The Metaphysics of Text II

The Textual Chain

The series of occurrences previously mentioned is the broadest sense in which we perceive the Metaphysics. For our purposes -- the whole playing field. If any logical proof has not yet been adequately demonstrated as to illustrate the necessity of the above clauses, trust that it will. We need first, however, presuppose that our aforementioned terms do, in fact, exist in sequence; their definitions intrinsically entwined. That is, if we are to further define our terms, their relation to each other must be agreed upon.

This agreement is the Textual Chain and all manifestations of Text occur within it.

The Textual Chain:

We have then three distinct processes divided by the Productive Object with Intent and Reception being paralleled in the metaphysical space and Production accounting for all physical manifestations.

It is important to note the aforementioned division. Though without too much thought put to elevation. For the initial division of Metaphysics and Production can only assumed to be equal in value and sequence. The Metaphysics tier is composed of our Writer’s intent or projected aim -- the Work, and the Manifested Text of the Reader. The Production tier consists of the initial or accidental Text, as well as the finalized Text of the Productive Object.

There are, of course, two instances of transference. That is from a metaphysical object to a physical object and vice versa. These coincide with the two above illustrated divergences, one being the Writer function in which the Work incidentally constructs the Text, the second being the Reader function in which the Text manifests itself in its Reception. It is important to note here that the Work and the Manifested Text bear no relation outside of their shared ethereal nature.

This all centers on the Productive Object and as such, it will serve as our primary device for analyzing the Metaphysics.

The Metaphysics of Text I

From the Bottom Up

A Writer writes. This act, by the nature of its being, must produce something, for a writer writes, necessarily, upon some object. Whether its lined paper, napkins, refrigerator message boards, or clean white word processing docs, writing is by necessity - writing onto something. On the other hand, though potentially still creative, productive and clearly metaphorical, writing onto nothing is something other than writing, a process which serves no purpose in our discussion.

We first must define the object on which our writer writes. It is, foremost, a physical object.* This classification alone is rendered insufficient by the presence of a later physical manifestation in the textual chain. So, let us for now refer to this first object as the Receptive Object and the later physical object as the Productive Object. The Productive Object being the “final” or “finished” manifestation of the text, i.e. Newspaper, Novel, Blog Post, Film, Journal, etc (not to mention the frequent, ethereal, transformation from Receptive Object to Productive Object).

So, to recap:

A Writer writes onto a Receptive Object in order to create a Productive Object. What, however, does the Writer write? This gets tricky. It must be remarked here that a frequent dualistic nature persists throughout the entire Metaphysics of Text. The first of which is the dualistic manifestation of text, an at first deceptively simple problem of definition and subsequently a problematic core to the entire Metaphysics.

The first is simply the Text, which is the sequence of symbols constructed on the Receptive Object. The second being the perceived Work which our Writer intends to produce on the Receptive Object. The necessity of this distinction is empirical, or else every Writer would be completely content with the Text they produce, the impossibility of which should be self-evident. Our Writer, then, creates the Text accidentally by producing the Work. One could go further in saying that the Work is the attempt at producing the final Productive Object while the Text and its associated Receptive Object are the means to that end.

We begin to see the dualism moving towards conflict. For we can identify two lines of development and a problematic chronology between them. That is to say, the Work seeks to actualize itself through the Productive Object while the Text actualizes itself necessarily as the Receptive Object. However, the Work is not the primary catalyst for the Productive Object, the Productive Object is the actualization of the Receptive Object. So the Work cannot actualize itself in the Productive Object, or more clearly, the Productive Object cannot communicate the Work. That is not with any predictable reliability, for we must account for the possible coincidence.*

I want to be clear that this formula should not discourage us in our pursuit of the Work through the Productive Object. There is no need to throw away the literary analysis tradition. In many ways, we have always been judging a work by its efficacy in consistently manifesting what we assume to be the Writer’s Work. That efficacy remains crucial. It speaks to the skill of technique and the power of the Writer’s intention. It is however a judgment at its best.

Though, any further attempt which assumes that one is actually interpreting the Work itself, and not the physical manifestation of the Text as Productive Object, is built on false premises, it’s restriction to falsehood does not render it useless, only untrue. For the Metaphysics of Text is concerned with only one thing: Can the Work truly manifest itself? Or more clearly, Does the Work exist?

We mean, then, to explain how the Work and the Analysis can both be metaphysical objects while the Text is a physical object. What must transpire for this to occur, what are the laws of this transference, what must occur as a result? Then, and most importantly, what can be said truthfully about the Text? As such, our preliminary definitions are stated and we can begin our analysis.

*Footnotes in Comments.

Sorry I'm Late.

We cool?

Alright.