مدل مفهومی نسبت «گفتمان» و «معنا» بر مبنای غزلیات بیدل دهلوی

Almost all researchers have accepted that meaning is formed in the intersection of the mind of the author, the text, and the mind of the audience. But this proposition is incomplete and unjustifiable if one does not pay attention to the meaning of the discourse. This is because the author's mode of operation, the subject and organization of the text, and the thoughts of the audience are all determined by rules of discourse. This article attempts to provide a conceptual model from the perspective of Michel Foucault's philosophy and considers Bidel Dehlavi as an example. This model describes the relationship between discourse and meaning. Moreover, this model is a comprehensive system for the study of Persian poets.

Extended Abstract

Almost all researchers have accepted that meaning is formed in the intersection of the mind of the author, the text, and the mind of the audience. But this proposition is incomplete and unjustifiable if one does not pay attention to the meaning of the discourse. This is because the author's mode of operation, the subject and organization of the text, and the thoughts of the audience are all determined by rules of discourse. This article attempts to provide a conceptual model from the perspective of Michel Foucault's philosophy and considers Bidel Dehlavi as an example. This model describes the relationship between discourse and meaning. Moreover, this model is a comprehensive system for the study of Persian poets.

The conceptual model includes five principles: 1- All elements of discourse in the ruling power design the system to strengthen knowledge. This system produces the desired knowledge of the ruling class. Meanwhile, the great poets destroy the rules of discourse and produce new knowledge. Any research that intends to interpret the works of creative poets ignores all the achievements of the poet. These studies require the reader to interpret the works of creative poets in terms of old meanings. 2- The subject of the discourse is not the most important part of a discourse. Mystical literature considers mysticism as its subject, not as the main axis that determines its rules. The research that shows that a mystical idea manifests itself in a poem serves this intellectual idea and destroys all literary aspects of the poet's work. Poetry has three different approaches to discourse: expanding the boundaries of discourse; making fun of its rules; resisting its rules. In all these cases, he must have been able to use the symbols of this discourse differently. 3- The subject is not the reason for the unity of propositions. Two sets of propositions with the same subject are not necessarily present in the same discourse. What binds a set of propositions in a discourse is the same discourse formulation. This discourse formulation contains rules that determine the order between propositions, not their content. Therefore, in mystical literature, one should pay attention to the breaks that occurred between different periods of mystical literature. This difference in the discourse formulation of the different periods means different interpretations of the mystical concepts in the different periods. 4- The subjects of each discourse declare the knowledge that is supported by that discourse. It is difficult to gain knowledge in a course that does not do this. In the field of literature and art, creators try to avoid the production of knowledge and focus on enhancing intuitive understanding. For this reason, any study that aims to transform the content of the works of creative poets into the knowledge mentioned above serves the rules of discourse and not the poet. 5- The discourses described in the works of Michel Foucault are scientific. Scientific texts adhere to certain principles in every era. But literature is inherently inconsistent with this adherence. Literature means a stream of successive ruptures. But you can find poets whose similarities are greater than their differences. These poets fall into one style. So in literary studies, the differences between poets of the same style are as important as their similarities. Therefore, you should determine not only the extent to which a poet adheres to the rules of his style, but also the extent to which he deviates from the norm.