كتاب التخيل
كتاب التخيل
                                     ﺍﻟﺘﹼﺨﻴّﻞ
                                   www.fiseb.cm
                                     ﻓﻬﺮس اﻟﻜﺘﺎب
                                        ﺗﻮﻃﺌﺔ
                              ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ
 ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﰲ ﻣﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﺻﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻭﺿﻌ ّﻲ
                                       ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ
                                         ﺧﺎﲤﺔ
ﺗﻮﻃﺌﺔ
ﻓﺄﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺃﺧﺬﺍ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺷﻲﺀ ،ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮّﻥ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ) .(٤ﻓﺎﻟﺴّﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻷﻥ ﻧﺆﺳّﺲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺻﺎﺩﻗﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺪﱄ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ،ﺑﻼ
ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ ،ﲡﺮﺑﺔ َﺭ َﻭ ِﻭﱠﻳ ٍﺔ ﺇﺫ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻌﺐ ﺟﺪّﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ
ﻋﻠﻴﻪ .ﺑﻞ ﻻﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺪ ﺫﻫﲏّ؛ ﻭﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺧﺎﺻّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﱪّﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻘﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺃﻥ
ﻱ
ﻧﺆﺳّﺲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋ ّﻲ) .(٥ﻭﻫﻮ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ،ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃ ّ
ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ُﻳ ْﻨ َﺰﻉُ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ،ﺑﻌﺪ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ
ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﲔ
ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﰒﹼ ،ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻧﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺾ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ
ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺸﺄ ﺻﻮﺭﺍ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺍﻧﺰﻻﻕ،
ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺫﺟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳒﺪﻫﺎ ،ﲟﱰﻟﺔ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ
ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﺔ ﺍﻟﻀّﻤﻨﻴّﺔ ،ﻟﺪﻯ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﲝﺜﻮﺍ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ .ﻓﺠﻤﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ
ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻗﻌﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳍﻮﻳّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ.
ﻁ :ﻓﻤﻜﺎﻥ
       ﻭﲨﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺑﲎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻠﻴّﺎ .ﻭﳌﹼﺎ ﻋﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻗﺪ ﹶﻓﺮُ ﹶ
ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﺩﻫﻢ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﺮﻫﻮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﺑﻨﻌﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ
ﺫﺍﺕ ﻏﺮﺽ .ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺳﻄﺤﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﻨّﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﻓﺮﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺳﺘّﲔ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ
ﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﺄﻥ
ﻧﱪﻫﻦ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳒﺪ ﲢﺖ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﻮّﻉ ،ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻠﺰﻡ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻣﻦ
  ﺖ ﺑﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﻏﻞ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ
                                              ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺫﺟﺔ ،ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ُﻫ ﱢﺬَﺑ ْ
  ﻕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺑﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ .ﻓﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ
                                                         ﺃﻭﺭﺛﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ َﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎ ُ
Descartesﻭﻟﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ  Leibnitzﻭﻫﻴﻮﻡ  Humeﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ
ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺎﻟﻴﻖ
) (1ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜ ّﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﻴﺔ.
ﻓﺎﻷﻭﱃ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻀﻊ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻳﺆﺛﹼﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﲤﺜﹼﻼﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻴّﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴّﺔ
              ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲّ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْﺪ َﺭﻙُ ،ﻭﺃﻥ ﻻﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻼﺕ.
) (2ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺎﻭﻟﺔ ،ﻫﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﺕ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺭﺃﺳﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﱄ
ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻠﺔﹲ ،ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻓﻘﺪ
                     ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺷﻚّ ،ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ؛ ﻓﺎﻵﻥ ﻫﻲ ُﻣَﺘ َ
                                                                                       ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣُ ْﺪ َﺭ ﹶﻛ ﹰﺔ.
) (3ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﹼﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﳉﺰﺋ ّﻲ ﲟﺎﻫﻮﻫﻮ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ
                        ﺍﻟﺴّﻜﻮﻻﺳﺘﻜﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﳉﺰﺋ ّﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸّﺨﺺ.
) (4ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ُﻣ َﺆ ﱢﺳﺴًﺎ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ُﻣ َﺆ ﱢﺳﺴًﺎ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﺑﻞ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ َﺭ َﻭ ِﻭﻳﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻴّﺎ
                                    ﺲ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ.
                                             ﺭﺍﺟﻌﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﹸ َﺆ ﱢﺳ ِ
) (5ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ،ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ،ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴّﺔ.
                                                    I
                                 ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﻐﻞ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺸّﺎﻏﻞ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺣﻀﺮﺓ ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻣﺪﺭﺳ ّﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳُﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ
ﻱ ﻭﻧﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺭﻭﺣﻲّ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻓﺼﻼ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻓﻴﺎ ﺑﲔ
                                         ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﻧﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﺩ ّ
ﱐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﱄﹼ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎﺩﻱّ،
                                ﺍﻵﻟﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﺇﺫ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ َﺭ ﱠﺩ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮ ّﺩ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍ ﹼ
ﺱ ﻭﺍﻷﻋﺼﺎﺏ .ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺩّﺓ
                 ﺹ ﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ﺍﳊﻮﺍ ّ
                               ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﳋﺎ ّ
ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻜﻮﻬﻧﻤﺎ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻓﻴﲔ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ َﻣ ﹾﻄ ِﻠﱠﻴﺔﹲ ﻣﺎﺩّﻳﺎ ﰲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ﻻ
ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ؛ ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﹸﻭ ِﻗ َﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ
ﺍﳊﺎﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ،ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ) .(١ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ
ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﻗﺪّﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ
ﺟﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ :ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺪﻓﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻﻬﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺗﻪ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ
ﲤﻠﻚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺻّﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﺑﻜﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺜﺎﺙ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺡ)(٢؛ ﻓﺎﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ
ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ ﺇﺫ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒّﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻴﻬﺎﻬﺗﺎ،
ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗُﻮ ِﻗﻆﹸ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﺍ؛ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺗﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ،ﺑﻞ ﻓﻄﺮﻳّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ .ﻓﻬﻲ
ﺤ ِﺪﺙﹸ ﰲ
       ﲟﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗُ ْ
ﺸِﺒﻪُ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ
                ﺐ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳُ ْ
                                            ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ؛ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﱂ ُﻳ ﹾﻄِﻨ ْ
ﺧﻠﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ،ﻻﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ،ﱂ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ
ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺄﻧّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍ ﹸﳌَﺘ َﻌﺪﱢﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩّﺍﻩ
ﻷﻥ ﻳُ ْﺪ ِﺧ ﹶﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺿﺮﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﻳﺔ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ ﺿﺮﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ
ﺺ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ
                ﻻ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﻮﺻﺔ ﺃﺧ ّ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ
                                     ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳُ ْﺪ ِﺭﻛﹸﻪُ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ.
ﻓﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺮ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻊ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺗﻔﻜﹼﺮ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ
ﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺟﻪ
                                                                             ﺃّ
ﳍﺎ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻵﻟﻴّﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ،
                                ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ،ﺇﱃ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻮﻛﺔ.
ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻨﻮﺯ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﹼﺪ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﺍ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻭﺿﻮﺣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﻻ
ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ .ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻨﺪ
ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻔﺼﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﻣﺘّﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ :ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﰲ
ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐﹼ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﺪﻓﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻳﻨﺎﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ
ﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﺒﻌﺎﺛﻴّﺔ ﻣﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ ﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﺛﺘﻪ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ؛ ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ
ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺆﻟﹼﻒ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﳌﺒﻬﻤﺔ ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳋﻠﻂ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ.
ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ؛ ﻓﻬﻲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺤﺖ
                                   ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ ،ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺒﺘﻮﺭﺓ.
ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ُﺗﻀَﺎ ّﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻴّﻨﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻔﻆ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ
ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ،ﺃﻻ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ؛ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺒﻬﻤﺔُ ،ﺗ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺩّﻱ
ﺢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﳘﺎ
                                                              ﺼﱡﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ َﺗ ِ
ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ
ﺃﻣﺮ ﳑﻜﻦ .ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻟﺚ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺩﻳّﺔ
                             ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺘﲔ ،ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻻﻥ ﻭﻣﺘّﺼﻼﻥ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ.
ﻓﻠﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﺑﻮﺻﻒ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳏﺾ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ،ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ
ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻜﹼﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺯ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ،ﺇﺫ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳘﺎ ﻳﻌّﺒﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ
ﺃﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺟﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ  :ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻭﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻏﲑ
ﻣﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺤﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ .ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻴّﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻤﻴّﺰﺓ .ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ
                                  ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻣﻀﺔ ،ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ.
ﺇﺫﻥ ،ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺭﻳﺎﺿ ّﻲ :ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﳍﺎ
           ﺛﺨﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻲ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﻜ ّﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﻫﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﹸﺤ ﱠﻠ ِﻞ .ﻭﻛﻼﳘﺎ ُﻣ َﻌﱢﺒﺮَﺍ ِﻥ.
ﻓﻠﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ،ﹼﳌﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺳّﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱠﺘ َﻤﱡﺜ ِﻠﱠﻴ ِﺔ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﻔﻖ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ
ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﻭﺻﻔﺎ ﺟﻠﻴّﺎ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ،ﻭﰲ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ُﻣ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ
ﱄ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ .ﻭﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺣﻠﹼﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺮﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ،ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
                                                                                ﺃ ّﻭ ﹼ
ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻷﻥ ﻳﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺧﱪﻳّﺔ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻗﺪ ﺟﻬﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ
ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮ ّﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺴﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ) .(٦ﻓﻬﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﻦ
ﱄ ﻟﻠﺘّﺨﻴﻞ ،ﻭُﺑ َﻌ ْﻴ َﺪﻣَﺎ ﺃﻓﺮﺩﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ
                                                         ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻵ ﹼ
ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻀﺮﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ
                                                   ﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ.
                                                          ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﺮّﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ّ
ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﺴﺦ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ
ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻨﺤﻔﻆ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺑﻀﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻟﺔ ؛ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻻ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ،ﳑّﺎ
ﳚﻌﻞ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻻ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻓﻴﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺘﻌﺮّﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ
ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴّﺎ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ،ﻭﺍﻻﺗّﺼﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺫﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻣﺾ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻤﻮﺿﻪ ﻟﺪﻯ
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻳﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ
                                            ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ،ﻷﻧّﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ّ
         ﻭﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﻜﻢ ،ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﺘﻜﻮّﻥ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺴﻴﻔﺴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ.
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ " ﻗﻮﻯ
ﻱ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺸﺎﺑﻪ
           ﱄ ﻭﻧﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺳﺤﺮ ّ
                        ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺓ "؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﺎﻣّﻢ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳒﺬﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻧﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺁ ﹼ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻜﹼﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻃﻼﻕ ﺍﲰﺎ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﻟﻼﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﰲ
ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻓﺼﺎﺡ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺘﺎﺗﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻲ
ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ .ﻓﺎﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻛﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻣﻊ
ﺻ ﹸﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ؛ ﻓﻬﻲ
                       ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ،ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻴﻘﻆ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗُﻮ َ
ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ :ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ
ﺠ ﹶﻠﺐُ ﺑﻘﻮّﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺓ ﺇﱃ
                       ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ ﻣَُﺘَﺒﱠﻴَﻨ ﹰﺔ .ﻭِﻟ َﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﱴ ﺗُ ْ
ﺤﻬَﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ؟ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﱂ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ
                                                              ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻣَﺎِﻧ ُ
ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﺨّﺮ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺨﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘّﺨﺬ ،ﻭﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ،
  ﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻓﺎﻋﻞ.
            ﺿﺮﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺳﻮﻓﻮﺭﺳﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺯّﻋﺔ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻌﺎ ﺟﺰﺍﻓﻴّﺎ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃ ّ
ﺠَﺒ َﺮﺓﹲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ
                  ﹼﰒ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣُ ْ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻨﻔﺎ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻴﻨّﻪ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺪّﻛﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ،
                                                    ﻱ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ.
                                                                         ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳُﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﺃ ّ
                                             *
                                     * *
ﺖ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
                  ﻓﻤﻨﺬ ﻬﻧﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﺼﻒ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ،ﻗﺪ ﺻِﻴ َﻐ ْ
                                      ﺻﻮﻏﺎ ﺑﻴّﻨﺎ؛ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ.
ﻓﺈﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ،ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪّﻛﺎﺭﺗﻴﲔ ،ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ،ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ،ﺃﻭ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳊ ّﻖ
ﰲ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﳛ ﹼﻞ ﳏ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﳏ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﳏ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ.
ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ،ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ،
ﻭﻣﺒﺘﻮﺭ ،ﻭﳏﺾ ﻋﻤﻠ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ،ﻭﺿﺮﺏ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻧﻔﻌﻴّﺔ.
ﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳋﻠﻒ .ﻓﻬﻲ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻠﹼﻢ
ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻠﻴّﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﲟﱰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴّﺔ .ﻭﰲ ﻛﻠﺘﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﲔ ،ﻓﻬﻲ
ﲤﺘﻨﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺋ ّﻲ .ﻭﻟﻮﺭﻏﺒﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻛﹼﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻭﺿﻌ ّﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ
ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺎﻟﻴﻖ
) (2ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ
ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻻﺳﺘﻤ ّﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﻻﻬﻧﺎﻳﺔ ،ﺇﺫ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﺨ ﱢﻠﻒُ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﲟﺎﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ
                                                    ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﲟﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎﺩّﻱ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳُ َ
ﺳﻮﻑ ﳜﻠﹼﻒ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ،ﻓﻴﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ .ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ َﻣ ِﺰﱠﻳﺔﹲ ﻻﳏﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ
ﲑ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﰲ
                                                      ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗُِﺜ َ
                                                                                          ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ.
) (3ﺇ ﹼﻥ َﺣ ﱠﺪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻠﺨﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﺍ َﻷﹶﺛ ِﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺜﲑﻫﺎ،
ﻚ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺮّﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ
                                                              ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺷ ّ
                                                      ﻚ َﺣ ﱞﻖ ﻟﻠﺴّﺒﺐ ﺍﻵﰐ:
                                                                        ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ؟ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸّﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺷ ّ
ﺨﱠﻴﻞٍ ،ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻣَُﺘ ﹶﺬ ﱠﻛ ٍﺮ.
                              ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻔﺮّﻕ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺃﻭﱃ ﻭﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ُﻣَﺘ َ
ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻴّﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻠﺤﻤﻪ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ
ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ؛ ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ ﹶﺬ ﱠﻛﺮُ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ،
ﺴﻤﱠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ .ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﹶﻗﺮِﻳَﻨ ﹸﺔ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣﻨﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣُ ﹶﻘ ﱢﻮ َﻣﺔﹲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﹼﺮﻱ؛
                                                                         ﺨﺬﹰﺍ َﺣﱢﻴﺰًﺍ ﺯﻣﻨﻴّﺎ ُﻳ َ
                                                                                                ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ُﻣﱠﺘ ِ
ﻚ ﻫﻮ :ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ
                  ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻘﻮّﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻠﻲ .ﻓﻤﱴ ﺗﻘﺮّﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺸ ّ
ﺨ ﱠﻠ ﹶﻔ ﹰﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ،ﻓﻜﻴﻒ
                        ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧُ ِﻈ َﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺑﻜﻮﻬﻧﻤﺎ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺍ ﻣَُﺘ َ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﺗﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴّﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﲔ ؟ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣ ﹼﻞ
ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻚّ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺍﳌﺼﻨّﻒ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ ،ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺽ ﻋﻤﻼ ُﺣ ﹾﻜ ِﻤﻴﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻪ
                            ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻓﺮﺯ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻴّﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺬﻛﹼﺮ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻧﺴﺠﺎﻣﻴّﺔ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ.
) (5ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﺑ َﺮ ْﻭ ِﻣ ِﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺑﺄﻥ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪّﺩ
   ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﺃﻱ ﲟﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﻭﻋﻴﻴّﺔ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺔ Structure
    phénoménolgique immédiate de la conscience
) (6ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺣ ﹼﻞ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﺴﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﻣّﺔ ﳊ ﹼﻞ ﻻﻳﺒﻨﺘﺰ .ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻﻳﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ
ﺣﻠﹼﻪ ﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺮ ّﺩ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃ ﹼﻥ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳊﻖّ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺮ ّﺩ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ،
ﺤ ِﺪﹸﺛﻬَﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ .ﺍﻧﻈﺮ
                                    ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ُﺗ ْ
                              ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ،ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔThe nature of human
ﺴ ّﻲ ﻭﺷﻲﺀ
        ) (9ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺪّﻛﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻱ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ .ﻭﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﺗﲔ ﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻳﺮﻓﻌﻪ ﻋﻦ
                                                                                     ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ.
