The exegesis of the texts of culture

 

The Exegesis of the Texts of Culture: 

Pre-texts and construction of the text between epistemology and reality

©By Abdel Hernández San Juan

Written in English and translated to English 

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

    The purposiveness of this essay is to site and discuss in a mode as open as possible the senses of the concept of text as to embrace a number of possible forms of the textual through which I understand and develop it in my own research both in the sense of sociology as in anthropology of culture and society directly, meaning, from the analysis of social forms according to years of fieldwork and research in the popular markets of Venezuela as expressed in several of my recent years essays and books including the exegesis of pretextual forms as implicit, beyond the kind of performativity of research explored in epistemology, on experiences in my own cultural reconfiguration and transformations, the horizont of my own everyday quotidian environment as expressed in my books on technology environments and urban habitat according to subjectivity, sensibility, the self and other issues within medias in use from a Texas perspective

   The relation between the ethic of knowledge and the ways to afford myself reality is here in the forefront since the transformation of my own cultural parameters are in play while also presupposing my research on a variety of phenomena’s of material and immaterial culture, visual culture and imageries of several kinds

  It is not my objective however, to discuss my own books and essays, differently to that, the center of my attention is to discuss in an open form and generally from the analytical philosophy of science, how I understand the place, the proportion, the form and the levels of the work of exegesis of culture, in what forms the interpretation of cultures as text might work

    Before analyzing it I must advance some distinctions between the concept of text and the concept of pre-text because while both concept share something pre-given to our perception, knowledge and readings, a legible and readable whole, the concept of pre-text evolve a more accurate activity of choosing and selecting, meaning that what made a text a pre-text is overall the selection of it as a motive, reason, pattern and issue of our attention and the concept of text suppose to guaranty as pre-defined an independent or autonomous text in regard to our choices.

    Certainly as discussed above a text take shape also from the moment we read anything, everything we read become a text to our activity of reading and we may sustain that at this point  it becomes also a pre-text or even sustain that any text we read is a pretext to our reading, under such a sense text and pre-text seem to be the same, but it is obvious that a pretext like topics and themes are, seems to be more near than the idea of text to a certain intentionality, if we choice a pretext we choice another text as the basis for our text to be about while by simply reading something already defined as text we are not necessarily overfocussing it

    At the same time we should may distinctions between text, Pretext, construction of the text and textualization

     For example, we are in the city and we observe the publicities around us which consist about a universe of colors and kinetic movements surrounding us including images, icons, mobile forms, light, computer languages, we are not committed yet to write an essay about it but just enjoining it as citizens as consumers as side walkers all that universe call our natural attention and as such we start to made it intelligible through our process of decodification  while we are not choosing it as pretext to an interpretation 

   Can we say that from the moment we are decoding it simply as citizens, consumers and side walkers such a publicity environment become a pre-text and or a text to our Reading?

  This question on involuntary activity versus intentionality must be asked here if we attain to really be agree on the parameters to be consider to define something as text or as pre-text, I think it is easy to recognize that the answer is yes and not at the same time as well as that to a certain point it is an issue undecidable. 

   The issue of indecibility by the way is sometimes an option, i am thinking for example in how derrida decided to let the question of what is first thought or language to indecibility since taking a way instead of another evolved unwishable risk in respect to the primacy and privilege of being from the moment the relation itself is impossible to be solved without the pass by of being into both thought and language  

   In a similar form we must attain to seize both sense at the same time in our definitions of texts and pre-text, a reserve or a conservation attitude should mediate our answer, instead of making both concepts fixed under one or another answer an ethical sense regarding relation persuade us to admit both definitions, a natural, involuntary definition so to speak and an intentional definition must be at the same time complementary

   With this tie up a pre-text is a concept both pre-given in culture and society as well as choiced and selected while a text must be defined as a more autonomous phenomena, undoubtedly to read is to read texts, but a text must be something more itself if we establishes the rule of the book of text as the parameter to basis what a text is, a text should be something readable in itself with independence of the activity of reading it or not so that when we are reading things which are not itself text we must speak about building text and sometimes about textualizations of the non-textual

   Thus it is needed to clarify or separate that a text must be text itself perse our reading and that a pre-text is defined by an intentional activity of reading, the pretext is a legible form we have choice to be interpreted or read from exegesis a text instead is a form whose decodification don’t need necessarily of our intentional purposiveness of reading. 

