The Wall as a Symbolic Hindrance
Muhammed Ajmal P K
The
wall is, at least, a hindrance, if not the problem. It often masquerades as saviour
who protects the inmates within which from enemies. However, on the one hand, it
prevents one from preparing cognitive apparatus against the enemies. One may
agree or disagree with this conceptualisation, if it refers to the physical
wall. But, one’s side of the probability in disagreeing might be low, if it is
about the symbolic wall. The thought wall or the cognitive wall, if I nomenclate
so, is the impediment. When thoughts are transmural the actions get
transcendental. Moreover, the ‘other’ comes to one’s cognitive purview which may
widen the epistemic means, if not shifting the paradigm.
The
wall as an impeding entity has been explored in abundance. Explaining the object
of apophatic philosophy, Boris Dombrovskiy considers the wall as a n incarnate
prohibition. He states thus: Within a culture, which is understood as a complex
of prohibitions, the phenomenon of wall is examined as an incarnate
prohibition. The role of the wall is probed in a historical aspect, and
fragment of wall as substrate in a fine art. Certain locus of walls as crossing
of rays of direct and reverse prospects, jointly adopted a positive prospect.
On the example of graffiti, the concept of negative prospect is introduced. It
had been shown that an integral appearance in a negative prospect disintegrates
to pieces. Destruction of image is explained by the influence of wall as an
incarnated metaphysical prohibition. So interpreting phenomenon of the wall is
the object of apophatic philosophy (Dombrovskiy).
Having said so, if anyone finds wall significant, that wall has to be an all-encompassing great wall. Otherwise, the mural shackles might continue to be epistemic barriers and thereby create an existential enigma.
Comments
Post a Comment