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ﲡﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺎ .ﻓﺎﻟﺮّﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻌﻮﺩﻬﺗﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍ ﹶﳌ ﹶﻠ ﹶﻜ ِﺔ ﻭﺇﱃ
ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺗﺐ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻴّﺔ .ﻭﲝﻖّ ،ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺍ
ﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪّﻫﺮ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺮﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻟﻸﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻼﺛﺔ
                                   ﺖ )ﺃ(:
                                        ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺣﺼﻴﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺁﻧﻔﺎ .ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ِﺑَﻨ ْ
" ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛﺜﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﻄﻨﺔ ﺍﳉﻴّﺪﺓ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ َﻳ ُﻤﺠﱡﻮ ﹶﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﳏﺘﺎﺝ
ﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﺩﻳّﺔ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺫﺍ ﻓﻌﻞ .ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺍ ﳍﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺎﳏﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﻳّﺔ .ﻭﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ
 ،١٨٦٥ﺃﻱ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺟﺪﻝ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟ ﹼﻄّﺒﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺫﻭ
  ﺗﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﳍﻠﻮﺳﺔ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻏﺎﺭﻧﻴﻲ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺟﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﻋﻮﻥ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ،ﺑﻴّﺮﺟﺎﺭ ﻭﺳﻨﺪﺭﺍﺱ
ﱄ
ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻳﺜﺒﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﻮّﺓ ﻻ ﺗُ ﹾﻘ ﹶﻄﻊُ ﺗﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺗﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻏﺎﺋﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺧﻴﺎ ﹼ
ـ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ـ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ؛ ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ
                                   ﺍﻟﻈﹼﺎﻫﺮﺗﲔ ﻻ ﲣﺘﻠﻔﺎﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺪّﺭﺟﺔ ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ"
ﺸ َﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ١٨٧١
            ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪّﻣﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻧُ ِ
)ﺕ( ﻳﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻋﻠﻤ ّﻲ .ﻭﺇﻧّﺎ ﻟﻨﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ُﺭﻏﹸﻮَﺑ ُﻪ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ
ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺑﲑﺍﻥ ﻓﺎﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ َﻧ ُﻌ ﱠﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴّﻴﺔ
ﺑﻨﺤﻮ " ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴّﺔ " .ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛﻢﱠ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﶈﺾ ﻣﻨﻬﺠ ّﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻠﹼﻢ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ
ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ) " ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺻﻐﲑﺓ ﳐﺘﺎﺭﺓ ﺧﲑ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ،ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ ،(" .ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ
ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻠﻴّﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺗﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻏﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ،ﻳﻮﺟﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ
ﺺ )ﺙ( .ﻭﺗﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻭﺻّﻰ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻟﻠﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ :ﺑﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻴّﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ
                                                                     ﺍﻟّﻨ ّ
ﻭﻻ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﺍ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒّﺆﺍﺕ .ﻭﻗﺪ ﳒﺰﻡ ﺑﺄﻧّﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪ ﺑﻪ
ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻭﺻﻔﺎ ُﻣَﺘ َﻌﱢﻴﻨًﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻣﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ :ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﺑُِﻨ َﻲ ِﺑﻨَﺎ ًﺀ .ﻓﺘﻨﺎﻥ
ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺟﻌﻲ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺗّﺨﺬ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮّﻳﻘﺔ ،ﻗﻔﺰ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺳﺎﺫﺝ
ﻭﻣﻄﻤﺌﻦّ ،ﻣﻦ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻮﻯ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺔ
ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ .ﹼﰒ ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ " ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ " ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﳎﺮّﺩ
ﻣﻌﺎﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﻛﻴﺐ) .(٢ﺇﺫ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﻗﹼﻰ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻠﺔ ،ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ،ﺇﱃ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎ،
                                        ﻀ َﻲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ :ﺃﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﹸ ْﺩ ِﺧ ﹶﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ:
                                                                                          ﻭﻗﹸ ِ
" ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺧﻴﻂ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺛﻪ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺫﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ
ﺤﺪُ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ،ﻭُﺗ َﺮ ﱡﺩ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ؛ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ
                                                                  ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ،ﻫﻲ َﺗﱠﺘ ِ
ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻭﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟ ّﻲ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺤ ﹼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ
                                                                                     ﺍﳍﺒﺎﺋﻴّﺔ)ﺝ( "
ﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺇﺑّﺎﻬﻧﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ
                                                     ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ّ
                                                             ﻭﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻋُﱢﻴ َﻦ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ.
" ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﺪّﻯ " ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳋﺎ ّﻡ " ،ﻓﻬﻮ ُﻳ َﺮ ﱡﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭ ،ﺃﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﺩﺍﺕ
                                                                                ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﻟﻺﺣﺴﺎﺱ "
ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ،ﱂ ﳛﺘﺞ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﺄﺗﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺣﺘّﻰ
ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ .ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌ ّﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭ ﺷﺮﻭﺣﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﺬﻕ ﻣﻨﻪ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻌﻰ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺷﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ
ﺿ َﻌﺖْ ،ﻋﻠﻰ
          ﺞ .ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ،ﻗﺪ ُﻭ ِ
                                                         ﺴَﺘ ْﻨِﺘ َ
                                                                  ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ .ﻭﱂ ﻳﺮﻡ ﺃﻥ َﻳ ْ
ﺍﻷﻗ ﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﺎﻫﺮ ،ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ :ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﻫﻦ.
ﺼﺢُ
  ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺍﻷﺻﻠ ّﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻞ ،ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩّﺍﻩ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺆﺳّﺲ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﻫﺠﻴﻨﺔ ﺗُ ﹾﻔ ِ
ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻃﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺘﲔ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ؛ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ
ﺧﱪﺍﻧﻴّﺘﻪ ﺍﶈﺾ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺰﺍﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ .ﳑّﺎ ﻟﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﺾ
ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻴﺐ :ﻓﺘﺎﻥ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺳّﺲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ،ﺍﻋﺘﻨﻖ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄ ّﻲ
ﺸ ﱢﺮ ِﻋ ﱟﻲ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ،ﻭﰲ
                     ﻱ ﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ُﻣ َ
                                    ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﺩ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﺑﻴّﻨﻪ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ،ﺇﱃ ﺇﺑﻄﺎﻝ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ّ
ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻳﻬﺪﻡ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻏﺎﻓﻞ ،ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ
ﳎﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺛﺒﺖ ﻧﺴﻘﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋ ّﻲ.
                                            *
                                           **
ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻘﻮّﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ :ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮﺕ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ
ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴّﻴﺎﺳﻴّﺔ .ﻭﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﳓﺬﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﺪﻳّﺔ ِﻟﻤَﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻮﺍﺯﻡ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴّﺔ ﺳﻴّﺌﺔ.
ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺆﺩّﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺿﻰ ،ﻭﺗﺆﺩّﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﳊﺎﺩ .ﺇﺫ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ
ﰐ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺗﺐ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻗﻮّﻬﺗﻤﺎ .ﻭﻟﻘﺪ
                                    ﻱ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ،ﻭﻋﺎﺩﺕ ﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﹼ
                                                          ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﳏﺎﻓﻈ ّﻲ ﻗﻮ ّ
ﻱ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳّﺔ ...ﺃﻭﻻﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻧﺮﻯ
                                                    َﺑ ﱠﻜ ْﺘﻨَﺎ ﰲ ﳎﻠﺲ ﻓﺮﺳﺎﻱ " ﻣﻔﻜﹼﺮ ّ
                          ﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﻉ) ".ﺫ(
                                              ﳍﻢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻮﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲢ ﹼ
ﻭﺍﺠﻤﻟﻠﺲ ﹶﻟَﻴ ْﻨﻌَﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ " ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳّﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﻴﺘﺔ " .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﺭﺟﻮﺍﺯﻳّﺔ ﳌﹼﺎ
ﺖ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻗﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ
                                                 ﺃﻓﺰﻋﺘﻬﺎ ﺛﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻣﲔ ،ﻗﺪ َﻳ ﱠﻤ َﻤ ْ
ﻣﻦ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻟﻮﻳﺲ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﺐ .ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺟّﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﹼﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﲔ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺎﺭﺑﻮﺍ
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺮّﲰ ّﻲ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻃﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﺫﻥ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ .ﻓﻔﺮّﻱ  Ferriﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﺰ
                                              ﻏﺮﺿﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳُ ْﺒ ِﻄ ﹶﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳊ ّ
                                                                    ﺑﺎﳌﻨﺎﻓﺴﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ:
"ﳓﻦ ﻣﻘﺘﻨﻌﻮﻥ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺑﻔﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﰲ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ
                                              ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺃﻥ َﻧَﺘَﺒﱠﻴَﻨﻬَﺎ ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻴﺴﻬﺎ "
ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺫﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺣ ّﺪ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﲤﺪّﻧﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ
ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬﺭّﺍﺕ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴﲔ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘّﺨﺬ ﳎﺎﻻ ﻧﻘﺪﻳّﺎ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲡﺎﻭﺯﻫﺎ)
                                                                                      :(٦
ﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ
                   " ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻮﻫﻢ ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻳﻘﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻭﻋﻲ َﺭ َﻭ ِﻭ ﱟ
ﻱ .ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻨﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ
                                        ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺟﻬﺪ ﺗﺄﻣّﻠﻲ ﻭﲡﺮﻳﺪ ّ
ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﺤﻬﻬﺎ ﺃﺷﺒﺎﺣﺎ ﺑﺼﺮﻳّﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲰﻌﻴّﺔ ﺃﻭ ﳌﺴﻴّﺔ .ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺍ ّﺩ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ
                                                                  ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﻬﺗﺎ"
ﻚ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﺄﺗﺎﻩ ﰲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻳﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﳌﺼﻨّﻔﺎﺕ ﺗﺎﻥ.
                                                                      ﻭﻻ ﺷ ّ
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺮ ّﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻔﹼﻠﺖ ﺑﻪ ،ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ،
ﲏ ﺟﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ .ﻓﺎﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ
                    ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻮﻛﻴّﺔ ﺍﶈﺎﻓﻈﺔ .ﻭﰲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺗﻠﻚ ،ﻟِﻨﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺩﻳ ّ
ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ،ﻫﻮ ﺧﻠﻴﻂ ،ﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻞ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ .ﻓﻼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻻ
ﻱ .ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺑﻔﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ،ﺃﻱ ﺑﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﺮّﻭﺡ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻣﻦ
                                                                 ﻳﺸﻮﻬﺑﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ّ
ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺯﻧﺪﻗﺔ ﻣﺘﻜﺒّﺮﺓ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺯ ﳌﺎﺭﻳﺘﺎﻥ:ﺃﻥ
ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻷﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺗﺴﺘﻨﺖ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ُﻋ ْﺪﻧَﺎ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻻ
ﻱ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ)ﺭ(؛ ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧّﻪ
                                                                ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﻓﻜﺮ ّ
ﱵ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜ ّﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ .ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ
                                                                       ﺑﺮﻭﺗﺴﺘﻨ ّ
ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴّﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﱂ ﻧﻄﹼﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄّﻴﺔ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺟﺐ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺇﺩﻣﺎﺟﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ،
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺿﻌﻒ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻣﻦ
ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺿﻌﻒ ،ﻭﻻ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻴّﻮﺏ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ
                                                              ١٩١٠ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ:
ﻱ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺠﺮﻳﺪ
           " ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻜﻮّﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ،ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻓﻄﺮ ّ
ﻏﺮﺿﻪ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ ،ﻭﰲ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴّﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻟﹼﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻘﻮﻝ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ
ﱄ ﺃﻭ " ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔ ّﻲ " ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻓﺼّﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺭﻳﺒﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼ ﻳﺴﲑﺍ ﰲ
                                                       ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﺴّﺒﺐ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎ ﹼ
ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﻉ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ :ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻣﺎ
ﻗﺪ ﺃﻃﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ " ﺍﻟﺘّﻜﺜﻴﻒ" ،ﻓﺄﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ
         ﻫﻲ ﺗﺄﺗﻠﻒ ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﱄ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ)ﻁ( " .ﹼﰒ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﻞ:
ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﻜﺜﻴﻒ ،ﹼﰒ ﻧﻘﻞ ،ﹼﰒ ﺗﻜﺜﻴﻒ ﻣﺮّﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﻤﻂ ﺍﻻﺛﲏّ،
ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻠ ﹰﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ،ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ
                                                           ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻣَُﺘ َ
ﺗﻨﺼﻬﺮ ﰲ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺴّﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﺍﻋﻲ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ
ﲏ ﺃﻭﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﱄﹼ؛ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ
                                               ﻟﻠﺴّﺒﺒﲔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ :ﻓﻬﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺫﻫ ّ
                                                                       ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ.
ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ َﻣ ْﻨﺪُﻭ َﺣ ٍﺔ ﻟﺮﻳﺒﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻮﺫ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺑﺴﻄﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ .ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟّﺒﺘّﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻔﻜﻴﻚ ،ﻭﻻ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ
ﱄ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ
           ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ  :ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺗﱪﺯ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ُﺗ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺃ ّﻭ ﹼ
ﻫﻲ .ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺽ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻋﻤﻼ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻫﻮ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ
ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻭﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﺎﺕ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ :ﻓﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻵﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﹸ ْﺒ ِﺪ َﻋ ِﺔ
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺾ ﻓﺮﺽ .ﻓﺮﻳﺒﻮ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﺎﻥ ﱂ ﳛﺘﻔﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺃ
ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻔﺴﲑ .ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ،ﰲ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺋﻪ ،ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ
ﺍﻟّﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ .ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﳎﺮّﺩﺓ ﳌﹼﺎ ﺯﺍﺩ ﻋﺎﻣﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺕ.
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺳّﺲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻗﺪ
ﻼ
ﺭﺍﻡ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻳﺒﻮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺎﻥ َﻣﹶﺜ ﹰ
                                                     ﺤ ﹾﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ.
                                                                          ِﺑ ِﻤ ﹾﺜ ٍﻞ .ﻭ ﱂ َﺗ ُ
*
ﻭَﺑﻌِﻴﺪٌ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻟﻸﻣﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﲝﺘﺔ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﰲ
ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎﻩ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺤﺺ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘ ّﻲ ﻣﺎ
                             ﻟﻮ ﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺴﺒﻪ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ.
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺎﳌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳋﱪﺍﻧﻴّﲔ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﻀﻬﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﻴّﻦ ﺍﳉﺪﺩ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﻠﻪ " ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﺎ " ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ
ﻓﺈﺫﻥ ،ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ،ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻭﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ،
ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ِﻏﱠﺒﻬَﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺫﺍﻧﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﻥ ،ﻭ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺩّ ،ﻛﻤﺎ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲ ،ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ ،ﻭ ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻓﻊ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻗﺪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ،ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ
 ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ :ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ  ،ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﻫﻲ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ:
" ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺪّﺭﺟﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ
                                                                                  ﻣُ ْﺪ َﺭ ﹶﻛ ﹰﺔ"
ﳊ ِﺮﻱﱢ،
      ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ ﻫﻮ ُﻳ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎ ﹶ
ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ :ﻭﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺎ ،ﺃﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﻌﲑ ﺧﺎﺻّﻴﺔ
ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﻦ ﳓﻦ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﲝﺎﺟﺔ ﻷﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻷﻧّﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﻱ ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ
ﻧﻀﻊ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻭﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﻭﺟﻪ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻋﲔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ
ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ .ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﻦ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻔﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗ ّﺪ ﻏﻴّﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ
ﺣ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻝ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﻫّﻢ :ﺇﺫ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ
ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ) ،(١٥ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻣَﺎ
ﻭﲞﺎﺻّﺔ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﹼﺷﺨﺼ ّﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻉ ،ﻭﻭﻋﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﺴﺐ
ﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻓﺮﺩﻳّﺔ ؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ َﻤﱠﺜ ﹶﻠ ِﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﺑﺼﲑﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ " ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ " ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ
ﻓﺠﺄﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ " ﺍﻷﻧﺎ " .ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺒﻴّﻨﻪ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﻦ .ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺑﻌﻀﺎ
                                                                    ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻔﻈﻬﺎ.
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺀ ؛ ﻭِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺗﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ؛ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ
ﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳑﻜﻦ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨﺔ) " (١٧ﻭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ.
                                                         ﻫﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ " ﻗﹸ ِﺮَﻧ ْ
ﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻤّﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﲜﺴﺪﻱ "
                                  ﻉ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺫﹶﺍ ٍ
                                             ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﺴﺒﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗُ ْﺒ ِﺪ َ
                                            ﺃﻧﺎ " ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻤّﻲ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ " ﺑﺘﻤﺜﹼﻼﰐ ﺃﻧﺎ " ؟
ﻚ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ؛ ﺇﺫ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ
                                                                     ﻭﻏﲑ ﺷ ّ
ﺠﺮِﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
                  ﻧﻀﻊ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻳُ َﻌ ﱠﺮﻑُ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﺫﺍﻛﺮﺓ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ُﻳ ْ
ﻳﺘﻠﻘﹼﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺮّﻕ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﶈﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻪ .ﻭﲝ ّﻖ
                                                                                      :
                       ﻒ ﻬﺑﺎ "
                             " ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﻣﺎ ﺗُ ْﺪ َﺭﻙُ ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﻭﺗﺼﻄ ّ
                               ﻭ ﻟﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ُﻳ ﹾﻠﻘِﻲ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺷﻜﻮﻙ ﳑﺘﻨﻌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊ ﹼﻞ.