    Besides we required another one distinction between a text that was already given exactly as we perceive it beyond our presence as something legible in society and culture, and forms to increase the textual such as from author works, theoretical Works, book of philosophy, novel, story, report, to form without authors such as ancient forms of the inscritural or iconographic symbols, or as in archaeology and other forms of reading ancient disappeared cultures, or jeroglifs, petroglyphs and other forms of the inscriptural including dictionaries and encyclopedia’s

   While beyond writing and inscription seen in Archaeological sense, an additional distinction is required not as much between texts with author and textual form less authorial as artisans and or interior designs or forms of material culture in general but also between as mentioned above text and textualization as to encompass forms of texts as publicity, fashion, scenifications and mise in scenes, ceremonies and rituals, urban popular markets and so on

    For example fashion as Barthes discussed it, it is without doubt a legible text in society, we don’t need yet to write a book or a semiotique tractactus on the system of fashion as to as citizens recognize it as a legible whole according to the acervo we have on such forms on the background of former styles we comply and access in our cultural alive memory, however, beyond such a legibility allow us to include fashion in what we may accept as text, a legible whole through which we can read the styles of the customs of a society, meaning to read the social text through the visual text, if fashion, as also publicity, is a text to intramundane legibility’s between persons and visual forms it is not yet text in the sense of making a read more deeper focused in a research addressed to read the social text in the visual and its subyascents senses, a citizen a consumer who transit within the city may find intelligible the forms of fashion by this reason we require a distinction between text and textualization indicating the subsequent and more focused effort to unveil a subyascent cultural text under fashion as a visual phenomena

    Another distinction is needed between textualization and construction of the text, in textualization we textualize the non-textual, we try something as text beyond if it is more or less a textual form, in constructing the text, we build a text as it is needed to make intelligible something unreadable without such a building struggle

   in term of textualization everything must be textualize, textualization mean to try as text the non textual or any thing, instead of that we can’t construct a text on everything, constructing the text is always an activity addressed to obtain a text were something is unreadable or needed of textual bridges as to be comply

   A countless level of phenomena’s in culture and society are not themselves defined as textual forms while susceptible to forms of textual readings while others are needed of constructing the text around it , a system as fashion expressed in visual forms, body and corporal styles, usages, customs is undoubtedly a type of text beyond if to be read the reader should have a significant  cultural specific acervo about which such a visuals forms belong, be a part of that society and to know its fashions but a determinate visual cultural conglomerated as for example social ceremonies such as carnivals, parties or a religious liturgy are not themselves properly texts and however susceptible to be constructed as texts

    a visual imagery for example is always cuted with precision in the acervos of a culture, for example, the colonial visual imagery it can variete in colors, clothes, court-dresses, vestments, pieces of furniture and architecture characteristics between one culture and another one,  but will ever maintain as colonial visual imagery certain uniformity and parameters distinguish it everywhere as one imagery, kinds of to comb, modes of dress, concepts of formal education courtesies, modes of structure architecture such as entrances to horses so that albeit a visual colonial imagery may be different in the readings of Victorian tradition in usa compared with Mexico, it will conservate always a certain delimitation 

    we can enlarge the parameter of the book of text as to extend it as decodify visual culture, publicity, fashion or the visual culture of television, the internet and some other medias of this same kind, wholes susceptible to be read as texts since something cut it with regularity and stability as patters of legibility so as conditions of possibility for exegesis and hermeneutic, thus that as much as a carnival or a party are not texts around it the text might be constructed

