The Narrative of Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative

Abstract

This paper tackles two problems. The first is impossibility of direct application of ideas in Paul Ricoeur's book Time Narrative (hereafter referred to as TN or cited by volume page number) to literary studies. Ricoeur's work cannot be used for literary purposes without rethinking it. However, I limit myself in pointing out necessity of this task without undertaking it. (1) The second problem--which is central for this paper--focuses on some peculiarities of of TN. My main point is that, by means of attenuating its end, making its beginning ambiguous, expanding its middle, TN resists systematic tendencies of hermeneutic type of philosophizing thus, in postmodern era, evades pitfalls of constituting consciousness which masters all meaning. In formulating this problem, I take over try to elaborate in narratological direction Ricoeur's rethinking of Hegel's Reason in History. Ricoeur's critique of Hegel, as we will see, sets possibility for such development ajar without, however, exploring it. What intertwines two problems of essay is fact that they both arise from literary reading of philosophical work that, among many other things, deals with literary issues. TIME AND NARRATIVE AND LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP The first question that literary scholar faces while reading TN is asymmetrical meaning of seemingly symmetrical title of book. The conjunction and in Time Narrative (in original, Temps et recit) does not entwine together two equal notions such as (temps) narrative (recit) but rather suggests direction from which Ricoeur enters his project. In this methodological sense, and (et) stands for logical connector that means therefore: time, therefore In order to explain this formula is necessary to clarify two major sets of notions in book their relation. The first conceptual field in TN tackles issue of threefold mimesis, whereas second deals with relation between time narrative. 1. 1. The threefold mimesis--[mimesis.sub.1], [mimesis.sub.2], [mimesis.sub.3]--is universalization of Aristotle's mimesis in Poetics. It is notion that is applicable not solely to tragic plots, as in Aristotle, but to whole province especially to its two major branches comprising primary interest of Ricoeur: fictional historical narrative. Two basic notions are equivalent in terms of in Aristotle--mimesis or representation of action muthos or organization of events (1: 37). Muthos mimesis are operations, not structures, bear mark of production dynamism. In production of plots activity is primal with regard to any static structures (1: 33). Aristotle's poetics is art of composing plots. The operative dynamic character of Aristotle's mimesis is springboard for Ricoeur's reading of Poetics, opens possibility of elaborating on threefold mimesis as phenomenological version of what Poetics contains as seed. What is driving force of this elaboration? Explicitly, Poetics is work only about art of composition. Implicitly also refers to what precedes what follows act of emplotment. The former is realm of practical as opposed to theoretical rationalization. The latter is field where world of work world of receiver overlap start interacting. The threefold mimesis consists, first, of [mimesis.sub.1] or prefiguration; this is world of action. Following Heidegger, Ricoeur's main idea is that living practice precedes narratives: the 'happens to' someone before anyone tells it (1: 75). Ricoeur writes about existential analysis of human beings as 'entangled in stories' (1: 75) invents set of synonyms such as a prenarrative quality of experience, (as yet) untold stories, a potential story, an untold story (1: 74). …