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ُﻣ َﻌﱢﻴﻦٌ ؟ ﺃﻓﻬﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻭﻭﺣﺪﺓ ،ﺃﻱ
                                          ﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻓﺄ ّ
                                                                   ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ،ﻟﻮ ﺻ ّ
ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﳑﺘﺎﺯﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﲑ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ؟ ﻓﺤﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﺴﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﺎ ﻋﻦ
ﺴﺪَﺍ ِﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻤّﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻫﺎ ،ﺏ" ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ "،
                                                                           َﺣ ﱢﺪ ﺍﻟ ﱠ
ﻭﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ُﻭ ِﻋ ﱟﻲ
ﺨﺼُﻪُ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺘﻮﺍﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻩ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﻥ ﺑﻪ ؟
                                                      ﺸﱢﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ .ﺃﻡ ﻫﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳُ َ
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺁﻧﺌﺬ ،ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﳝﺘﻨﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﻕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﻧﺔ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻦ
ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﻭﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﶈﻴﻄﺔ ﻬﺑﺎ ،ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ
                                                   ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ.
              ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﳊ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﻀﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ)(١٨
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺷﻜﹼﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ .ﻛﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻨﻘﻠﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ؟ ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ
ﺑﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺮّﻗﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﻗﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﻙ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳜﻠﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ  :ﺃﻻ ﻭﻫﻲ
ﻭﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺒّﻪ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﳋﱪﻳّﲔ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺧﻼﻑ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺪّﺭﺟﺔ ،ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ
ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺃﺣﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻤﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﻜﻮﻙ
ﺤ ﹶﻘ ﹰﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳑﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ
                                ﺃﺧﺮﻯ .ﺇﺫ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ  :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣُ ﹾﻠ َ
ﻫﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﻔﻜﹼﺔ َﺑ ْﻌ ُﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﺑﺴﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻨﺤﺎﺯﺓ ،ﳎﺘﺰﺃﺓ
ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ
ﻱ ﺣﺮﻛﻲّ ،ﻓﺮﻕ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ،ﻓﻔﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻴّﻨﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ
                                                                          ﻓﻜﺮ ّ
ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻜﹼﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺯ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﹼﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ )ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻋﺎﻭﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ
ﻱ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ ،ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ
              ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﻄﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ ّ
ﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻼ ﺁﻧﻔﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺇﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻣﺆﻗﹼﺖ ﻟﻠﺸﻲّﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ ﲤﺜﹼﻼ:
              ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﺯﻳّﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﺒﺠﺎﺳﻴّﺔ ﻣﻨﺸﻄﺮﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺴّﻔﺴﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ.
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ؟ " ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺣﺴّﻲ ﺣﺮﻛ ّﻲ " ﺇﻧّﻪ " ﹶﻗ ﹾﻄﻊٌ
                                                                          ﺇﺫ ﺃ ّ
ﻱ"
 " ﻳﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠ ّﻲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﻠﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﻼﻥ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻊ ﻫﻮ " ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺎﺩ ّ
                    ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ " ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺘﻌﻴّﻦ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ،ﻭﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ"
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﺍﻟ ﱠﺪ ْﻭ َﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ) ﻷ ﹼﻥ
ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠ ّﻲ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﺍﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻴّﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ( ﻟﻴﻈﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻟﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﺻﺮﺓ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ
ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﳔﺼّﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﻘﺾ .ﹶﻓ ﹾﻠَﻨ ﹾﺄ ُﺧ ﹾﺬ ُﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻨﺎ :ﻓﻨﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﻣﺎ
ﻱ ﺍﻧﺸﻄﺎﺭﻳّﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻣﺎﺿﻴﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻓﺎﻋﻞ ،ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎﺿﻴﺎ
                                              ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻼ ﳏﻀﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺑﺄ ّ
ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﳏﻀﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ .ﻓﺴﻮﺍﺀ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ـ
ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﻟﻨﻠﻔﻰ
ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺿﺮﺑﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻ ّﺮ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻔﺘﺮﻗﲔ
) ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ( ،ﻭﺍﱠﻟ ﹶﺬْﻳ ِﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ،ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ،
ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺭﺩّﳘﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﻗﺪ ﻻﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﳍﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﲔ ﺑﺘﻠﻔﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ
ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺴّﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﳋﱪﻳّﺔ ﻳﻌﺪّﻭﻧﻪ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ :ﺃﻱ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﻔﻖ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ
ﻼ َﻙ ﰲ
     ﺴﹶﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺍﻩ ﻟﻴﻀﻄﺮّﻩ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﳛ ﹼﻞ َﻣ ﹾﻄ ﹶﻠًﺒﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻻْﻧ ِ
                    ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﺴّﻲ ﺍﳊﺮﻛ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ؟ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻲ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ.
ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ؛ ﻭﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ
ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﻣُﻮﻋَﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ،ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﻣﻮﻋﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ،ﳑّﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ
 ﻻﻣﻮﻋﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ .ﻭﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﺟ ﹼﻞ ﺫﻛﺮﻳﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﻋﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ،ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻋﺴﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ؟
ﺇﻧّﺎ ﳒﺪ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸّﺄﻥ ،ﻟﺪﻯ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﲔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻓﺮﺗﲔ ،ﻭﳘﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﱂ ﳝﻴّﺰ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﲤﺎﻡ
ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﻴﻴﺰ :ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺗﻀﺮﺏ ﺑﺄﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ
                                      ﻓﺘﺘﻼﺀﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻴﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ.
ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ :ﻓﻤﺎﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ؛ ﻭﳛ ّﺪ
ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ .ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ:
ﻀ َﺮ ﹶﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﺍﻧﺒﻌﺎﺙ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﺰّﻧﺔ ،ﻭﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﱄ ﻷﻓﻬﻢ
                                                            ﺤ َ
                                                              ﺴَﺘ ْ
                                                                  ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﹸ ْ
ﻛﻴﻒ ﺇﻧّﲏ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺃﻣﻠﻚ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ،ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﺒﻠﻎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻮﰲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ
ﻚﰲ
 ﺴ ِﻠ َ
      ﺤ ﹶﻔ ﹶﻈ ِﺔ .ﻓﻼﺑ ّﺪ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ َﺗ ْﻨ َ
                                                                          ﺴَﺘ ْ
                                                                              ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﹸ ْ
ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﻋﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﺠﺴّﻢ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﻴّﺔ
ﻼﻣَُﺘَﺒﱠﻴَﻨ ِﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ .ﻓﺄﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ،ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
                                                              ﻟﻠﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﶈﻀﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﹼﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟ ﹼ
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺲ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺮّﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻴّﺎ ،ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻓﻌﻠﻴّﺔ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ
ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ،ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ،
ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ .ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻬﺔ
ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ  :ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻣُﻮﻋَﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ،
ﺑﻞ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎﺽ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ .ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ،ﰲ
ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪ " ﺗﺬﻛﹼﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ" ،ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ،ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻠﻚ
ﻋﻨﻪ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﻳﻔﺴّﺮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﻕ ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻓﻌﻠﻴّﺔ
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻚّ ،ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳛﺪّﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ
ﺼ ٍﻞ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
           ﺤ ﱠ
             ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻻ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺫﻭ ﻏﻨﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣُ َ
ﹸﻗﺼَﺎﺭَﻯ ﻣﺎ ُﻳﺮَﺍ ُﺩ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ،ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻧﺴﻼﻙ
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﻠﻐﻲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﺎ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﻡ
ﻱ ﻭﻓﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ
        ﱯ .ﻓﺎﳊﻠﻢ ،ﻭﻇﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻃﺔ ﻟﺘﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﺃ ّ
                                                   ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻀﻌﻒ ﺗﻮﺗّﺮ ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﺼ ّ
                              ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫّﻤﺎﺕ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ.
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻟﻮ ﺻﺢّ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﺍﻩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺑﻼ ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺮّﻭﺡ،
ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﻠﺘﺒﺴﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﳑﺘﻨﻌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ؛ ﺇﺫ
      ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻯ ﻋﺴﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ.
ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ،ﻗﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺘﲔ ﻣﻌﺎ :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻓﻌﻠﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳜﺮﺟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴّﻦ ـ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
ﻼ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺎ .ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻟﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ
                     ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﳐﻄﹼﻂ ﺣﺮﻛﻲَّ ،ﺗ َﻤﱡﺜ ﹰ
                                             ﻋﺴﻰ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻞ ،ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ؟
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻳﺒﺪﻉ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﻲّ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳُ َﻌﱢﻴﻦُ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﻣﺎ
ﻟﻼﻧﺴﻼﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﺗﻨﺘﺴﺐ ﺑﺎﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ :ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻓﻌّﺎﻟﺔ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻗﺪ َﻋ ﱠﺪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻴﻮﻻﺕ ﻭﻗﻮﻯ ﺳﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ﻛﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﳉﺬﺏ
ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺪّﻫﺎ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ،ﻫﻲ َﺗﺮُﻭ ُﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ " ﺗﻨﺪﻓﻊ ﺇﱃ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ " ﻭﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺀ ﺣﺘّﻰ " ﻧﻜﺒﺢ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻫﺎ " .ﻭﻛﻠﹼﻤﺎ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺧﺎﺀ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ "
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﺑﺘﺔ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺣﺴّﺖ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺭُ ِﻓ َﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺠﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻴﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ،
ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺄﺗّﻰ ﻟﻠ ﹼﺬﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺷﻬﻮﻬﺗﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠ ّﻲ ؟
ﻓﺎﳌﺎﺿﻲ ،ﺣﺴﺐ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ،ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲّ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﻗﻮّﺓ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﻬﻧﺎﻳﺘﻪ)(24؛ ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﺍﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻲ؛ ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ
ﺗﺄﺗّﻰ ﻟﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻬﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺴّﻢ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻻ
ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ؟ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕَ ،ﻣﻜﹶﺎ ﹶﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺎﻃﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ
ﺴَﺘﻮٍ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ " ﻣﺘﺄﻫّﺒﺔ ...ﻭﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﺮﺻّﺪﺓ ؟ " ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ ،ﻓﺄﻥ
                                                                      ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ُﻣ ْ
ﺨ ﹶﻠ َﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘّﺼﻠﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ
                                                                              ﻳُ ْ
ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻠﻲّ ،ﻧﺸﺎﻃﺎ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﳕﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺣﻲّ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﰲ
                                   ﺍﺗّﺨﺎﺫ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴّﺔ ﺳﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸّﻨﺎﻋﺔ.
ﻭﻻ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﻌﺚ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺒﻴّﻦ .ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ
ﻼ ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳐﻄﹼﻄﺎ ﺣﺮﻛﻴّﺎ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ
                                                                       ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ َﺗ َﻤﱡﺜ ﹰ
ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﺘﺒﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﻓﻤﺎ __ﺑﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ
ﺑﺘﺄﻣّﻞ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻭﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﻠﺐ ﺇﱃ َﺗ َﻤﱡﺜ ٍﻞ .ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ،ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺘﻤﺜﹼﻞ ،ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ
ﻼ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ،ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻟﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﻋﺴﻰ
                                      ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻭﻇ ﹼ
ﻟﻠﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﺠﺲ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ " ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻊ .ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﻴﺲ
ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺸّﺒﻴﻬﺔ ﺑﻪ " .ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ َﺑ ْﻌﺪُ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺗّﺨﺬ
ﻱ ﻓﻌﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻟﻘﺪ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺃﻥ
                                                         ﻓﺒﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﻴّﻦ ﺃ ّ
ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺿﻄ ّﺮ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺘﺼﻮّﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ،ﹼﰒ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ
ﻱ َﺷ ْﻲﺀٌ .ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ
                          ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺟﺎﻣﺪ ،ﹶﺃ ْ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﺭﺏ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﳏﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄ ّﻲ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ
ﳍﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻔﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛ ﹼﻞ َﻣ ْﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﲟﺼﺎﺩﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻲﺀ ،ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳑّﻦ
ﻳﻀﻊ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﻲّﺀ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻨﺘﺒﻪ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺴّﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻘﻄﻊ ﺩﺍﺑﺮ
ﺾ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ
         ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪ ﻧﻘﺪﺍ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﺎﺗﻪ .ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﻘ ّ
ﺠ ﱠﺮ ِﺩﻫَﺎ
         ﰐ ﺍﻟﺘّﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻖ ﲟﺎ ﳘﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺘﺎﻥ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟ ﹼﻠﻴّﻨﺔ :ﹶﻓِﺒ َﺰ ْﻋ ِﻤ ِﻪ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ِﺑ ُﻤ َ
                                                                                                     ﻓﻜﺮ ﹼ
ﻻ ﲤﻠﻚ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺳﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ﲡﺬﺏ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ :ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺂﻣﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺴﻠﻚ ﻓﻴﻪ ،ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ؛ ﻭﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳝﺘ ّﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺣﺮﻛﻴّﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ
ﺁﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺣﺮﻛﻴّﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﺸﺄﻬﺗﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﲢﺪﺙ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ
ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ،ﻭﻫﻠ ّﻢ ﺟﺮّﺍ  :ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻉ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺸﺎﺑﻪ
ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻖ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺮﺗ ّﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﺴﺐ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺃﻭ
ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺓ .ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣّﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳّﺔ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ
ﺵ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ُﺗﺘَﻌ ﱠﻘ ﹸﻞ ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻛ ﹼﻠﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
                                                                                    ُﺗﻌَﺎ ُ
ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺷﺘّﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﳑّﺎ ﻳﺆﺳّﺲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴّﺘﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻻ
ﻳﺸﺮﻉ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮّﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺗﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﺘّﻰ ُﺗ ْﻌﻄِﻲ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ
                 ﳐﺼﻮﺻﺔ؛ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻨﺤ ﹼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ِﺑَﺘﹶﺄ ﱡﺧ ٍﺮ:
" ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻣﺮ ﺃ ّﻭﱄﹼ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﺒﺪﺃ ،ﻭ ﻣﻴﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﻷﻥ
   ﺗﻀ ّﻢ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﺳﺒﺒﻪ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺑﻄﺒﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﺘﺠﺰّﺋﺔ) ﻥ(".
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺰﺋﺔ ؟ ﻓﺎﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ ﻟﹶﻌﻈﻴﻢ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﺮﻯ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﺮﻧّﺢ ﺑﲔ ﻗﻄﺒﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ :ﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺮّﻑ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ،
ﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﻧﺼﻬﺎﺭﻳّﺔ ؟ ﻓﻬﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ
                                                               ﹼﰒ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﺄ ّ
ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﻨﺘﻜﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ " ﺍﻧﺼﻬﺎﺭ" ﻟﻠﻬﺒﺎﺀﺍﺕ .ﻭﺇﻥ ﻫﻮ ﳑﻜﻦ ﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻏﺎﺯ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﻐﻞ
ﺣﺠﻤﺎ ﻣﺘﻐﻴّﺮﺍ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧُ ْﻨ ِﻘﺾُ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ
ﻱ ﺣ ّﻖ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳍﺒﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺼﻬﺮ ﰲ
                                                                   ﳒﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻓﺬ .ﻓﺒﺄ ّ
ﺺ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ؟ ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ ِﻟﻤَﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ
                                 ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻣﻮﺣّﺪ .ﺃﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﻤﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳜﺘ ّ
ﺃﺳّﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻨﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺣ ّﻖ ﺍﳉﺰﻡ ﺑﺘﻠﻚ
ﺍﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓِ ،ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ،ﻭ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎﻣﺪﺍ؛ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ
ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳝ ّﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ
ﳛﺼﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴّﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﺑﺎﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜ ّﻲ .ﻓﺎﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ
ﳛﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻧﺒﺴﺎﻃﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﳛﺘﻮﻱ " ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﺣﺘّﻰ ُﻳﻌَﺎ َﺩ
ﺍﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ " .ﺇﻧّﻪ " ﳛﺘﻮﻱ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺯﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻛﺲ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻱ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ
                                         ﺗﺒﺴﻄﻪ ﰲ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ)ﻩ( "
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻫﺪﻯ :ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﺔ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﺠﺎﻧﺴﺔ .ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﺪّ ،ﳚﻮﺯ " ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ
ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﻛﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻜﺜﹼﻒ ﰲ ﲤﺜﹼﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺘﺠﺰّﺃ " .ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ
     ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺰﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﺘﺸﺬﹼﺑﺔ.
ﻓﺄﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺘﻜﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮّﻥ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﳐﻄﹼﻄﺎ ،ﹼﰒ ﺃﻥ ﻧﱰﻝ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻨﻤﻸ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺻﻮﺭﺍ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺴﺎﻩ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻄﺮّﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﰲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﲢﻘﹼﻘﻬﺎ .ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴّﺮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﻣﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺣ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﳝﺘﻨﻊ
ﺑﻴﺎﻬﻧﺎ ﻟﻮ ُﻳ ْﺒَﺘ َﺪﺃﹸ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ؛ ﻓﺎﻟﻠﹼﻴﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﺪّﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﺄﺗّﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ.