    This are not texts in the sense of visual or material expression distributed around the relation between a message envoy with the first and priorized intention to have a destinatary to whose decodification as communication is oriented, but as symbolic expressive wholes through which culture recreate itself in its rituals, in the same mode we might afford a colonial visual imagery as a differentiated whole, around it we might realize interpretative practices and exegesis by the mean of which the phenomenological and hermeneutic analysis might construct the texts, the popular markets of Venezuela entrance under this kind, to work with it is required start from a principle of distinguishing the relation between a certain exteriorization or extrinsecation between epistemology and reality as a cut stablished to the research,    

   Thus we must cut a determined cultural, symbolic and social well defined expression of visual culture and try it as a text not only by textualizing it but by doing distinctions between pre-text, text, textualization and constructions of the text.

   Sometimes the differences between textualization and constructions of the text are bloring or effaced since textualizing mean trying the non-textual as textual it looks to be a construction of the text where a text is not as much a text, the needs to construct the text are not defined by the non-textual, but by cultural and social phenomena’s about which the simply textualizing of it as pre-given is far to comply and access the stratus’s needed to be understanded  and to go in deep,

    the activity of reading is not a mere physical fact, but a fact of interpreting and meaning and as such we may identify when the textualization of the non-textual offers nothing on the way to understand and comprehend, the construction of the text is thus required to comply something that can’t be legible in its levels of complexity by simply affording it as pre-given, in a few words, the difference between textualizing and constructing the text is based on the fact that sometimes textualizing is all we need but sometimes it guaranty nothing as to comply the complex levels of the stratus’s required to understand a phenomena of material or immaterial culture, 

   building the text suppose then to goes beyond the pre-given, it goes usually by putting and set aside in relation textual forms of different kinds which are not related in between as pre-given

  Stablished and defined to the research we may cutt a determined cultural symbolic and social form of culture with its clear visual expression constructing under it its textuality to later relate the textual aspects with subjacent and stratified levels of meanings

  This an stratified and phenomenological concept of text as discussed above the one I usually work with was discerned by derrida in his book Margins of philosophy when he expressed

    The inter-tie of language of what may be considered as pure language and of the other thread of experience constitute a weave. The word verwebung leads to this metaphorical zone, the stratus are weaved, the imbrication is as such tan we can’t discern the plot from the urdimbre. If the stratus of logos were only something upon we could rise it and let appear below the subjacent acts and non-expressive contents, but given that such a superstructure act, whence, in an essential and decisive manner, on the unterchichts, we are obligated, from the entrance of description to associate the geological metaphor to a textual one because weave mean text, verweben here mean texere. The discursive is related with the non-discursive the linguistic stratus is mixed with the prelinguistic one according to regulated Sistema as a certain kind of text

   Between language as purely language and experience we discern what derrida defined as a weave, a textual weave, the discursive and the non-discursive mix in between with the prelinguistic stratus according to a regulated specie of text, a texere, a plot, this is nothing else but what I discussed in another paper as the pass by between the intramundane horizont and sobreordination and between life word and the symbolic, between reality and language, between text and world which the concept of world correlate try to seize and focus without forgetting my distinctions between the significant chain leads derrida to go that way and Peirce semiosis

  What is determinant from my theoretical and empirical experience in respect to this form to understand the text or the textual is that it return  the concept of text to a more classical sense near to a phenomenological sense of the relation between genesis and structure in the phenomenological world something we can discern through the world of life toward the intramundane horizont and forth through forms of language and symbols distinguishing the immediacy of culture and the self-representational universe of subjectivity and conscience, thus as to know the differences between the former and the last ones as well as its moments of mix

  Whence it let us to move from exegesis of textual phenomena’s where not always and not necessarily we are affording literal textual forms considered as added to the phenomenological world to cultural formations such as enunciations, messages, discourses, 

