الصورة الفنية والاشكال البلاغية التقليدية ٢_a , كتاب دراسة الصورة الفنية

The first and the separator in the relationship (1), and in our opinion, the equal and similar element, and the disproportionate and disparate element exist in any relationship and in different degrees, and what is important is not this or that element, but rather the third component that is the convergence center of the poles of total experience derived from different levels, and the expressive image - not imitation - which always carries resemblance accompanied by difference, and divergence accompanied by similarity (18), which is the third of the new vision in which disparate things and overlapping things merge and unite at the same moment and in an enjoyable encounter (19).

In every metaphorical relationship there are aspects of difference and aspects of similarity, and both types of aspects are not related to its owner except when they are brought together in the depths of the artist and in the depths of the recipient, an internal awareness of their response. With regard to the artist, we see in creation - the whole consciousness is aware of where similarities begin and where variables end, because he has a mind that is sensitive to the most subtle and strange aspects of the relationship, and if we may use psychological terminology, we say that it is a mind that is characterized by the ability to establish close relationships and strong connections and link between compounds in the regions of the living and dead world. 2), striving to capture this flying essence (relationship) of the earth and what is between them, and in this way he is interested in similarities as much as he is interested in aspects of heterogeneity, and the compounds that he creates do not lie in their energy, and their greatness is not distinguished in (the whole) but rather in the new created image. The artist's vision, the beating heart of poetry (20).

Second - the problem of binocular vision:

The rhetorical view of artistic forms is described as dualistic, because it refers to the relationship between its two compounds, so it confronts one with the other, or makes him play his role in front of him. (Gender - Kind) and vice versa, and a section based on the saying (life - inanimate) and vice versa, and within the scope of each saying we find four relationships established under the influence of the famous Aristotle (21) Second Studies Square, so we can mention several examples of them: So Bakhurst classifies the relationship according to the two terms (metaphor Metaphor and Proper Term are also divided into four categories (1):
1- They both have a common meaning.
2- Both have different meanings.
3- The abstract one who has clothed himself with sensory facts.
4- The tangible things expressed by the abstracts. (Empson) rejects the fused metaphor with arguments that he presents (2), while (3) he relies on what he called the real metaphor that is based on a feeling accompanied by psychological tension, and depends on the context, and he intends to it intentionally, and clarifies its conditions, as they are: . . . . It does not include an essential unification between two things, but rather it pleads for something that the poet brings from a scope of experience that differs from his companion in the new composition. Although Richards believes that the last image of the metaphor includes a signification that differs from the signification of each of its two sides, he sees in it a mere connection and not a birth, and divides it into two compounds: the first is the idea or tenor, i.e. the content of the metaphor, and the second is the image or the vehicle, i.e. the presumption with which it is met, and in other words the vehicle and what it carries, and the ratio of one to the other is like this ratio (1), he says in the interpretation of education (2). Perhaps tasting the metaphor of infusion and implying that it is better than others is related to what is implied by the term “creative”, for the portable and the medium resemble two men cooperating in their work, and it will not increase our understanding of them if we suppose that they have been infused in some way in the person of a third man who differs from both, in addition to that. We cannot achieve a smelting with which the two compounds are highlighted at the same time, with an equal degree of clarity, if we interpret the smelting literally.” (22)....

This dichotomous view, which divides the metaphor into its two components, is a narrow and destructive view of the rhetorical form and its unity, because the mind, in its two states of creativity and perception, does not see the two components working in isolation from each other in a state of separation and conflict, but rather sees them in a connected organic state, and in a compatible mode, one working in the other. And that any close or non-fused metaphor is an intuitive combination of relationships that merge within the scope of perspective, and components that bind each component of it to its companion in an overlapping form, and if we assume that the first component is (B) and the second is (C), then the third component or the final vision is not ( b-c) or (b-c), rather it is (b) the new birth that the artist creates, and in this birth two heterogeneous or homogeneous couples are coupled, it does not matter, to become not just two partners lying side by side in an oak tree, but rather two members linked by a close bond, or we say They are united in the scope of the new third compound, which is neither one nor both nor the product of their sum.

Let us coordinate the following example to clarify what we want: She is the light of my life (an eloquent analogy), so here we have two terms, the first is she and the second is my life, but these two terms do not concern us in their separation in anything, but more than that, they mean in this dual situation something different from their position in the scope of the new vision And when they conjugate and the being is born, they acquire a third complex significance, as the light casts a shadow over both of them together, and the new relationship tells us something new about “she” and about “my life” and perhaps about the light as well, i. It is in the light, and the light is in my life, and my life is in the light, and (it is the light of my life) the new comprehensive vision that does not carry the connotations of its parts, but rather carries a different connotation.

There is no doubt that every rhetorical form is based on the existence of two compounds or on the existence of a comparative relationship of some kind, except that the comparison here is not a contrast between two opposing or shared boundaries, but rather it is the destruction, melting and melting of the various sensory perceptions in the crucible of the new being, and the success or success of this being. It is not due to the extent of the distance between its components or the closeness, but rather to the way in which it was born and emerged into existence, and in my opinion, the position of the researcher is like the position of the artist and the recipient of this born or being. Creation and life, and the secret inherent in the nature of things and the relationships between them, and that any search for one of these two secrets that we do not know anything about their meeting or how they work, and the use of terms to describe their intermarriage often seems to be brought from outside the realm of art. . All of this is an incorrect act because it is considered an interference with the artist's vision and a destruction of it. . . The words within this compound play a role that differs from their direct lexical role, because they lose their established significance that ancient rhetoric looked at to carry the shadow of a universal, unified, far-reaching significance.

The scope of rhetorical forms or artistic images lies beyond this separate world, and therefore beyond and opposed to Athenianism, its scope is only