Abroon, Fazel (1998) Ontological Unity and Empirical Diversity in Shelley's Thought: with Reference to Ibn Arabi's Theory of Imagination
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Abroon, Fazel (1998) Ontological unity and empirical diversity in Shelley's thought: with reference to Ibn Arabi's theory of imagination. PhD thesis http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3949/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Ontological Unity and Empirical Diversity in Shelley's Thought With Reference to Ibn Arabi's Theory of Imagination By Fazel Abroon Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Under the Supervision of Professor J. Drummond Bone Professor D. Gareth Walters Department of English Literature Faculty of Arts University of Glasgow March 1998 11 Dedication To my wife, a constant source of inspiration, whose unconditional love, indefatigable encouragement, and continuous support and appreciation saw me through the most difficult stages of this project. iii Abstract The key to Shelley's thought system lies in understanding that the thing and its opposite, the idea and its contrary, are brought together simultaneously. Shelley tries to resolve in one way or another the contradiction between transcendentalism and immanence, essentialism and socialism, and finally thought and object. He makes the unity of life his manifesto and yet does not deny the diversity of beings. The ontological clearly has a place within his system and nonetheless the phenomena are considered epistemological divisions, non-essential and insubstantial. He believes in the existence of a comprehensive sign system with no transcendent meaning and yet speaks of an absolute incomprehensibility of a transcendent being which defies words and signs. In short, beings for him are only relationships with no essence, and existence is still one essence in which none of these relations holds true. In harnessing the contraries Shelley's thought cannot be categorised as reductionist, dialectical, or deconstructionist. The logic he follows denies neither of the two opposites nor does it link them dialectically through accepting a third element, but resolves the opposition through a shift of perspective. Existence is both transcendent and immanent, essential and relational, and comprehensible and ineffable. This dissertation attempts to show that from such a perspective the rhetorical or deconstructive coincides with the grammatical or the metaphysical. Although the opposition set by the deconstructionists between the rhetorical and the grammatical readings is assumed by Shelley to exist between the metaphorical and the literal, nevertheless he accepts them as two epistemes; the ontological remains existing but unreadable, and the text is only its expression. Imagination, in its Shelleyan definition, is at the core and basis of this logic. It is the ground of the shift of perspective and in its two forms, the universal and the IV individual, is the plane where the transcendent is the immanent and the spiritual is the material. For Shelley imagination works within the text and is circular in the sense that it conceives only the metaphorical which is self referential, and not the literal which is linear and marked by 'from', the sign, and 'to', the meaning. What this thesis attempts, however, is to show that imagination is not dialectical in the sense of bringing the opposites together, but that it makes the opposites one by shifting the perspective: the metaphoric is the literal which has lost its generative power, and the literal is a metaphor, albeit a dead one. The other important point is that all that imagination does is to shift the perspective between the literal and the metaphoric: all is done within the text and sign system. It does not 'link' the transcendent with the phenomenal in the sense of putting the ontological within a sign system. On the contrary it is anti-ontological in the sense of being the power which purges the phenomena from the traces of essence or presence. The focus of the first chapter comprises an outline of the principal constituents of Romanticism in general as a mode of thought. The second is concerned with Shelley'S Romantic world view which is understood to be based on the integrity of the opposites mentioned above and on the unity of sign and meaning reflected in self referential metaphor. The world view presented is dynamic--metaphor does not cease from generating meaning; integrative--there is a unity between metaphor and its meaning in being self-referential; and interpretative--there is no one definite meaning for metaphor and it urges ongoing reinterpretation. In the third chapter, imagination is discussed in its Shelleyan context as the place where boundaries between opposites collapse and the fragmented world is reintegrated. It is the locus where symbols are created and things are emptied of their ontological existence and interpreted as metaphorical relationships. In the fourth chapter there is a discussion of the forces that disrupt the metaphoric or imaginative outlook, which Shelley believes man originally had, and which turn the symbols into literal facts and the metaphors into dead metaphors. And finally, in the fifth chapter Necessity, in its two forms, literal and v metaphoric, is discussed as a corollary to such an integrative and imaginative thought system. The reading which is given makes extensive use of the ideas of the great theosophist, Ibn Arabi, and especially of his theories on the 'Oneness of Being', the basis of his integrative system; Imagination, the locus of symbolic meaning and shift of perspective; and 'Continual Creation', or the generative power of sign making and sign interpretation. In order to show the effectiveness of this reading, parallels are drawn with the philosophies of Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Kant, which were influential in the emergence of Romantic Philosophy. Vi Table of Contents Abstract. ................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgement ................................................................................. '" ............................. ix CHAPTER ONE: Romanticism: A Historical Representation of a Metaphoric World View ..................................................................................................... 1 1. The Romantic World: Self-referential Symbol and Metaphoric Dialectic ..................................................................................................................... 2 II. Things as they are: The Romantic Noumenal Perception ..................................... 17 III. Romanticism: A Historical Representation of an Innate Perspective ................................................................................................................. 38 IV. Oriental Imagination and Shift of Perspective ..................................................... 42 V. The Shelleyan Metaphor: A World in Making ..................................................... 53 VI. Romantic Affinities: Following the Traces ......................................................... 59 Notes .......................................................................................................................... 88 CHAPTER TWO: Transcendent and Immanent Power: The Concept of one Life and the Diversity of Beings in Shelley's World View ........................................ 91 1. The 'Unknown Power' and Shelley's Conception of Unity ..................................... 92 II. The 'Unknown Power' and the Plotinian One and its Emanation .......................... 110 III. The 'Unknown Power' and Spinoza's Substance and its Modes .......................... 113 IV. The 'Unknown Power' and Derrida's Differance ................................................. 117 V. The 'Unknown Power' and Ibn Arabi's Reality and its Names and Attributes ................................................................................................................... 126 VI. Case Study I: 'Mont Blanc': Transcendence in Shelley's Relational System ........................................................................................................................ 136 VII. Case Study II: The Triumph of Life: The Endless Question of Life and Meaning .............................................................................................................. 158 VB Notes .......................................................................................................................... 164 CHAPTER THREE: Imagination: Interpreting the Signs and Reading the Relationships .................................................................................................................. 166 I. Imagination: An Early Assessment ........................................................................ 167 II. Locke and Imagination as the Power of Forming Complex Ideas ........................ 169 III. Hume and Imagination as the Foundation of Thoughts and Actions ......................................................................................................................