   In the field of culture as text we have first the relation between language and world, language and reality, epistemology and world, epistemology and reality, subject and object through which the cutts we do in the research of the forms of societies and cultures analyzed and studied are not themselves texts of the texts as for example a literary work of fiction is a text on the texts it represents

    pre-textual dimensions are not yet and probably will never be forms of the critique of the text on the text, for example, in interpreting how in the popular markets as visual conglomerates meet the mise in scene of the vendor and the scene of exchange presuppose a mode of seen and being seen that regulate the phenomenological expression of the forms of body, gestural and spatial interactions as well as the relation between the empirical dimension of the market and the abstract dimension of the market, its concrete level and its symbolic one, to get it so a work of hermeneutic analysis focused in constructing the text is needed with basis in understanding its stratifications

   Such a phenomenology of the market abstracted according to the empirical research allow to work later the exegesis of its corporeal and symbolic forms and to set in relation the concrete market here and now with the symbolic representation and the market internal symbolisms. 

   Another example, interpreting how the mode in which the tourists make self-representation of themselves in a culture –photos, videos, etc., is a form to read how the culture in which such images are made is producing mise in scene of itself toward the economy that tourism generate and addressed to the fact that tourists made representation of themselves in a culture. 

   Both cases are examples of forms of exegesis developed under a modality of constructions of the text, in both cases the construction of the text is made according to how the exegesis build the text that was read under the phenomenological stratus, meaning out of presence, in one case according to the form of seen and being seen regulate body and gestural interactions in the market spacialities, in the other according to set in relation photos and films of the tourists with analysis of the modes of mise in scene addresses to tourism so according to forms of self-representation of certain cultures in between and of each culture addressed to another.

  Now well, to resort to an archive material according to with others before us developed interpretations expressed in works of sociology and anthropology on the direct forms of culture we are studding start to approximate the parameter of the critic of the text on the text, however, still the problem in question seen from the relation subject and object, continue taking as parameter an external motive that of the topic or issue 

   Both the text with resort in archives and our text share a common topic 

interpreting it in writing or in fieldwork 

   At this point a distinction is needed as to separate the direct studies of culture, on the one hand, the study of culture by studding another text previously afforded the same issues in sociology and anthropology on the other hand and finally the study of literary fictions and the art

    In a synthesis, the arts are without doubt also susceptible of the textual exegesis it is more textual as we take distance from the genesis créates it, enunciation, emission, and as consider it in its material autonomy, recorded, reproducibly, transported, communicated in distance, conservate, memorized, but at the same time sited upon of those forms of texts as soon as we understand it beyond its autonomy toward nature or toward culture a phenomenological concept of text start to be also needed to replace by stratus’s what was before cutted as an autonomous text according to its material dimension toward sense and meaning in the interpretative work and exegesis 

   the relation between form and semantique here goes to the forefront when  we confront again the necessity of a more extended sense of text such as the weaves and texere

    Why this happen?, why a phenomenological concept of geological basis such as stratus and a phenomenological concept as weaves conceived from the immediacy of nature, world life, society and culture may be applies to fictions works of art and even to a certain point some time needed as when we research semantically?, 

  well it happen precisely according to an issue I have discussed and insisted on many times in several books, even in this one when I discussed the cares of positivism regarding all that which might be considered not as alterity to the subject or as another moment of him or herself, but something related with non-subject issues, like for example when immanence’s is not the self or another moment of the subject existential sensibility, but substance or religion, in fact, the answer to why is easy to be located, it happen because there is a moment in the ousia of gramme, as derrida discussed, when substance entrance from the non-language world to language, in fact, the idea itself of substance of expression presuppose the presence of substance in language and as such we have several forms of the fall out coming from immanence and ontology to the interior of language 

    as discussed in this book notions such as weaves and texere are the result of significants chains instead of the interpretants, we should then identify at this point that this is not the same weave and texere evolved in the study of the immediacy of the intramundane horizont and world of life, the relation between experience and language considered outside art and fiction, than weaves and texere when we are speaking on the internal mimetic universe of the fiction languages that generally constitute works of literature of fiction, film, theater, body arts and visual arts, over there weaves and texere are affected by substance in language, the socalled ousia and gramme discussed by derrida, out of there, in the immediacy of the world of life as in experience weaves and texere are defined by inmaterial chains of meaning links experience and and non discoursive issues with the way hermeneutic participates in elucidating experience itself, situations in which quotidian languages are sited as islands and or archipelagos in between non-discursive stratus’s and were the islands of language are ruled by the immediacy of experience without resort to mimesis and fiction.

