Umwelt: self-centred world, where organisms can have different umwelten, even though they share the same environment.
 Esthesic (from αἴσθησις "sense"); being receptive or perceptive, appertaining a functional sign-hood.
 An interpretant, in semiotics; is the effect of a sign on someone who reads or comprehends it.
- Quote paper
- Yehia Abd El Azeem (Author), 2013, Introduction to Didascalic Semiotics, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/282046