   Differently to the direct study of culture without the mediation of art, and differently to the study of culture with resort to previous sociology or anthropology studies, the literary work of fiction and the visual arts replace its references in culture by a prototype declaring unnecessary the resort to culture directly as well as the affording of culture directly as topics or themes, under this fictional kinds of symbolic universes the original referent is unneeded, the art work of fiction in fact offers itself precisely as a substitution of those reality in the mode of signs without exit to an exterior, it offers itself as a prototype which substitute the object by its significations, in this sense the literary work of fiction or of visual art and of any kind of the arts must be considered itself as an interpretation and then our interpretation of the work of art must be understand as an interpretation of the interpretation, 

   it is a duplicitous work, dual even to a certain level, we can’t say that interpreting art we are interpreting culture directly, such an affirmation is unduly it disatended the mimetic principle by which the work of fiction stablish a replacement of reality that offers itself  as what should be considered instead of reality or culture, there is not in the work of art an interest as in sociology and anthropology in the real cultural phenomena that is being under study, research or analysis, nor as topic, not as real phenomena in society, but all the opposite, a processing about that which proposes itself as the ultimate regard from which everything that is not the work of art must be abandoned to be seize according to how fiction deliberate that, the interpretation of the work of art is thus again interpreting interpretation and in such a sense another form of the text on the text and seen from the exegesis of art, a form of the text on text on the text

     This fact distinguish and separate forms of the exegesis of the text on the text between those recently discussed about resort to archive materials of sociology and anthropology on a same topic or issue previously afforded to which the things out there in real culture and society stay to be major and pivotal to the reasons, and the forms of exegesis of the text on the text which as a literary fiction and the visual art are duplicitous and duals forms of mimesis regulated by a prototype of replacement with propose itself as what should be considered and as the ultimate elaboration about which everything should be abandoning the world out there from which it is supposed to be source

   That the physical autonomy of such Works of art is undiscussable and constitute as Jacobson said something factical and phatic, conative and physically tangible is out of discussion, measure in the cases of the visual arts, duration in the case of films, music and theater, documentary reproducible, when the body is evolved.

  But the forms of general material culture outside the arts are also physically tangibles, the urban popular markets, the carnivals, the forms of ceremonial rituals, the mise in scenes of culture are all factic and fatic things.

    However, at the same time, as soon as we return to be far from that physical minimum, sides, height, weight, duration, to move among the exegesis of its creation, the authorial conscience when is about communication with enunciations, emisors or authors or in the opposite direction, the point of view of the reader, the receptor, the viewer, as also when we made the exegesis of symbolic productions under less authorial forms of material culture such as artesanies, or simply culture, the group, the community or parties, ceremonies ritual or religious symbols, the interpretation allow us to work with a more phenomenological and extended concept of text far to that physical sense of the measures

  This last one phenomenological concept of text is evolved within the continuum of the world of life, the first distinctions between world itself and the phenomenological world, meaning appearance and subtracts, world and language, reality and representation, pregiven world and symbolized one including the pass by between the world of reality and the worlds of representation, the world of the quotidian life with its intramundane horizonts and the world of the sobreordinations that repit the world of life through forms of supradiscourses

    Whence, in the literary discourses of fiction and visual art the mimesis in respect to world and reality with its usual oscilations between representational and abstracts forms renounce to the direct representation of reality considered as an object  to a subject to instead construct a subject of the object ordered according to in the world of fiction of the symbolic autonomous world 

  by the way the exegesis of culture through the exegesis of such fictions forms is not about  how to put in relation two relations on a same topic in reality like it happen between my research on a direct theme of culture and my references under it to another previous research in sociology and anthropology on the same referent, my sociological or anthropological research on such a referent in culture and a previous research in sociology and anthropology on the same issue are defined and focused equally by that issue out there in the real world call our attention

   Differently to that the relation of a work of fiction with such a referent is not , instead  defined to be a vehicle on something external to it in the outer world, but all the contrary, such a work of fiction is no passive in respect to the outer world instead it offers itself as a world around which everything should be and to which the referential must be subordinated, it is a replacement of the object by the sign, of the meanings by the referents, of the world of fiction as mimesis over the world of reality, the referent is forgotten under it

   If we don’t understand this difference then as such as someone is train to extend the textual model of the work of fiction on the general culture as for example tent to happen with intertextuality conceived from the model derivated, we will not understand how a disjunction is being created between two quite distinct model of phenomenological organization of the world

   Culture is itself seen as an alive direct phenomena from the first distinction between subject and object, language and reality, an immediacy of world phenomenologically consist in something quite different to the mimesis principle that organize the idea of world in a form of fiction defined by the replacement of the objects and references by signs and meanings.

 What is legible, intelligible and interpretably in culture as a direct alive phenomena is phenomenologically organized exactly as the intramundane horizont is like whence extending toward it a textual parameter extracted from literary or visual Works of fiction is like superposing to quite different phenomenological orders

     A writing by an anthropologist on a culture have in a last instance as objective of its investigation or research the alive real culture out there is reality and world so that not matter how much are we paying attention to style and modes of rhetoric’s or the aesthetic as something formal, the referential horizont will ever be the main reason to be of its existence

    When the object of an investigation is a form of direct culture I understand by direct the immediacy of the world of life, but also its accessibility outthere in the outer world, so that such a form even supposing it to be an expression of symbolic forms as ritual ceremonies, carnivals, parties, scenifications or cultural patrimonies it is not oriented to destine as an organized forms of discourse in the same terms than we see a discourse, enunciation or writing, so that to comply direct forms of culture as intercorporeal communications, fashion, the codification of mass culture, a village, a community, certain groups or their expressions in forms of rituals, markets, mise in scene or religion are of another kind far to the usual pragmatic of emissary, message, receptor and more fast yet to discourses organized according to fiction

      So the point that the critic of form of the text on text require distinctions to separate epistemologically, ontologically and methodologically interpretation and exegesis.

  In this sense we must said that no one of the examples discussed of direct exegesis of the texts of culture, exegesis of another texts by an anthropologist or sociologist afforded before the same issue are the same than the exegesis of literature and art and overall, that in not one of the cases we have intertextuality

   We might of course do a metaphorical modified use of the concept of intertextuality to make references to it by arguing that all that is concerned with form to set in relation a variety of forms of texts, but such textual forms are not themselves stablishing in between them ones in respect to the others a work of intertextuality, intertextuality start when in the formation of a text considered in its own autonomy another text is intentionally called to the inside of the text to be a part of it and overall when it happen in reference to a single author about another author, meaning, between the text of an author and the text of another author when the former quote in his text a text of another author

   It is true that all in intertextuality is not reduced to quotes, for example, is studding literacy works according to the institution of genres we may find intertextuality in the form of clues of another texts in the author text in the forms of reminiscences or clues of the genres, or according to how the literary acervo of the writer in respect to the history of literature may be defined as something that participate in that with which the author was in a certain indirect dialogue, like for example, in the study of a literary work according to its sources, the so-called philological studies of the fountains

   But all this are forms if not of quote of examining a literary work of visual art or of any of the arts under fiction. There was also under literary criticism since its first conception a tendency to identify intertextuality by the fact that the subject of enuntiation defines sentences take shape by the author according to an anticipation of an idealized further reader which is yet not a real one but one idealized inside language and as such a prototype which participate in the form to give language or take shape of the form of discourse and a such a kind of dialogicity, this dialogicity, differently to the main dialogic principle as defined by mijail bajtin in the study of novels, the idea of characters in dialogue dialogizing from their controversies the sense of the novel as a generic whole, suggested to kristeva the possibility to replace dialogicity by intertextuality, if the subject of enunciation is addresses to toward an inclusive anticipated idea of reader, then the relation between the author, his subject of enunciation and its toward consist about relating texts in between, she called it intertextuality

   Well, still and yet such a kristeva perspective which founded intertextuality in literary criticism is presupposing a work of fiction as the implicit model from which defining such forms of relation between forms of the text as intertextuality and as such it is a matter of literary criticism about which we should attain to identify that any extension of it to the outer culture evolved the disjunction of juxtaposing quite different forms of ontology, on the one hand the ontology of direct culture defined by immediacy and on the other the mimesis of the work of fiction, the consequences of such an extension of the parameter of the work of fiction to general culture is one first of saturation since nothing there is about culture itself or directly but about the culture that the work of fiction creates

   In a few words if we are interested in the methodological possibilities of intertextuality as an option to certain moments of a research in sociology and anthropology we must be attentive to recognize that the concept it self should be completely retheorized outside literary criticism parameters

   If I am investigating or research a form of direct culture around which I become interested in how another sociologist or anthropology research it before me and as such to make references in my text of such previous efforts on the same themes, topics or motives, we must retheorize there intertextuality, we must even retheorize it more even if the interest on intertextuality is not as much addressed in reference to another sociologist or anthropologist, but to issues of methodology for example within fieldwork in the forms to read textual forms in direct culture, and again, if my text never call inside it a text done by another sociologist or anthropologist nothing as intertextuality is there, it is yet less intertextual. In this last sense only forms to call the text of another inside my text must be defined as such

    Let supose for example that we start to use the concept in a form significantly modified in its semantic meanings, but empting it of its meanings in literary criticism and instead using it to define for example, as Stephen A Tyler was the first one to do in a semiotical sense regarding for example translation, well we may do that but not without retheorizing the concept as to inscribe it in an axiological context in which we are speaking about how putting in relation different texts in translations evolve intertextuality in the form to research the cultural basis of those texts or idioms

    We must read Derrida margins of philosophy from the perspective of the very classical side in philosophy and phenomenology

             

Bibliography

Derrida Jacques, Communication on Austin, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida Jacques, Comunicación sobre Austin, Pp, 349-372, Márgenes de la Filosofía, Catedra

Derrida Jacques, Notes on the phenomenology of language, Margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Notes a la Fenomenología del lenguaje, Pp, 195-212, márgenes de la filosofía, catedra

Eagleaton Terry, Phenomenology, Hermeneutic and reception Theory, Pp, introducción a la crítica literaria, lumen

Eco Umberto, Peirce: el Universo del sentido, La Estructura Ausente, Lumen 

Habermas Junger, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, IUESAPAR library

Habermas Junger, The Theory of communicative action, Beacon press

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Subject in Creativity, Complete Works, Tome II

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Presentational Linguistic, Complete Works, Tome III

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Given and the Ungiven, Complete Works, Tome V

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Pp, The Intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, Tome V and Pp, The Constelations of Common Sense, Selected Essays

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, Complete works, Tome VII

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Thresholds of the Couple, Pp, The Thresholds of the Couple, Complete Works, Tome VIII

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Hermeneutic and Axiology, Pp, The Subject in Creativity, Pp, The Interpretations of Art: Hermeneutic and Analysis of Visual Discourses and Rhetoric’

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Anthropology of Archaeology, Selected Essays, Book

Todorov Tzvetan, Symbolism and Interpretation, Cornell University Press, Feb 18, 1986

Todorov Tzvetan , Genres in Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Published August 31st 1990 by (first published 1978) 

Todorov Tzvetan, Simbolismo e interpretación Todorov, monte avila editores, pasa monte books

Todorov.Tzvetan "Los géneros del discurso" (Waldhuter editores, 2012) 

Todorov Tzvetan. Teorías del símbolo, monteavila editores

Todorov.Tzvetan. Critica de la Crítica, Editorial Paidós

Tyler Stephen, A Point of Order, Rice University studies