                                                                     ﹼﰒ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻰ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ:
                              ﲏ"
                               "ﻓﺈﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫ ّ
ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ،ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺇ ﹼﻻ " ﻓﺴﻴﻔﺴﺎﺀ " ،ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ
ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻐﻴﲑ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺼﲑ ﻣﻨﺼﻬﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ
ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﳍﺎ ،ﻭﺑﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴّﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﻉ؟ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ
ﺤﺚﱢ؛ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ " ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ،ﻭﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺎﺫﺏ ﻭﻧﻘﻄﺔ
                                                                   ﺴَﺘ ِ
                                                                       ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْ
ﻂ ﻻ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺻﻮﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ؛ ﻭﻣﻦ
                             ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ " ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﺭﻳﺒﻮ .ﻓﻤﻦ ﹶﻗ ْﺒ ِﻞ ﺍﳌﺨ ﱠﻄ ِ
ﻱ ﻗﻮّﺓ
     ﺼﱠﻨ ﹶﻔ ﹰﺔ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺒﻌﻴّﺔ ﺑﻌﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ :ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃ ّ
                                                           ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻣُ َ
ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﺳﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ " ﺍﻟ ﹼﻘﻮّﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻄﻴﻔﺔ " ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗُ َﺪﱢﺑﺮُ ﺑﺎﻷﻭّﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻣﻦ
ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺑﻼ ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ ،ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺘﺎﺋﺞ .ﻭﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻻﺑ ّﺪ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ
ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻏﻴّﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﺪّﺍﺧﻠﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ
ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ
     ﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ.
          ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺃ ّ
ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﻜﻠﹼﻤﺎ ﲢﺪّﺙ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﳝﻴﻞ ،ﲢﻔﹼﻈﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﻻﱄﹼ،
ﲑ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻤﻰ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ
                                                                     ﻷﻥ ﻳُ ِﻌ َ
ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺜﺒّﺖ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﻉ،
     ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻨﻊ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺳﺒﻞ ﺇﳊﺎﻗﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴّﺔ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ.
ﻓﺒﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺳﺒﲑ ﰲ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ) ﻭ( ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺴﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻹﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ
ﺤ َﻲ :ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻭﻬﺗﻠﻚ،
                      ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﱐ ،ﻗﺪ ﺟﻬﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ َﺗ ْ
ﻭﳍﺎ " ﺷﺮﻭﻗﺎﺕ " ﻭ " ﻏﺮﻭﺑﺎﺕ " ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﱪ ﻭﺗﺘﺰﻳّﺪ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺇﻣّﺎ
ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻜﺎﺋﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﻉ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮّﺓ
ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ،ﲟﱰﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻴّﺔ .ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﺰﻳّﺪ ﻭﺗﻨﺤﻮ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮّﺩ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﻡ ،ﺃﻱ ﳓﻮ
ﺿﺮﺏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﺘﻔﺮّﺩ .ﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺧﻠﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﻟﻨّﻬﺎﻳﺔ
ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﻯ ﻟﺘﺰﻳّﺪﻫﺎ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﻗﹼﻔﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻖ .ﻓﺎﻟﺬﹼﻭﺍﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻴّﻨﺖ ﻣﻴﻼ ﻣﺎ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ .ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘّﻔﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﻹﻳﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﹼﻲ
ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ َﺗ ﱠﺪِﺛﺮُ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ
                                 ﳑﻜﻨﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ ﺃ ّ
ﲢﻘﹼﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳛﺼﻞ ﰲ
ﺯﻣﻨﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ :ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﺇﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﳏﺾ ﻭﳎﺮّﺩ ﻟﻸﻭﱃ ،ﹼﰒ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻠﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﻭﳘﺎ
ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻼﻣﺴﺎ ،ﻛﺎﳊﺎﻝ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺗﲔ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺘﲔ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ
ﺍﻟﻌ ﹼﻠﻴّﺔ.ﻭﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻮﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﲔ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﲔ ﺍﻟﻌ ﹼﻠﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌ ّﺪﻳّﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻪ
ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻗﺪ ﺫﺍﻋﺖ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺫﻳﻮﻉ .ﻓﻤﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻭﻣﻦ
ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺼﺮﺓ ،ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳّﻄﺔ ﺑﲔ
ﻚ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
                                         ﻱ ﺍﶈﺾ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﶈﺾ .ﻭﻏﲑ ﺷ ّ
                                                                  ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ّ
ﻭﺭﻳﻔﻮﻟﺖ ﺩﻱ ﺃﻟﹼﻮﻧﺎﺱ ،ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﹼﺮﻭﺍ       ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ؛ ﻓﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻠﺪﻭﻳﻦ
ﺑﺄﺭﺍﺀ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻌﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻄﻲ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺩﻓﺖ ﰲ
ﱐ ﳎﺎﻻ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺎ ﻟﺘﻄﻮّﺭﻫﺎ .ﻓﺎﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻗﻮّﺓ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ،
                                                            ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮ ﹼ
ﻭﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻔﻆ ﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ " ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ " ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ
ﺃﺑﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ .ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﻟﻸﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﲨﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺃﻧﺼﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ .ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻣﺴﻠﹼﻤﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﹼﻂ ،ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ " ﺩﳝﻮﻥ" ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴّﺔ،
ﺸﺄﹸ ﺍﺗّﺼﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﳕﻄﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﳘﺎ ،ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ،ﻻ ﳚﺘﻤﻌﺎﻥ؛ ﻓﻬﻮ
                                                         ﻓﻠﻪ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻮﺳّﻂ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻳُ ْﻨ ِ
ﻳﺘﻌﺪّﻯ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﳛ ﹼﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻪ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻪ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺻﻔﺘﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ
ﻚ .ﺇﺫ
    ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺧﻠﻴﻄﺎ ﻭﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎ ﳎﻤّﻌﺎ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺸ ّ
ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ َﻣ ْﻤ ﹸﻠ ﱞﻮ ﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺔ؛ ﻭﻃﻮﺭﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻘﲑﺓ ﺟﺪّﺍ ،ﺃﻱ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ
ﻋﻈﻤﻲّ؛ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﻴﻠﺔَ ،ﺑ ِﺮﱠﻳﺔﹲ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻮﺍﺣﻖ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺮﻭﻡ ﺃﻥ
                                                ﺗﺆﻭّﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳّﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ.
ﻓﺒﺰﻋﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ ؟ ﻫﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﻃﻮﺭ ﰲ
ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﹼﻲ ،ﺃﻡ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺑَﺎ ِﻃ َﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ؟ ﻭﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻔﹼﺢ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻻﺕ
ﺕ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ
                                                      ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﹸ ﹾﻓ ِﺮ َﺩ ْ
ﺴﻲّ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛ ﱠﻢ ﻓﻬﻲ ﱂ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎ
                                         ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ﻫﻲ ﱂ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﳏﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﳊ ّ
ُﻣ ْﻨَﺒ ِﻌﺜﹰﺎ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺒﺖ ﻟﻴﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﲑ :ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺎﻥ ﺗﻨﺒﻌﺚ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻣﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ
ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ :ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻴّﺔ ،ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﻤ ّﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳊﺴّﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ،ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻞ
ﻚ ﻳﺘﻨﻘﺾ ﹼﰒ ﻳﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘّﺸﻜﹼﻞ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺗﻮﻫّﻤﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺧﻠﹼﺼﻨﺎ
                                                           ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘّﺨﺬﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻔ ّ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺿﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ :ﻭﲝﻖّ ،ﻟﻘﺪﻣﻜﹼﻨﻨﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ
ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﻋﺔ ﻟﻠﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﻭﻓﺠﺌﻴّﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻉ .ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﻫﻞ
َﺟ َﻌ ﹾﻠﻨَﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻤّﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ
ﺃﻛﺜﺮ؟ ﺇﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺗّﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺪّﺩ ﺍﻟﺪّﺍﺋﻢ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺗّﻰ ﳍﺎ ﺗﻜﻴّﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪّﺍﺋﻢ ﻣﻊ
ﺴ ّﻲ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻫﻮﻫﻮ ؟ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺰﻋﻤﻮﻥ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻷ ﹼﻥ
                                                  ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ،ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳏﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺴ ّﻲ ﻓﺎﻋﻞ ؟
          ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ .ﻟﻴﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﻱ ؟ ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ .ﻭﻗﺪ ﳒﻴﺐ
                                      ﻫﻞ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻐﻴّﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ّ
؛ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻀّﲑ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻻﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﺴﻮﺳﺎ ،ﺑﻞ ﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ
ﺨَﺘ َﺰﻝﹸ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﲪﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺸﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺎﺩّﺍ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ ،ﺃ ﹼﻥ
                                                                                ﻳُ ْ
ﺨَﺘ َﺰﻝﹸ ؟
         ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻟﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸّﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻻ ﺗُ ْ
                                         *
                                       * *
ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ
ﰐ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺗُ ِﺬ ﱢﻛ َﺮ
                                        ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﻭﺩﺕ ﺑﻌﺚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭ ﹼ
ﺍﳊﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺮﻭﺷﺎﺭﺩ ﻭﻓﺮّﻱ ﻭﲨﻴﻊ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴّﻲ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ  .٨٠ﻭﻫﻢ ﺗﻮﻫّﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﻢ
ﻣﺘﺤﻴّﺰﻭﻥ ﻣﺎﺑﲔ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ .ﻭﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ،
ﺑﺎﻟﺮّﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑﻳﻦ :ﻭﳘﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺯ ﺩﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ ـ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ُﻳﻌَﺎِﻳﻦُ ﻣﻦ
ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻠﺔﹰ ،ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮّﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ
                                                ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﲤﺜﹼﻼﺕ ُﻣَﺘ َ
ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪّﻬﺗﺎ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﺎﻣّﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻣﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪﻭﺍ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ
ﻓﻜﺮ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﻳﻘﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻀﺒﻂ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻟﻪ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ
ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟ ﱢﻠ َﻮﺍ ﹸﺫ ﺑﻠﻴﺒﺘﺰ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﶈﺾ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ
ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ ﻳﻘ ﹼﻞ ﺇﳝﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻃﺒّﺎﺀ ﻬﺑﺎ :ﺇﺫ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺪ
ﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ
     ﺸﹶﺌﺖْ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ ،ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻣﺸﻜﻮﻙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ؛ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺍ ْﻋﺘُ ِﻤ َﺪ ْ
                                                                                    ﹸﺃْﻧ ِ
ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﺻﻰ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺱ ﻣﻞ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻧﺎﻓﻌﺔ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻔﻊ.
ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻣﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺎﻭﺩﺕ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﺒﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺯ
ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ ،ﹼﰒ ﺑﻴّﻨﺖ ﺃﻧّﻪ ،ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻊ ﲣﺮﻳﺐ ﲣﺮﻳﺐ ﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﻣﺎ
ﳐﺼﻮﺹ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺒﺴﺔ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻣﻊ ﺭﻛﻮﺩ ﻛﻠﹼﻲ
ﺠ ٍﺰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ .ﻓﺎﳊﺒﺴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺎﺀ .ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛ ﱠﻢ  ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ
                                                              ﻟﻠﺪّﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻱ ِﻟ َﻌ ْ
ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺤﻮ ﺑﺘﺆﺩﺓ ﳓﻮ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﺪّﻣﺎﻍ .ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﳓﻦ ﳕﻴّﺰ
ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﻍ ﻗﺪ ﻏﻴّﺮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ
ﺠﻠﱠﻰ ﳍﺎ ﺑﻼ
         ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻠﺔٍ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻗﺪ َﺗ َ
                                ﺍﳊﺪﺱ .ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﹶﺫﻭَﺍﺕٌ ﻗﺪ ﺁﻧﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻏﲑ ُﻣَﺘ َ
ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ .ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻴّﻨﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ،ﻭ " ُﻭ ِﻋ ﱞﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ " ،ﻭ" ﺑﺘﻮﺗّﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﻋﻲ
ﲏ ﻗﺪ
   ﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃ ّ
           ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ " .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﺼﻴﺺ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺃﻗﺮّﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺎﺕ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺔ :ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴّﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﺮّﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ
                           ﻟﻴﺴﺖ َﻣ ﹾﻘﺴُﻮ َﺭ ﹰﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺸﺨّﺺ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﺸﺨّﺺ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ.
ﻱ
ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣُ ْﺒَﺘ ﹶﻜ ِﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺎﺕ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ :ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﻼ ﺃ ّ
ﻭﺍﺳﻄﺔ؛ ﻭﹶﺃ ﹾﻥ ﻧُ ﹶﻔ ﱢﻜ َﺮ ﻭﹶﺃ ﹾﻥ َﻧ ْﻌ ﹶﻠ َﻢ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﹼﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳘﺎ ﻷﻣﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍﻥ .ﺁﻧﻔﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺒّﻬﻨﺎ ﻣﺴﻌﻰ
ﻟﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﻭﺃﺧﻼﻓﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﺎﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ،
ﺑﺎﻟﱪﻫﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻫﻮﰐ .ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ،ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ :ﻓﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﹼﻠﻪ ﻳﻨﺎﻟﻪ
ﺼ ﹶﻄﻔﹶﺎﺓﹲ .ﻭﺻﺪﻕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻔﺎﺓ
                               ﺗﻔﻜﹼﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﰲﹼ ،ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺗﻨﺎﻟﻪ ﺧﱪﺓ ُﻣ ْ
                                     ﰐ)( ٢٦
                                          ﻓﻀﺎﻣﻨﻬﺎ " ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﻄﻮ " cogitoﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭ ﹼ
ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻗﺼﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺴﻂ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ :ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ
ﻱ ﻓﻘﺪ
    ﺍﻟﺘّﺴﺠﻴﻼﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳّﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴّﺔ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﱪ ّ
ﺍ ْﺳُﺘﻔِﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻪ .ﻭﳓﻦ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﺮﻭﻡ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺼﺪﻭﺍ
                                              ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺧﺎﻟﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺴﺒّﻘﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ.
ﻭﳌﹼﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﻔﻮﺍ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻮﻫّﻤﻮﺍ
ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺩﻟﹼﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﳌﺎﻗﺒﻠ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻣﻠﻰ
ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺭﺃﻳﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘ ّﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ،
ﺃﻱ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﻃﻼ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﻮّﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ ،ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳍﻮّﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ .ﻭﺑﺮﻭﻫﻠﺮ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ
ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺸّﻬﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻼﺕ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﻴّﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﻘﹼﻞ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ
                                       ﺍﻟﺸّﻤﻊ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﹼﺔ؛ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﺘﺐ:
ﻼ
"ﺇﻧّﻲ ﻷﺟﺰﻡ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ،ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ،ﻓﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟ ّﺪﻗﹼﺔ ﻣَُﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻘ ﹰ
                                                                    ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ)ﻱ("
ﻓﻴﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ُﻣَﻨ ﱢﻐﺼًﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ .ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﺩﺓ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺸّﻲﺀ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟ ُﻮ ِﻋ ﱢﻲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻻﻟﻴّﺔ .ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ
                                                      ﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ:
                                                               ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺯ ﻟﻮﺍ ّ
                                      "ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﺎﺋﻖ ﻟﻸﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻣﺜﺎﻻ"
ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻴّﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻋﻀﻮ ﰲ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻀّﻤﻮﺭ ،ﻭﳌﹼﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮ
ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﺘﻔﻮﻳﺖ ﻟﻠﻮﻗﺖ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﻭﻧﻜﻮﺹ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻞ ﺃﻥ
ﻁ ﻭﺑﻮﻫﻠﺮ ،ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ُﻣﻌِﻴﻘﹰﺎ ﻛﺎﻟﹼﱵ
                                  ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ،ﻗﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻔﻈﺖ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻭﺍ ﹼ
ﻂ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ،ﻭﻻ ﻋﺮﻓﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻼﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺮﻳّﺔ
                                                ﻟﻠﺸّﻲﺀ .ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻔﺤﺼﺎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻗ ﹼ
                                             *
                                           * *
ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺴﻌﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺒﻴّﻨﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ ﻗﺪ
ﻓﻬﻤﻮﺍ ﺣ ّﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﲏ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ
ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳉﺪّﺓ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﻴﻜﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﻴّﻦ ﻛﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ـ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻏﺪﺍ
ﻣﻜﺴﺒﺎ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺭﻳﺒﻮ ﻭﺗﻴﺘﺸﻨﺮ ،ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ ،.ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺑﺎ
ﻭﻏﺎﻣﻀﺎ .ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﰲ ﳓﻮ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ،ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺑﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺸﻒ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ
ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ)ﺃﺃ( .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺑﻨﺖ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺣﺮّﺍ ﻭﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ
ﻣﺴﺒّﻘﺔ .ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﱂ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ .ﻓﻴﻠﺰﻡ ﺃﻧّﻪ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺷﺎﻋﺮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ .ﺇﺫ
ﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﲟﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺒﺪّﺕ ﻟﻪ
                                               ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻭﻣﻪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳُ ﹾﺜِﺒ َ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﺄﻧّﻬﺎ "ﺭﺳﻢ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ" ﻭﻛﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻓﻠﺲ ،ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻟﻒ ﻓﺮﻧﻚ.
ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺪ ﻏﺪﺕ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﺎ
                                                                    ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ.
ﻭﲞﺎﺻّﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﺘﺮﻗﹼﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ ﻟﻪ ﻻﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻻ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ :ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧّﻪ
           ﻟﻴﻤﻠﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭﻩ ﻋﻨﻪ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﺩّﺩ ﺑﲔ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﲔ.
ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺍ ﻟﻪ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ ،ﳌﹼﺎ ﻋﻠﹼﻖ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ
                                                         ﺍﳌﺸﻬﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﲝﺜﻪ:
ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺑﻨﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺪﺭّﺝ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭ ﺁﺧﺮ :ﻓﻬﻮ ،ﻭﻗﺪ
ﲤﻌّﻦ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺑﺮﻭﺷﺎﺭﺩ ،ﰲ ﻻﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪّﻻﻟﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻻ
ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ
ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺮﺝ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﳊ ّﻖ) .(٣٠ﻟﻴﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻣﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎ
                                                       ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﺳﺎﻟﻔﺎ:
"ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻻﻭﺍﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺎ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﳏﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺼﻮﺭ
                                                                                      ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ"
ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ،ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﻗﺪ ﺛﻘﻠﺖ ﻭﺗﺄﻗﻨﻤﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ
ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﻘﹼﻠﺖ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ " ﺇﻧّﻲ ﺫﺍﻫﺐ ﻏﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻘﻞ
ﱯ .ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﻨﺖ ،ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
                               " ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﺮﻥ ﰲ ﺫﻫﲏ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺒﻬﻤﺔ ﳌﺮﺑّﻊ ﻋﺸ ّ
ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﺩّﻱ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﻤﱠﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ .ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﻊ ﳍﺎ
                                                 ﻼ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳّﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ.
                                                                                ﻣُ ﹶﻜ ﱢﻤ ﹰ
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﺧﻠﻂ ﺷﻨﻴﻊ .ﻓﻤﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ " ﺇﻧّﻲ ﺫﺍﻫﺐ ﻏﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻘﻞ "
ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻲ .ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ،ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ " ﻏﺪ " ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ
ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺿﺎﻑ " ﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺠّﻞ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻓﻬﻢ " ،ﳑّﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻧّﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﳓﻦ ﻻ
ﻧﺘﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨّﻬﺎﻳﺔ .ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻀﺐ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲝﻖّ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ
ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋ ّﻲ  :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮﻱّ ،ﻭﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲّ ،ﻭﻟﺪﻯ ﻋﺎﱂ
ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ؛ ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘ ّﻢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳚﺪ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺌﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻻ ﰲ
ﻻ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﺸﻜﻮﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣُ ْﺒَﺘ ﹶﻜ ٍﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ .ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﳝﻴﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ
ﻷﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﻼﺀ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ .ﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ ،ﻟﻮ ﺍﺗّﻔﻖ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ
ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ،ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ،ﺃﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺟﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ
ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ﰲ ﺫﻫﻨﻨﺎ ؟ ﺑﻞ ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ  :ﳓﻦ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭﺑﻌﺪ
ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ
ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ؟ ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺮﺑّﻊ ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺄﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺑّﻌﺎﺕ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺮﻓﺘﻪ  :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻟﺴّﻬﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﺣﺪﻳﻘﱵ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﺎﺩﰐ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺫﻫﺐ ﻟﻠﺠﻠﻮﺱ.
ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺑّﻌﺎ ﳎﻬﻮﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺑّﻌﺎﺕ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴّﻬﻞ :ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﻮﺹ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﺻﻄﻔﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﺘّﻤﺪّﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ) .(٣١ﻭﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﹸﺃ ِﺟ ْﺒﺖُ ،ﻓﻠﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ،ﺃﻧّﻰ ﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ
ﻋﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ؟ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﳐﻔﻴّﺔ :ﻭﻫﻲ
ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺳﻨﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﱰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ
                                           *
                                         * *
ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﳒﺪ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ  ١٩١٤ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻼﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ،ﺑﻼ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻨﻘﻄﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧّﺮﻳﻦ ﳌﺒﺪﺃ
ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ؛ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺒﻄﻨﺔ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﻨّﻔﲔ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ
ﰐ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛ ﹼﻞ
                       ﺟﻬﺪﻭﺍ ،ﻓﻬﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻔﻠﺤﻮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻠﹼﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ .ﻭﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭ ﹼ
ﳏ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻮﻳﻠﺮ .ﻭِﺑﹶﺄ َﺧ َﺮﺓٍ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻛﺜﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ
ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﹸ ْﺒَﺘ َﺪﹶﺃ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﻪ .ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻔﻈﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ.
ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻻﻧﺖ .ﻭﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻣﺜﻞ ﲡﺎﺭﺏ ﺳﺒﲑ)ﺗﺖ( ﻗﺪ ﺟﻠﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ
ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺣﻴﺚ ﱂ ﻧﻜﻦ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺛﻼﺛﲔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ،ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺟﺎﻣﺪﺓ .ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻟﻚ
  ﺷﺮﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﻏﺮﻭﺑﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺘﻐﻴّﺮ ِﻟَﻨ ﹶﻈ ِﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﳍﺎ .ﻭﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺃﲝﺎﺙ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﺐ
)ﺛﺚ( ﻗﺪ ﺑﻴّﻨﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﳐﻄﹼﻄﻴّﺔ ﻣﺘﺰﻳّﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻭﻋﻲ .ﻭﻗﺪ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﺻﻮﺭ ﺟﻨﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﺴّﺮ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﳏﺪّﺩﺓ ﰲ
ﺏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺤﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﺏ .ﻭﺍﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﻄﹼﻂ،
                                              ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻭﻓﺮﺩﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺑﺮﻛﻠﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺿُ ِﺮ َ
ﻗﺪ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻭﺭﻳﻔﻠﺖ ﺩﻟﹼﻮﻧﺲ ،ﻭﺑﺘﺰ ،ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ ﱂ
ﻧﻀﺮﺏ ﺻﻔﺤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ :ﺃﻻ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻧﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘ ﹼﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻔﻊ
ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺳﻨﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ َﻭ ﹾﻗﻒٌ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ؛ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴّﺔ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﻗﺪ
                 ﱄ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ.
                                                                  ﺣﻠﹼﺖ ﳏ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻵ ﹼ
ﻚ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ
             ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ،ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻣﺎﺯﻟﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﺸﺎﻏﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﻔ ّ
ﺺ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ
       ﺺ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺃﻭ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜ ّ
                                                            ﻧﻘﻄﻊ ﺑﺮﺃﻱ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜ ّ
ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻴّﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ .ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﱂ ﻧﺼﻐﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ
ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗ ﹼﻞ ﱂ ﻧﺼﻐﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ :ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻓﻈﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﺍﻧﻴّﺔ .ﻭﳌﹼﺎ ﺑﺮﻭﺷﺎﺭﺩ ﻭﻓﺮّﻱ
                                                ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﳘﹼﻴﺘﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻛﹼﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ .ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﺎ ﻧﻌﺎﻭﺩ
ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳّﺔ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﻭﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘ ّﻲ ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْﻌَﺘَﻨﻖِ،
ﻓﺴﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺡ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ
         ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺳﻮﻑ ُﻳ ْﻌ ﹶﻄﻴَﺎ ِﻥ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻼﻥ ،ﻭﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺪ ﻟﻠﺜﹼﺎﱐ.
ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻄﻠﺐ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻴّﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ
ﺤ ﱠﻠﻞﹸ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦّ ،ﻭﻷﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻔﻈﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻞ،
                                                                 ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ﻻ ﺗُ َ
ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳓ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺮﻯ ﳕﻄﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ
ﻓﻠﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﻫﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻼﺛﺔ ؟ ﺇﻧّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺴﻄﻨﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴّﺔ
ﺍﳌﻌﻀﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺴﺒّﺒﻬﺎ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ .ﻭﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻧﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺣﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ
ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ،ﻷﻧّﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺛﻼﺛﺘﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺒﻠﺖ ﺑﺎﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴّﺔ ،ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻧﺒﻌﺎﺙ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ
                                                                                ﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻠﺔ)(٣٣
                                                                                               ﺍﳊ ّ
) (1ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ .ﻓﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺄﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴّﺔ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳُ ﹾﺬ ِﻋ َﻦ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺫﻋﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻻ ﳛﻜﻲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺎﺗﺼﻒ ﻫﻲ
ﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺝ ﻣﻨﻄﻘ ّﻲ
                            ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺫﺭﻳﻌﺔ ،ﻭﻣﺎﺩّﺓ ﻗﺪ ﹸﻃ ﱢﻮ َﻋ ْ
                                                                        ﺼ ٍﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻱ ﻗﺒﻞ.
                                                                                      ﺤ ﱠ
                                                                                        ﻱ ﻣُ َ
                                                                                             ﻭﻧﻈﺮ ّ
) (5ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ َﺗِﺒﲔُ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻲ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﺴّﻲ ،ﺃﻱ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﰲ
ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﻻ ﳏﺪّﺩﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺘﻌﻴّﻨﺔ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺒﲔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﻈﹼﻤﺔ ﻭﳏﺪّﺩﺓ .ﻭﳌﹼﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺫﺍﻙ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ
ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍﻬﺗﺎ ،ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﺪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻗﻮّﺓ ﹸﺃ ْﺧﺮَﻯ ﻻ ﺗﺒﲔ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻨﻈﹼﻢ
                                ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﺘﻌﻴّﻦ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ.
) (6ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬﺭّﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃ ّﻭﱄﹼ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲣﻄﹼﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﻷ ّﻭﱄﹼ ،ﺃﻭ
ﻱ ﺃﻭ
   ﱄ ﺫﺍﻙ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﺄﻣّﻞ ﻧﻘﺪ ّ
                                         ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻰ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﻷ ّﻭ ﹼ
                                                              ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﻓﻠﺴﻔ ّﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ.
ﺲ
ﺺ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺗﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺗّﺼﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊ ّ
                                                                          ) (7ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳜﺘ ّ
                                                  ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺘﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺃﻛﱪ ،ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ.
) (8ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﻻﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﻻﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻨﻊ ،ﺃﻭﰲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺍ ﹸﳌﺤَﺎﻝِ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺪ
ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﺃﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺪﻣﺎ ﳏﻀﺎ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻻﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺩﺓ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻻﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ
 ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﳍﺎ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﶈﺾ .ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ،ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ.
) (9ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﺗﺎﻥ ،ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻻﻳﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻮﻙ ،ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻂ
ﻱ ﻭﺳﻠﹼﻤﺖ ﻟﻠﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪّﻣﺘﻪ
                             ﻣﻦ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ،ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ،ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻔﹼﻠﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﺪ ّ
                                          ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ.
) (11ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﻌﺖ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻗﺒﻠﻲّ ،ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﻳﺒﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴّﺔ ﺣ ّﻖ ﺍﻟﺮّﺟﻮﻉ ﻭ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺣﺮّﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻣﺴﺒّﻖ
ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲّ ،ﻟﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ،ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﺎ ُﻳ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴّﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ
                                           ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻧﻔﺴﻪ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ،ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ(
) (12ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﳏﺼّﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﻃﻞ
                                                                                        ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ.
) (13ﻓﻴﻜﻮﻥ ُﻣ ﹾﻘَﺘﻀَﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻬﺑﺎ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻪ
                                                                               ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ.
) (14ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻮﺭ ،ﻭﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﻟﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺎ
ﳑّﺎ ﺳﻴﻨﻘﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ُﻣَﺘ َﻤﱠﺜ ﹶﻠﺔٍ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﺜﻼ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﳑّﺎ
                                             ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﺎﺯﺓ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ،ﺑﻌﺰﻟﻪ ﻟَﺒ ْﻌ ٍ
                                         ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣَُﺘ َﻤﱠﺜ ﹶﻠ ﹰﺔ.
) (16ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺷﻔﺎﻓﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻮﺟﺪﺓ ﻟﺬﺍﻬﺗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ
                                                                  ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟ ُﻮ ِﻋ ﱢﻲ.
) (17ﻭﲝﺴﺐ ﺑُ ْﻌ ِﺪ ﺃﻭﻗﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻳﺘﺤﺪّﺩ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻜﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻴّﺎ
                                                                                        ﺃﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﲤﺜﹼﻠﻴّﺎ.
) (18ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﺸﺨّﺺ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ
ُﻣﺸَﺎﺭًﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﻣﻰ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ُﻣ ﹾﻘَﺘ ِﺮﻧًﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ.
) (19ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣَُﺘ َﻤﱠﺜ ﹶﻠ ﹰﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ،ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴّﺮ
ﻒ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﹸ ﹶﻔ ﱢﺮ ِﺩ
                      ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺘﻤﺜﹼﻠﺔ ﺣﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﱠﺍﻛﺮﺓ ،ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻛ ّ
                                                                                                    ﳍﺎ ؟
) (21ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﻋﲔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﳓﻮ ﺃﺧﺬ
ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ؛ ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ
                               ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ.
) (22ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺎﻥ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺗﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﳘﺎ ﺑﺘﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ
ﻳﻠﻲ  :ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﺯ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ َﻣﻌِﻴﺶٌ ﳏﺾ  Erlebnisﻭﺣﺪﺙ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ،ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ
ﻱ  Corrélatif intentionnelﺃﻭ ﺍ ﹶﳌ ْﻌِﻨ ﱢﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻌﻞ .ﻭﻫﻮ
                                                   ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻖُ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ّ
ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻕ.
ﻣﺜﺎﻝ :ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻲ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻗﺔ .ﻓﻬﻬﺎﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻧﺴﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﲟﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ
ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺰﺀ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻭﻧﻔﺲ ﻋﻴﺸﻲ ﳍﺬﻩ
ﻱ) .ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻟﺜﺔ ،ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻟﺚ،
                                                       ﰐ ﻭﻣﺎ ّﺩ ّ
                                                                ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﳏﺾ ﺫﺍ ﹼ
                                                                                ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﻤﺎﻧﻮﻥ(
) (23ﺇﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺩﺧﻮﻻ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ،ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺎﻫﻮ ﺍﻵﻥ
ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻓﻌﻠﻴّﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺭُ ِﻓ َﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺎﺋﻖ
) (24ﻭﻣﺎﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮّﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ؟! ﺃﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ
ﻗﺪ ﺃﺛﺒﺖ ﻣﻦ ﹶﻗ ْﺒﻞﹸ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﹼﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ،ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ
   ﺻﲑﻭﺭﻬﺗﺎ ﻣَُﺘ َﻤﱠﺜ ﹶﻠ ﹰﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻣﺘﻤﺜﹼﻠﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﲑ؟!
) (25ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳜﺎﻟﻄﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﹼﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ
      ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ Idéalement
                                   ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ) .ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻦ ،ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ،ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ(
) (26ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﻄﻮ ،cogitoﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﹼﺮ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﻼ ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ
ﺲ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑﻩ ،ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻀّﺎﻣﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺪّﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻜﺮ ﳏﺾ ﻻ ﻳﻠﺘﺒﺲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
                                                                        ﻣﻦ ﺣ ّ
                                                              ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺎ.
) (27ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ،ﰲ ﺟﺰﺋﲔ ،ﺟﺰﺀ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺫﻭ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻘﺪّﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ،ﻭﺟﺰﺀ
                                                                                     ﺛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺘّﺔ ﺃﲝﺎﺙ.
) (28ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻴّﺰ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﻪ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﻴﻴﺰ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﻟﻠﺮّﺃﻱ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﱐﹼ ،ﺑﲔ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲّ ،ﻭﺗﻜﻮّﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﻪ
ُﻣ ْﺪ َﺭﻛﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﺕ .ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺴّﺮ ﺗﻜﻮّﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ
ﰐ )ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻣﻘﺪّﻣﺎﺕ ﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ،ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ
                                  ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﺑﺘﻜﻮّﻥ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺫﺍ ﹼ
                                                                             ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺑﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﺳﻊ(.
) (31ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻔﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻠﻤﻴﺢ ﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ
ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﺍﻩ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻓﺎﺽ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺑﺴﻄﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺆﻟﹼﻔﻪ
ﱄ  L'imaginaire.ﻭﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ
                        ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﺳﻴﺴ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ،ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻴﺎ ﹼ
ﰲ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ؟
                         ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ِﻟ َﻢ ﱂ ﻧﻜﻦ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻌﺮ ﹼ
           ) (32ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺨﻴّﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﻌﻘﹼﻞ ،ﻓﺘﻨﺸﻄﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺍﺗﲔ.
) (33ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴّﻦ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﻛﺒﲑﻳﻦ ؛ ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ،ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴّﻦ
ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺑﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺣ ّﺪ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ
ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌّﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ،ﻓﻤﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼﻬﺗﺎ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺑﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻼﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻋﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ) ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺎﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺒﻨﺘﺰ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﻡ.(.
ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﺘﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ،ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ ﺃﻭ
ﺴﻲّ ،ﻭﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ .ﻭﺳﻴﺒﻴّﻦ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﰲ
                                           ﻏﲑ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ ،ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﻱ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ
                                                                         ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻡ ﺃ ّ
ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺘﻌﺮّﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﻴﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ
                                           ﻋﺎﻃﻞ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻭﻳﻞ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ.
ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻨﺎ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻣُ ﹾﻔ َﺮ َﺩ ﹰﺓ ﺗﺴﻤّﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ِﺑِﺈﺯَﺍ ِﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻗﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
             ﻳﺘﺨﻠﹼﻞ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻠﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻓِﻴﻤَﺎ ﺯﻋﻤﻮﺍ ،ﻓﻼ ُﺑ ﱠﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗُ ﹾﻔ َﻬ َﻢ:
" ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ )ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ( ﲟﺪﻟﻮﳍﺎ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﲟﺠﺮّﺩ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ .ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ
ﺴﻴّﺪ ﺳﺒﲑ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ..." :ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻊ ﺍﻧﺘﺒﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ
                                                            ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟ ّ
          ﺴ ّﻲ ) ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ( ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ)ﺕ( "
                                                                     ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎﻩ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ :ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺑﻘﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺴﻂ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴّﺔ؛ ﻓﻤﺤﻮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺪﻳﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴّﻨﺔ؛ ﻭﺃﻛﹼﺪﻧﺎ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ،ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺳﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ،ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﻏﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺋﻪ ﺍﳌﹸ ﹶﻜ ﱢﻮَﻧ ِﺔ ﻟﻪ .ﹼﰒ ﺃﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﹶﺛﻢﱠ،
ﻓﺮﺣﲔ ،ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ،ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺸﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﻭﺗﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﺗﺘﻘﺮّﺭ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ
                                                                                  ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻒ:
" ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ...ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﳍﺎ ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ
ﲏ ﻭﻫﻲ ﹶﺃﻣَﺎ َﺭﺓﹲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻘ ّﻲ .ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻣُ ﹾﻔ َﺮ َﺩ ٍﺓ
                                                                       ﺑﺪﻝ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﳍﺎ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺫﻫ ّ
ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ :ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﻖ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ؛ ﻭﻫﻲ ِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺴﻖ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ.
ﻭﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﺪ ﻣﺎﻳﺮﺳﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﻨّﻔﲔ .ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳊ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ
ﺃﺭﺗﻀﻮﻩ ﻻ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻓﺤﺺ ﻣﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ .ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ " ﻃﻤﺴﻨﺎ "
ﺍﻟﺼّﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ ﱂ " ﻧﻔﻜﹼﻬﺎ " .ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﳊﺬﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ
ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺭّﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ،ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘّﺼﻞ ﻋﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻞ ،ﺗﺬﻭﺏ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺗﺪّﺛﺮ ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ،
                                               ﺍﻟﺘّﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻀﺎﺩﺍﺕ .ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷ ّ
ﻭﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴﻴّﻦ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳘﺎ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻓﻴﺎﻥ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴﲔ ﻣﺎ
ﲔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ) .(١ﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻟﻔﻔﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ
                                       ﻳﺮﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ "ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔ ّﻲ" ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﹸ ِﻌ ِ
ﺍﻵﻟﻴّﺔ ﺑﻐﺸﺎﻭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺒﺎﺏ :ﻭﻫﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺪﻭَﺍ ِﻣﱠﻴﺔﹸ .ﻓﻔﻴﻤﺎ ُﺯ ِﻋﻢَ ،ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ
ﻳﺪﻭﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺗﺪﻭﻡ :ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﳍﻮ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﳑﻜﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ .ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻀﲑ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﻼ ﺑﺎﺭﺟﺴﻮﻧﻴّﺎ ،ﺃﻥ
               ﻻ ﺗﺪﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻓﺎﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﺋﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻣﺖ ﻣَُﺘ ﹶﻔﱢﻴﹶﺌ ﹰﺔ ﻇﹸ ﹶﻠ ْﻴ ﹰ
ﲢﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﺎﻹﲰﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻧﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ،ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﻴّﺔ ﻟﻮﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ ،ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻌﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ :ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻌﻰ
ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ .ﻓﺎﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳋﺎ ّﻡ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳝﺪّﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻮﺭ
ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ؛ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺮّﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ .ﻣﻦ ﹶﺛﻢﱠ ،ﻓﻤﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ
ﺍﳌﻤﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻟﺰﻡ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﹸﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ
ﺿ َﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ
               ﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻴﻨﻚ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﲔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴّﺘﲔ .ﻭﺍﻋﻠﻢ ﺣَﺎ ِ
                                                    ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ﺗﺒﻴّﻨﺎ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ّ
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳓﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ :ﻭﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ
ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻤّﺎﺓ " ﺻﻮﺭﺓ " ﺗُﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻠ ﱠﺮ ﱢﻭﱠﻳ ِﺔ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻤّﺎﺓ "
ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ" ُﺗ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﻟﻠ ّﺮ ّﻭﻳّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻓﻜﻨّﺎ ﳓﺼﺮ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻬﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺖ
ﻭﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﺠﻠﺐ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ .ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﺃﺩّﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺁﺟﻼ ﺃﻡ ﻋﺎﺟﻼ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺒﻴّﻦ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﺒﻪ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ،ﻓﺒﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ)٥
( ،ﻏﲑ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺟ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﺼّﻨﻔﲔ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻭﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ .ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺎﺀﻟﻮﺍ ﺇﻥ
ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻜﻮّﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗُﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ :ﺑﻞ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻭﺍ
ﺼ ﹸﻠﻬَﺎ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﻋﻲ
                   ﺤ ﱢ
                     ﻟﻸﻣﺮ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ُﻳ َ
ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻋﻔﻮﻱّ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﻠﺒﻮﻫﺎ ،ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﺿﻤﲏّ ،ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺍﺏ
ﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ
            ﺐ "ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟ ّ
                        ﰒﹼ ،ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻴﺎﺻﺎ :ﺇﺫ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺃﻥ ُﻧﺼِﻴ َ
ﻱ ﻓﺮﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ
                       )ﺥ(" ﻣﻦ ِﻗَﺒ ِﻞ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻻ ﳏﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ّ
                                     ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ .ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ.
ﺃﻓﻨﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ،ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﺻﻮﺭﺍ ؟ ﹼﰒ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ :ﺇﺫ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎ ﻣﺎ
ﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ
                     ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﺪّﻯ ﺣ ّﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ .ﻓﻠﻮ ﺻ ّ
ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗ ﹼﻞ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ،
ﺃﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳔﻠﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ) (٨ﻭِﻟ َﻢ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ
ﻃﻠﻘﺔ ﻣﺪﻓﻊ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻗﺮﻗﻌﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ؟ ﻭِﻟ َﻢ ﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﻧﺎ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ؟ ﻓﺮﺑّﻤﺎ ﺃﺟﺎﺏ ﳎﻴﺐ ،ﺑﻞ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺁﺧﺬ ﺟﺬﻉ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ
                                                                                   ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﺫ(.
ﺫﻟﻚ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ
ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ) .(٩ﻓﻠﺴﻨﺎ ﳒﺪ ﻣﺜﺎﻻ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ ﰲ ﻭﻋﻴﻨﺎ
ﻓﺘُ ﹾﺄ َﺧﺬﹸ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲُّ ،ﻣ ْﺪ َﺭﻙٌ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ـ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ .ﻓﻠﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘ ﹰﺔ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻓﺮﺯ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻟﺘﻜﺮّﺭﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻄﺎﺀ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻜﻮّﻥ
ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺗﺎ ﻣﺎ ،ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻭﺏ ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﻋﻮﺍﱂ ﻣﺘﻮﺳّﻄﺔ ،ﻣﺘﻜﻮّﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﻭﺻﻮﺭ ،ﰲ
                                                               ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻘﻈﺔ:
ﺲ َﺣ ﱠﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻣﺮ ّﺩ ﺃﻣﺮﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮّﺓ ﺃﻭ
                                     ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺳﺒﲑ " ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ ﺍﳌﹸ َﺆ ﱠﺳ َ
ﺷﺪّﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﺩﺓ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻓﻨﻄﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﻟﺒﺘﻴﻜﺎ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﻷﻫﻞ
                                                                                          ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺍﻕ)ﺭ(".
ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛﻢﱠ ،ﻳﺘﻮﺟّﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﺮﺏ ﺻﻔﺤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣُ ﹾﻔ َﺮ َﺩ ٍﺓ
ﱄ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ .ﺑﻞ
                           ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣُ ﹾﻔ َﺮ ٍﺩ .ﻓﺒﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺗﻌﺮّﻑ ﺃ ّﻭ ﹼ
             ﲏ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ُﺗ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ.
                                         ﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃ ّ
                                                 ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﺎ ُﺗ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﻟﻠﺤ ّ
ﱄ
ﺲ ﺍﻷ ّﻭ ﹼ
        ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺪّﺩ ﻭﺍﳊ ّ
ﲏ .ﻓﺎﻷﻗﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻔﺮ.
                    ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻓﺼﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺼّﺮﺍﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪّﺍﺭﻭﻳ ّ
ﻱ " .ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ
              ﻭﻗﺪ ﺯﺍﺩ ﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻔﺮ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ " ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺪّﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ّ
ﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ
                                    ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﻠﻮﺳﺔ) (١٠ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗُ ْﻌ َﺮ َ
ﻱ " ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺪ .ﻭﻟﻮ ﱂ
                                                ﺃﻥ ﲢﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ "ﺃﺛﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩ ّ
ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﺗّﻔﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻗﻮّﺓ ،ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ
                                                    ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻮﺟﻮﺩ".
ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﻬﺑﺎﻡ .ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻫﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﺃﻡ ﻧﻔﺴ ّﻲ ؟ ﻭﺃﻳﻦ
ﺞ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻩ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺮﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ .ﻓﺘﺎﺭﺓ
                                     ﺠ ﹶﻠ َ
                                          ﲢﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ؟ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺗﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ َﺗ ﹶﻠ ْ
                     ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻭﻛﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻧﺪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻣَُﺘَﺒﱠﻴَﻨ ﹲﺔ:
"ﻓﺤﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ ﻭﲢﺘﻀﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ
ﺨ ِﺮ ُﺟﻬَﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮّﺩ ،ﻟﺘﺘﺪﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ
                                             ﺭﻛﺒﻬﺎ ،ﻓﺘﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ،ﻓﺘﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭُﺗ ْ
                                       ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴّﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺒﻌﻴّﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﻬﻮﺩﺓ)ﺹ(".
ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﻫﻨﺎ ﲝﺒﺴﻴّﺔ ﻛﻮﺭﺗﻜﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ
ﻱ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﻄﹼﻠﺖ ،ﻭِﻟ َﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻗﺪ ﺩُ ِﻓ َﻊ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺇﱃ
                                               ﺗُﺮﻯ ِﻟ َﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺮّﻣﺎﺩ ّ
ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ،ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺗﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﻠﻔﻨﺎ ،ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ
                                           ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﻴّﻨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ.
ﹼﰒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﻋﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ " ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﺤﻴﺢ " ﻭﻫﺬﺍ " ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮﻳﺐ " ؟ ﻟﻘﺪ
ﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺠﺪّﺩ ،ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﺫﺍ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ .ﻭﺗﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ
                                                      ﻗﻴﻞ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ّ
ﱯ ﻧﻴﻜﻮﻻﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﺼﺮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻴّﺖ " ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ
                                             ﺃﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺜﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ .ﻓﺎﳌﻜﺘ ّ
ﻣﻨﻪ " .ﻭﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺮﺳّﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﺰﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ " ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﻣﺜﺎﻻﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺫﻫﻨﻪ " ﹼﰒ " ﻳﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻛﺮﺳ ّﻲ
ﻱ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺤّﺺ ،ﻣﻄﺄﻃﺄ ﺭﺃﺳﻪ ،ﺭﲰﺎ
                          " .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼّﺪﻳﻖ ﻟﺪﺍﺭﻭﻳﻦ ﳌﹼﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻳﻮﻡ " ﻳﺘﻔﺤّﺺ ﻗﻮ ّ
ﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ
               ﺻﻐﲑﺍ ﻟﻠﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﺑﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﻮﻉ...ﻓﻤﺎ ﻟﺒﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ ﳌﹼﺎ ﺭﻓﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﹶﻃ َﺮ ٍ
                                                                     ﺍﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺫﺭﺍﻋﻴﻬﺎ"
ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ ﺗﺎﻥ  :ﻓﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺘﻪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲤﻨﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻠﻮﺫ ﺑﺎﳊﻜﻢ
ﺍﳌﹸ ﹶﻔ ﱢﺮ ِﺯ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺴﻄﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﺡ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﺘﻜﺮ ُﻣﻜﹶﺎ ِﻓﺌﹰﺎ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺎ
                                                               ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ.
ﻭﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺳُ ﱢﺪ َﺩ ﰲ ﻣﺴﻌﺎﻩ ﺫﺍﻙ .ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﺾ)ﻁ( " ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
ﻳﺴﺘﻌﲑ ﺳﺮّﺍ ،ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ .ﺇﺫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻭﺣﻜﻢ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳑّﺎ ﳚﻮﺯ ﳍﻤﺎ
ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﺾ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﰲ ﺣ ّﻖ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ  :ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﺃﺑﻴﺾ ﻭﺑﺄﻧّﻪ
ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﺑﻴﺾ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻬﻧﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ :ﺑﻞ ﳚﺘﻤﻌﺎﻥ ﰲ
ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ .ﻓﻠﻮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺗﻮﳘﹼﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺮﺑّﻊ ﻗﻤﺎﺷ ّﻲ ﺃﺑﻴﺾ " ﻋﻠﻰﻋﺸﺮ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ " ،ﻭﺍﺗّﻔﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻣﺮّﺑﻊ ﻗﻤﺎﺷ ّﻲ ﺃﺳﻮﺩ ،ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﻥ
ﻱ
ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺒﻄﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﺭﻯ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺮﺑّﻊ ﻗﻤﺎﺷ ّﻲ ﺭﻣﺎﺩ ّ
ﺢ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻓﻴﺎﻥ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ
                                                          ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﻥ .ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﻳﺼ ّ
                                                    ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ).(١١
ﻒ ﻫﻲ
   "ﻓﻔﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺛﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﻜﻮّﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ،ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﺧ ّ
ﻱ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺤّﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺘﻬﺎ ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ.
                                                         ﺗﻜﻔﻲ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﺎﺩ ّ
ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﻠﺤﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﻬﻘﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ
ﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺗُ ﹾﻘ َﺮﻥﹸ ﻬﺑﺎ؛ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎ،
                                            ﻂ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣﻨﻴّﺔ ...ﻭﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻋﺎﻣّﺔ ﺍْﻧﺘُ ِﺰ َﻋ ْ
                                                                                    ﺻ ﹸﻔﻬَﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧ ﹼ
                                                                                                  ُﻳ َﺮ ﱢ
ﺗﻜﻮّﻥ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﳌﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ،ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺘﺪﻟﺔ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻌﺾ ﲝﻴﺚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ
            ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﺫﺍ ﻣﺘﺎﻧﺔ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻓﻴﻔﻴﺾ ﺑﻘﻮّﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻩ)ﻅ(".
" ﺇﺫﺍ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺒﺖ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻓﺄﺑﻄﻠﺖ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺧﺎﺯﳍﺎ
ﺍﳋﺎﺹّ ،ﻓﻤﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﻫﻠﻮﺳﺔ؛
ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴّﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻬﻧﻠﻮﺱ ،ﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻟﺘﻈ ﹼﻞ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ
ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ؛ ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺄ ﺗﻜﻮّﻥ ﻣﻌﺎ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻋﺘﺪﺍﻝ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ
                       ﺹ ﻬﺑﺎ"
                            ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳋﺎﺯﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﳋﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﳋﺎ ّ
ﻭﺑﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﺰﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﺘﺎﻥ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﻌﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﻥ
ﺁﻟﻴّﺔ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﺎ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻟﻴﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻘﺎ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﻛﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﻥ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ُﻳ ْﻌَﺘ ﱡﺪ
                                                               ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟّﺘ ّ
ﲏ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺒﲔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ .ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ
                                            ﺑﻪ ،ﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺃﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺿﻤ ّ
ﰐ .ﻭﺍﻵﻥ ،ﻓﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﺸﺮﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ
                                    ﻭﺣﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺗﺒّﻴﻨّﺎ ﻧﻘﺎﺋﺼﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭ ﹼ
                                                  ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻋﺎ ّﻡ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﻟﲑﺿﻴﻨﺎ.
ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﺠﺰﻡ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﳘﺎ ﻳﺘّﺤﺪﺍﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ .ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ
ﻟﻠﺠﺰﻡ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻻ ﲤﺘﺎﺯ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻔﺮﺩ .ﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮّﺓ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ
ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ُﺣ ﹾﻜ ِﻤ ﱟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﲏ ﻋﺎﳌﲔ
ﺍﺛﻨﲔ ،ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ؛ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ،ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﻤﻞ
ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺫﻳﻨﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﲔ ،ﰲ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻭ ﺫﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)(١٢
ﻱ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ُﺗﺮَﻯ ﺳﻮﻑ ُﻳ ﹾﻘﻀَﻰ ﺑﺎﳊﻜﻢ ؟ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
                                                            ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺃ ّ
ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ،ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻭﲡﺪّﺩ ﻭﺗﺴﻠﺴﻞ
ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْﻌَﺘَﺒﺮِ ،ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺃﻭ ﻻﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳊﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﱂ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻗﺪ
ﻭﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺒﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ :ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻄﻮّﺭ .ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ
ﺕ .ﺍﳌﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ
                      ﻼ ِ
                        ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺧﺎﺭﺟ ّﻲ .ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱠﺘ َﻤﱡﺜ ﹶ
ﺍﺗّﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﹼﻼﺕ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ .ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﲣﻠﹼﺼﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺫﺟﺔ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﹶﺃﻣَﺎ َﺭ ﹶﺓ
ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ،ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ :ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﻳﺰﻝ َﺑ ْﻌﺪُ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ
                      ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ،ﳓﻦ ﻧﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲤﺜﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺇﺩﻣﺎﺟﻪ ﰲ ﺯﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺃﻡ ﻻ.
ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ " ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ " ﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ
ﺍﻟﺘّﻐﻴّﺮ .ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ " ﺻﻮﺭﺓ " ﻭﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ " ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ " .ﺑﻞ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ
ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻧﺴﻖ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﳏﺎﻳﺪﺓ .ﻓﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻮﺟﻮﺩ َﺑ ْﻌﺪُ
ﺼَﻨﻊُ ،ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻮﺭﻩ ﺗﺸﺬﻳﺐ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻠﲔ ﻭﻳﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﻏﲎ؛ ﻓﺠﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ُﺗ ﹶﻈ ﱡﻦ ﻟﻮﻗﺖ
                                                                       ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ُﻳ ْ
ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴّﺔ ﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻥ ُﺗ ْﻬ َﻤﻞﹸ؛ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ،ﻣﻜﺜﺖ ﻟﻮﻗﺖ
ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ،ﻓﻬﺎﻫﻲ ﺗُ ْﺪ َﻣﺞُ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨّﺴﻖ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﲤﻴﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ
            ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴّﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ .ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻂ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻧﺄﻳﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﳑّﺎ ﳓﻦ
                               ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋ ّﻲ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴّﺔ .ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗ ﹼ
ﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻧﺘﺒﻴّﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺎ
                                           ﻧﺎﺅﻭﻥ ﺍﻵﻥ  :ﻓﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺪﺱ ﺃ ّﻭ ﹼ
»ﻓﺘﺴﺎﺀﻟﺖ ﺃﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻄﺮ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻳﻬﻄﻞ ؟ ﻓﺤﺪّﺩﺕ ﲰﻌﻲ ،ﻭﻛﺮّﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺪﻳﺪ .ﻓﺎﳒﻠﻰ ﱄ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺕ ﰲ ﺩﻭﺍﻡ .ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺃﻣﺎﺭﺓ .ﹼﰒ ﺗﺴﺎﺀﻟﺖ ﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻑ ؟
"ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ﻫﻠﻮﺳﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ
                      ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻬﻧﻠﻮﺱ ،ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻐﺎﺩﺭ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ"
ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﺿﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﺪ ﺳﺒﲑ  :ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﺑﺼﺮﺕ
ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺎ ﻗﺪّﺍﻣﻲ ،ﻓﻌﺴﻰ ﺣﻜﻤﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻨﻌﲏ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺮﺅﻳﺎ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﺒﺢ ؛ ﻭﻣﻊ
ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻷﻇ ﹼﻞ ﺃﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺎ ﻗﺪّﺍﻣﻲ .ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻄﹼﻊ ﻭﻳﺒﲏ
ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺴﺎﻭﻕ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﳏﺎﻳﺪﺓ ؟ ﻓِﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣ ّﺪ
                                         ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ،ﻭﻋﻦ ﺣ ّﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ.
ﺢ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻭﻗﺎﺕ؛ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺟ ﹼﻞ
                                ﻀ ِﻊ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺼ ّ
                                                                        ﻭِﻟَﻨ َ
ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺟﺪﻭﻯ .ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﻭﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ،ﻓﺸﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ
ﺻﻮﺭ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧّﻪ ،ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺁﻥ ،ﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺸﺄ ﺣﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺮﺍﺽ ﺻﻐﲑﺓ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ
ﺗﺘﺤﺮّﻙ ﰲ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻫﺎ ،ﻭﺗﺼﻮّﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺌﻦّ ،ﻭ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﻴﺐ ،ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻭ ﻫﺬﻩ
ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺴّﺤﺮﻳّﺔ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﺩﱏ ﺗﺄﻣّﻞ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻛﺎﻥ َﺣ ﱡﻘﻬَﺎ ،ﰲ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻭﻫﻠﺔ ،ﺃﻥ
ُﺗ ْﺒ ِﻬَﺘﻨَﺎ .ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﹼﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻴﻞ ،ﻭﻟﻮ ﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣﻦ ،ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻨّﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ،ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻣﺘﺄﻛﹼﺪﺍ ﺃﻧّﲏ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻗﺒّﻌﱵ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺰﺍﻧﺔ ،ﻭﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ
ﻚ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ؟ ﻭﺃﺭﻓﻊ ﻋﻘﲑﰐ " ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻻ ﺗﺼﺪّﻗﻪ
                                       ﹶﻟﹶﺄ ِﺟ ُﺪﻫَﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺳ ّﻲ .ﹶﺃ ﹶﻓﻜﹸ ْﻨﺖُ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﺷ ّ
ﺴ ﱢﻠ َﻤﻪُ
        ﻼ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ .ﻓﺮﺑّﻤﺎ ﺃﹸْﻧ ِﻬﻚُ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻘﹼﺐ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ  :ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻣﺎ ﺃﺑﻘﻰ ﻣَُﺘ َ
                                                                                  ﻋﻴﻨﺎﻱ " ،ﻛ ﹼ
ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮﻩ ،ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺸّﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﺸﻘﹼﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﺎﺏ ﻷﳌﺲ
ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺟ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺟ ّﺪ ﻗﺎﺻﺮﺓ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ .ﻷﻧّﻪ ،ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻔﻠﺢ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ِﻟﺰَﺍﻣًﺎ ﺃﻥ
ﻓﺒَﺎ ﹶﻥ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳌﹼﺎ ﺃﻛﹼﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳍﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ
ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻓﺮﺯﳘﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ
ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﺻﻠﺐ :ﺇﺫ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ
ﻱ .ﳑّﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻮ ﱂ
                   ﻳﻔﺘﺮﻕ َﺑﱢﻴ َﻦ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻳﺼﲑ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺮﺯ ّ
ﺗﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ُﻣ ْﻌﻄﹶﺎﺓﹲ ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ،ﻓﻼ ﻗﻮّﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺑﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻷﻥ
ﲢﻘﹼﻘﻬﺎ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺒﻴّﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ :ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺑﺎﳉﺰﻡ ﻬﺑﻮﻳّﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ
ﺑﲔ ﺷﻴﺌﻦ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺰﻡِ ،ﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ
ﻟﻠﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ .ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﻔﻘﺖ
ﻱ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ
                          ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻕ ﰲ ﻣﺴﻌﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ّ
ﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻥ
      ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺘﻌﻴّﻦ ،ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻥ َﻳَﺘَﺒ ﱠﺮﹶﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﹼﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ .ﻭ َﺣ ِﺮ ﱞ
ﻚ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳌﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ
                                             ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻﻳﻨﺎﻟﻪ ﺷ ّ
ﰲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﺎﺭﻓﲔ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ )(١٧؛ ﻭ ﻋﺴﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﱄ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ
ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻼ ﺗﻮﺳّﻂ ﻣﺎﺩّﺓ ﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ) ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ :ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﱄ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺱ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ
                   ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ( ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﲪﻠﻴّﺔ(١٨).
" ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﻭﺓ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻫﻦ؛ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﻫﺖ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺿﻲ .ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻌﻤﻴﻢ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ...ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ُﻣَﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻘﻞﹲ،
              ﺴ ّﻲ)ﻝ(".
                      ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻗﺸﻔﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﻌﻘﻠﻨﺔ؛ ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ َﺑ ْﻌﺪُ َﻋ ﹾﻘ ﹶﻠَﻨﺔﹲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺃﻥ ﳒﺰﻡ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻓِﻨ َﻌ ﱠﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺰﻡ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻜﺎﻑ :ﺑﻞ
ﻳﻨﺒﻌﻲ ﺃﻥ َﻧ ﹸﻘ ﱠﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﺰﻡ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻣﺘّﺴﻖ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ "ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ".
ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻟﻮ ﹸﺃْﺑﻨَﺎ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ َﺧ ِﻔ ﱟﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺎﺋﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻓﻊ ﻋﻘﲑﺗﻨﺎ
ﺺ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺑﺴﻄﻪ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻧﺘﺒﻴّﻦ
                           ﺴُﺒﻨَﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺍﻟّﻨ ّ
                                                               ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻴﺘﺒﺎﻳﻨﺎﻥ .ﺇﺫ َﺣ ْ
ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻗﺪّﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﻣﺎﻳﺮﺳﻦ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﲝﺬﺍﻓﲑﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻓﻬﻮ
ﺴ ّﻲ " .ﻓﻠﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﻫﻞ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ
                                    ﻳﺰﻋﻢ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ "ﻋﻘﻠﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺫﺍﻙ ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻌﻼ ﻓﻜﺮﻳّﺎ ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ
ﻱ ؟ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ " ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﻳﺪ
                                 ﺴﻴّﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺎ ،ﻭﺻﻔﺮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻗﺼﺪ ّ
                                                                     ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﺣ ّ
ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻌﻤﻴﻢ " ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ :ﻫﻞ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺟﺰﺋﻴّﺔ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ؟ ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ﻫﺬﺍ
ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺘﺎ ّﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺤّﺔ :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺎ ﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﻌﻠ ّﻲ ﳓﻦ ﺳﻨﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺷﺮﺣﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ
ﻼ ِﺑ ِﻤ ﹾﺜ ٍﻞ ؟
              ﺁﺧﺮ .ﻭﻫﺐ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ،ﺃ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﳍﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ َﻣﹶﺜ ﹰ
ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺭﻯ " ﺩﻭﺍﺓ " ،ﻭ" ﻃﺎﻭﻟﺔ " ﻭ " ﻛﺮﺳ ّﻲ ﻟﻮﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ " ؛ ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﳉﺰﺋ ّﻲ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺼّﺒﻎ ﺍﳉﺰﺋ ّﻲ ﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺎﺵ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ُﺗ َﻐﺸﱢﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺳﻲّ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ
                                                                      ﻭﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺴ َﻢ ﱄ،
      ﺑﺬﻝ ﺟﻬﺪ ،ﻭﻻ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺍﺗّﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ .ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺳﺒﲑ ،ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍْﺑﺘُ ِ
ﻓﺘﺒﻴّﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﻒ؛ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭُ ِﻓ َﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻓﺘﺒﻴّﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ،ﺃﻭ ﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺣﺰﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﺰﺍﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﺎ.
" ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺧﺎ ّﻡ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻻ
            ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ"
                                   ﺷﻲﺀ ﳝﻨﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳒﻌﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳُ ْﻨ ِﺰﻝﹸ ﲝﺜﻪ ﰲ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ
ﺸﹸﺌﻬَﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ
                        ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ .ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺟﺴﺪ .ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ُﺗ ْﻨ ِ
ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ .ﻭﻟﻮ ﻃﻬّﺮﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ  :ﺇ ﹼﻥ
ﻟﻴﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ؟ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺮﺩّﻫﺎ ،ﻫﻲ
ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﺇﱃ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ .ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﳒﺪ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ ،ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﺗﺎﻥ ﺁﻧﻔﺔ
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮ .ﺃ ّﻣﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻟﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻧُ ْﺒ ِﻘ َﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﺳﻴﺘﻮﺟّﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ
ﱄ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ،ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ
                                              ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺩّﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻷ ّﻭ ﹼ
ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﲟﻨﺄﻯ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ .ﹶﻓ َﻤ ْﻦ
ﺫﹶﺍ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﻌﺮّﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﻻﺕ ﻭﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ
ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻜﺴّﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻀﻄﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﲤﻨﻊ ﳕﻮّﻩ ﻣﻨﻌﺎ ﻬﻧﺎﺋﻴّﺎ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺄ
                                                  ﺗﺘﺠﺪّﺩ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ؟
ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻟﻠﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﲑﺓ :ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟّﺘﺴﺎﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺸّﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﲔ
ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﻹﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﺟﺴﺪﻳّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻊ
ﻓﻬﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺃﹸﻭ ﹶﻻ ِﺀ ﻣﻀﻄﺮّﻭﻥ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ،ﺃﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ .ﻓﻬﻴﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﻬﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺃ ،ﺃﻭ ﺧﺎﻝ
ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻟﻠﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ :ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻗﻮﻳّﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ.
ﻓﺎﳋﺎﺻﻴّﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ " ﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ" ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ،ﻫﻲ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺛﺨﻮﻧﺔ .ﻭﺛﺨﻮﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ
ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ َﺗَﺘ ﹶﻘ ﱠﻮﻡُ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ .ﺫﻟﻚ ﳍﻮ ﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺍﺏ ﻟﻮ ﺗﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻻﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ .ﻓﻔﻲ ﻟﻮﻥ
ﺨَﺘ َﺰﻝﹸ
       ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﹼﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺮﺍﺀ ،ﺃﻭ ﺧﺸﻮﻧﺔ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﺍﳋﺸﺐ ﺗﻠﻚ ،ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻻﳏﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳُ ْ
ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻳُ ْﻨ ﹶﻔﺬﹸ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ،ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ُﻣ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺨﻮﻧﺔ ﰲ
ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟ ﹸﻘﺒُﻮِﻟﱠﻴ ِﺔ .ﺑﻞ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺨﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻟﻴّﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﺴﻴّﺔ.
    ﻭﺟﻬﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ .ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺑﻞ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺭَﺍ َﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﲏ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ؛ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺯﺍﺩ ﺇﱃ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺃﻗ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ.
                                   ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻓﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺑﻂ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺨﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻟﻴّﺔ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻟﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﹼﺔ
ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨّﺸﺄﺓ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻔﻆ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ُﻣ ْﻌﻄﹶﻰ:
ﺨَﺘ َﺰﻝﹸ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻤ ّﺮ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ .ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ،ﻭﻋﻠﻰ
                                                                           ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻤ ّﺮ ﻻ ﻳُ ْ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍ ﻋﺎﻃﻼ .ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ ؟ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻﻳﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ
ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻃﻦ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﻪ ِﻋ ﱠﻠ ﹶﺔ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻩ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻣﻦ ِﺗ ﹾﻠﻘﹶﺎِﺋ ِﻪ ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻥ
ﻳﻐﻴﺐ .ﺑﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑﻩ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﻩ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺑﻪ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ " ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ
" ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺗﻨﺴﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ،ﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻣﺎ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺑﺘّﺔ  .ﻓﻬﻲ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛ ﱠﻢ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﻔﹼﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺬﺍﻬﺗﺎ ،ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ.
ﺾ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻋَﺎﹶﻟﻢٍ،
                             ﺤ ِ
                               ﺴﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻘﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ َﻣ ْ
                                                       ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﺿﻊ ﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺣ ّ
ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻠﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ ﳛﺪّﺩ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﺎﻃﻠﺔ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻮﻋﺎﱂ ،ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺎ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ :ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ِﺇﻣﱠﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻨﺴﻘﻪ ﺑﺮﻣّﺘﻪ ،ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ
ﻧﺮﻓﻀﻪ ﺑﺮﻣّﺘﻪ .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﳌﹼﺎ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻭﻗﻊ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ
ﱐ ﻭﺣﻠﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻃﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ
                                                     ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎ ﹼ
ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴّﺔ .ﻓﻴﺸﺒﻪ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﺴﺐ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ " ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺎ " ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ
ﳚﺰﻡ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻻﺑ ّﺪ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﱪّﺃ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻟّﺘﱪّﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺍﺀ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ
                           ﻫﻴﻮﻡ .ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ ،ﻫﻮ ﻻﻣﻨﺪﻭﺣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ُﻧ ِﻘ ﱠﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣ ّ
ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﺼﻴﺺ ،ﳓﻦ ﻧﻘ ّﺮ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﲡﺪّﺩ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘ ﹼﻞ
ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﲡﺪّﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺃﻣﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺭﻯ ﻗﺒّﻌﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺘﻘﻴّﺪ ﺑﻨﻤﻂ ﻣﺎ
                         ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻃﻒ ،ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺭﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻮ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺳ ّﻲ .ﻓﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻫﻮ
      ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ .ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺒّﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﲏ)) (٢٥ﻥ( .ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ
                ﺍﻟﺘّﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﱄ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻭﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺴّﻴﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣ ّ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ )ﻩ( ﻟﻴﺲ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴ ّﺪﺩ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺪّﺩﻳّﺔ؛ ﺑﻞ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻓﻸﻧّﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ "
ﺹ
ﻳﺘﺒﻴّﻨﻬﺎ " ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﲑ .ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ،ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘّﺒﻴّﻦ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻫﻴﺌﺎﺗﻪ ﺧﺎ ّ
                                ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟ ّﻲ.
ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﺄﰐ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻧﻈ ّﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳُ ْﻨ ِﻜﺮُ َﺑﱢﻴ َﻦ
ﺍﻹﻧﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺣﺴّﻲ ﻭﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ " ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ " .ﻓﻮﺍﺣﺪ
ﺼ َﺮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻳّﺔ
                ﻣﻦ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ :ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻃﻠﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻳﺼﲑ ِﻟﺰَﺍﻣًﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧُ ﹾﻘ ِ
ﺖ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ
      ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺪﺍﻋﻰ ِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ .ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻧُ ﹾﺜِﺒ َ
ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﺴﻴﻖ ،ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺳﻴﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻴّﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺴﺪّﺩﺓ:
ﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﲔ ﱂ ﳜﺘﺎﺭﻭﺍ .ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻧّﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺛﺒﺘﻮﺍ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ،ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻳﻔﻴﺾ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﺑﻘﻴﻤﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺟﺰﺍﺀ؛ ﻭﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﺴﺪّﺩ ﻭﳜﺘﺎﺭ
ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ :ﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﳍﻮ ﻛﺎﻑ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻘﻮّﺽ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﺻﺪﻕ
                                                                                     ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﻬﻢ.
ﻱ ﳓﻮ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ
           ﻭﺠﻤﻟﻴﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻴﺐ ،ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺄﻥ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺻﻮﺭﻩ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ّ
ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ؟ ﺃﺑﺄﻥ ﺗُ َﻌ ﱠﻠ َﻖ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ ،ﺃﻡ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺘﻪ ؟ ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻟﻨﺠﺪ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴّﺔ .ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺗﺴﺎﺀﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ :ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺪّﺩ ﺍﻷﺭﻭﺍﺡ
ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﳌﺼﻠﺤﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘّﻼﺻﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ ؟ ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻀﻊ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ
ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻻ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎﻬﺗﺎ :ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺪّﺩ ﺍﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻥ
ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﻋﻨﺎ ،ﰲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ،ﳓﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻓﺒﻨﺎﺕ
ﻭﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﻜﲑ.
ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺷﺪّﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺫﻫﺒﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﱐ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﻣﻀﻄﺮّﻭﻥ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻄﻴّﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬﺭّﺍ ﹼ
                                                               ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﺒﻌﺎﺛﻴّﺔ ﺣ ّ
ﲏ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻼﺋﻢ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺯ
                         ﻭﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴّﺔ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺫﻫ ّ
ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻏﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﳏﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻤﺤ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻓﺮﺿﻴّﺎﺕ ﻛﻔﺮﺿﻴّﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﻭﻛﺎ ﻭﻭﺭﻧﻚ  :ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧّﻪ
ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻲ .ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻣﻮﺗﻴﻲ ،ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬ ﻣﺎﺭﻱ ،ﺳﻨﺔ )١٩٠٨ﻭ(
                                                                                    ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ:
" ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻌﺎ .ﻭﺫﻫﺐ
ﻋﻨّﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺾ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﻲ ،ﻭﳏﺾ ﺍﺗّﻔﺎﻗﻲ ،ﻓﹶﺄ َﺧ ﹾﺬﻧَﺎ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻓﺸﻴﺌﺎ ﻧﻔﺼﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ
ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ .ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ﻣﱰﻭﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ،
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻮّﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ،ﻟﻴﺲ
ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﻬﺑﺎﻡ :ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ﻫﻮ
ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﲢﺖ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﻗﺺ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ؛ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﹼﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ "
ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ " .ﻭﳓﻦ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻓﻬﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻔﺮﺿﻴّﺔ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ
ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺪّﻣﺎﻍ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﺘﻐﻞ ﻛﺎﻟﻘﻠﺐ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺒﺪ ،ﰲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ؛ ﺃﻡ
ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺗﺘّﺼﻞ ﺑﻼ ﲡﺰّﺋﻴّﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻡ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻻﺛﻨﲔ
ﻱ ﳓﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﻄﻠﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ؟ ﺃﲟﻌﲎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ " ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘ ّﻲ
                                                                            ﻣﻌﺎ ؟ ﹼﰒ ﺑﺄ ّ
" ،ﻭ " ﲡﺮﻳﺪ " ﻧﻈﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ؟ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﺴﻴﻠﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ .ﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ
ﺖ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ
                                 ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺇّﻧﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﺗ ّﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺳﺒﲑ .ﺃﻡ ﻫﻞ ﺃﹸْﺑ ِﻄ ﹶﻠ ْ
ﻫﻲ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻭﻋﻴﻴّﺔ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ؟ ﺃﻡ ﻫﻞ ﻋﺴﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﳌﻨﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﱪﻭﻛﺎ ﳑّﺎ ﻳﺮﻭﻡ ﺇﺑﻄﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻮﺗﻴﻲ ؟ ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺗﻴﻲ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻧﻔﺲ  :ﻭﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻓﻊ
ﻚ ﺃﻧّﻪ
     ﻋﻨﻪ ﺿ ّﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﺤﻰ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻠﻴﻠ ّﻲ ﻟﱪﻭﻛﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺎﻥ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﳊ ّﻲ .ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷ ّ
ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻄﻮّﺭ :ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮّﺭ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺗﻄﻮّﺭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ .ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺗﻴﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ
ﱄ .ﺑﻞ ،ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﻧﻔﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ
                                      ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﺎﻥ ،ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳛﺘﻔﻞ ﺑﺸﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻷ ّﻭ ﹼ
ﻋﺎﻣّﺔ ﻭﳎﺮّﺩﺓ .ﻓﺘﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﲣﻴّﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻭﻡ ﺃﻥ
ﻳﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻋﻠﻤﻴّﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ .ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻮﺗﻴﻲ ،ﻓ ِﻠ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺷﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
                                             *
                                           * *
ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺁﻻﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﹼﻟﱵ ﺃﺩّﺗﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳُ ْﺒ ِﻄ ﹶﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﺑﻄﺎﻻ ﻛ ﹼﻠﻴّﺎ.
"ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺳﺎﺫﺟﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ ﻃﻔﻮﻟﻴّﺔ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻃﻔﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﻧّﻨﺎ ﳓﺘﻔﻆ ﰲ
                       ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺑﻨﺴﺦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ،ﻭﺑﺄﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ،ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ،ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻔﹼﺤﻬﺎ)ﺃﺃ(".
ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ :ﻭﻣﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ
                                                            ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ(٣١) .
"ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﲣﻴّﻞ ،ﻧﻼﻗﻲ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺿﺮﻭﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻞ :ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲّ ،ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳّﺔ،
                                                                              ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ)ﺏ ﺏ(".
ﻭﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻓﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻧُ ْﺪ ِﺭ َﻙ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻜﻢ .ﻓﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻣﺎ،
ﲟﺘﺰ ،ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﻫّﻤﺖ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺭﺃﺕ ﺟﻴﺸﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﻠﹼﻮﺭ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻝ .ﺇﻧّﻬﺎ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻮﻫّﻤﺖ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺭﺃﺗﻪ،
ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﱂ ﺗﺮﻩ .ﺑﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ،ﻭﺃﻟﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﺕ :ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺟﻴﺶ.
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ " َﺗ َﻤﱡﺜﻞﹲ " ﻟﻠﺠﻴﺶ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺫﻫﺎﻥ .ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺳﻘﺎﻁ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﹼﻮﺭ ،ﻭﱂ ﻧﺼﻬﺮ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺠﻠﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩّﻳﺎ ﻷﻥ
                                                         ﻧﻌﺠﻞ ﺑﺎﳊﻜﻢ ،ﻭﻷﻥ ﻧﺴﻴﺊ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻭﻳﻞ.
ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺴﻄﻨﺎﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ،ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ،ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺭﺃﻱ
ﰐ .ﻓﺂﻻﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ،ﻣﺜﻞ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴّﺔ ﻬﺑُ ِﻮﱠﻳ ِﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ
                                                           ﱐ ﺍﻟﺪّﻛﺎﺭ ﹼ
                                                                     ﺁﻻﻥ ،ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼ ﹼ
ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻮﻳّﺔ ﺟﺬﺭﻳّﺔ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃﻧّﻪ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻔﻜﹼﺮﺍ ﺃﻟﻄﻒ ﻧﻈﺮﺍ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﺪﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻫﻢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺳﻠﻒ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻬﺑﺘﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ .ﺇﺫ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺰﻋﻢ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ،ﹼﰒ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈ ّﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ
ﺕ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻫﻲ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ
                            ﺤ َﺪﺛﹶﺎ ِ
                                    ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ .ﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ُﻣ ْ
ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻛﺎﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺍﺏ ،ﺃﻓﻠﺴﻨﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺳﻨﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻀﻠﺔ ﺑﻘﻠﺒﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺪﺃ ؟
ﻓﺄﻥ ﻧﻔﺮّﻕ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﺄ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﺗّﺨﺬﻩ ﺳﺒﲑ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ.
ﺴ ّﻲ " ﺍﳌﺒﻨﻌﺚ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﻮﺭ ،ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻟﻪ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍ.
                                       ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ،ﻓﺴﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ " ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻓﻌﻼﻡ ،ﻟﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ،ﻻ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ  ،ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ،ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ،ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ
ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﱂ ﻧﻌﺪ ﳏﺘﺎﺟﲔ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻀﻊ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ " ﺿﺮﺏ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻂ " ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﻓﻠﻴﺲ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻣﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ.
           ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻟﻸﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﻭﻻ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺀ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ،ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣ ّ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻴﻪ
                                          ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳓﻦ ﳓﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
                                                                             ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ.
" ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻔﻜﹼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﺀ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻧّﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﹼﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﺀ ،ﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ
ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻫﻲ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﻼﺀﻡ ﻣﻊ
ﺍﻷﻭﺿﺎﻉ .ﻓﻠﻮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﺗﱰﹼﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺮ ،ﻓﺴﲑ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﻦ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ
ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺭﺍﻫﺎ ،ﻣﺜﻞ ﺭﻓﹼﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺀ ،ﻭﺭﻛﺎﻡ ﻓﺤﻢ ،ﻭﺳﻔﻦ ﻭﻗﺎﻃﺮﺍﺕ ،ﻭﺑﺮﺍﻣﻴﻞ .ﻭﻟﻮ
ﺃﻧﺎ ،ﺣﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ،ﻗﺪ ﺷﺮﺩﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺸّﺮﻭﺩ ،ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﺃﻃﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﻇ ﹼﻞ ﺧﻄﺎﻑ .ﺑﻞ ﻟﻦ
ﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﻭﺿﻌﻲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ؛ ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﻴﻘﹼﻈﺎ ﻟﺼﻮﻥ
                                                          ﻳﻠﺒﺚ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻗﻮ ّ
ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺼّﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺯﻟﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺪﺣﺮﺝ ،ﻭﺗﺼ ّﺮ ﻭﺗﺼﻄﻚّ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﺒﺎﻫﻲ
   ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺮﺗﺎﺽ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﹸﺃ ِﻗ ﱡﺮ ﰲ ﺫﻫﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘّﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺔ.
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺣﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺸ ّﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﰐ ؟ ﻓﻠﻮ ﺃﻧﺎ
ﺗﻔﺤّﺼﺖ ﺟﻴّﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ،ﻟﻮﺟﺪﺕ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ،ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺎ ﱂ ﺃﻛﻦ ﻗﺪ
ﶈﺘﻪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣﻦ ،ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﺀ ،ﺃﻭ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻨّﻲ ،ﺃﻭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ،
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻠﺘﻔﺎ ﱄ ،ﻟﱪﻫﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰّﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻘﻴّﺎ ﺇﱄﹼ ،ﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻛﻠﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ ،ﲪﻮﻟﺔ ﺛﺮﻳّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻣﺎﻝ
ﻭﺍﳋﺸﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐ .ﻓﺈﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺧﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ،ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺗﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻠﻢ،
                                                        ﻻ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﳑّﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﺰﻋﻢ.
ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻧّﲏ ﻗﺪ ﲢﺎﻭﺭﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ ﱄ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ .ﻭﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﺴﲑ ﻫﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻫﺪﻯ ﺑﲔ
ﺠ ﹶﻠﺐُ ﻣﻦ
        ﺴَﺘ ْ
            ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮ .ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺄﻟﲏ ﻫﻞ ﻋﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺠﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﻛﻨﻮﺯﺍ ﻛﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗُ ْ
  ﺍﳋﺰﻳﻨﺔ ،ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ .ﻭﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ ،ﻋﺮﺿﺖ ﳋﺎﻃﺮﻱ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ
ﻚ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﺠﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺼﺎﻓﲑ .ﻓﺬﻛﺮﺕ ﻟﻪ
                                             Byrrhﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷ ّ
ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻓﺮﻁ :ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻻﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ .ﻓﺄﻧﺎ
ﺠ ﹶﻞ ﰲ
     ﺃﲡﻮّﻝ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻣﺴﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻈﻠﻢ؛ ﻓﺸﻌﺮﺕ ﺑﺎﳋﻮﻑ ،ﻭﺧﻮﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻳُ َﻌ ﱢ
ﺣﻜﻤﻲ ﻭﳚﻌﻠﲏ ﺁﺧﺬ ﺟﺬﻉ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ :ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ
ﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
               ﺁﻻﻥ .ﻭﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻜﻢ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺰﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ّ
ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﻤّﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻦ ،ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﻴﻤّﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ
ﺿ َﻊ
   ﱄ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭُ ِ
                      ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ .ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﻴﺎ ﹼ
ﹶﺃ ﱠﻭ ﹶﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌ ّﻲ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺼّﻐﲑﺓ،
ﺗﻌﻘﺒﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻈﺎﺕ ﻓﺠﺎﺋﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﻣﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻠ ّﻲ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﺷ ّﺪ ﻭﺿﻮﺣﺎ
ﻋﻨﺪ ﺁﻻﻥ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﺴّﻲ ﻣﻨﺒﻌﺚ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ
ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ .ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ،ﻓﺎﳊﻜﻢ ـ ﻟﻮ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺬﺍﻬﺗﺎ ـ
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﻳﻘﻴﻨﻴّﺔ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺭﺩّﻫﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﳓﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ
ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﺴّﻴﺎ ،ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻜﻮّﻥ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﺴّﻲ ﻣﺎ :ﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﻤﻨّﻰ ﰲ
ﻱ .ﻭﻟﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﺎﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ
                                ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﺍﻟﻨّﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﺪ ّ
ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻠﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ َﺗ َﻌﱡﻴِﻨﻬَﺎ ﺍﻟﺘّﺎﻡ ،ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ
ﻟﻠ ّﺮ ّﻭﻳّﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﻋﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺘﺮﺯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻏﻼﻁ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻭﻣﺄﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ؟ ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ
ﰊ ﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺭﺯﺑﻮﺭﻍ ،ﻭﻻ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﶈﺾ ﻭﺍﺠﻤﻟﺮّﺩ ﺑﻘﺎﺩﺭﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺭﺿﺎﺋﻨﺎ  :ﺇﺫ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ
                                                                            ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮ ّ
ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻧّﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﱪّﺁ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺒّﻘﺔ .ﺃﻓﻼ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ
                                                                 ﻫﻨﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ؟
) (2ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ ﻬﺑﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺼﺪﻫﺎ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ
ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻬﺪﺍﻑ  ، l'objet viséﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﲟﺎﻫﻲ ﻫﻴﻮﱃ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻬﺪﺍﻑ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﺳﺘﻬﺪﺍﻓﺎ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺎ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﻻ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ.
) (4ﻭﺃﻫ ّﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ
ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ؛ ﻭﻟﻜ ّﻦ ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺔ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺆﻛﹼﺪ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﻤﺎﻡ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟ ُﻮ ِﻋ ﱢﻲ
ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺇﺗﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﺍﳍﺎﻡّ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺬﹼﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ
ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤ ﹼﻘ ّﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻄﺎﻟﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ
             ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﻠﹼﻤﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ؟
) (5ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﻢ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ
ﻋﲔ ﻫﻮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ُﺗ ْﻌﻄِﻲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ
ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻭﻻ ﲣﻠﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ .ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﻮﻳّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
     ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳّﺔ ﻭﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴّﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ.
ﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺣﺼﻮﻻ ﺁﻟﻴﺎ
                                                                   ) (8ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻮ ﺻ ّ
ﺴﻴّﺔ .ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ
          ﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣ ّ
                                           ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ؛ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣ ّ
ﺴ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃﺿﻌﻒ ﻭ ﺃﻗ ﹼﻞ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ
                                                                      ﻭِﻟ َﻤﻜﹶﺎ ِﻥ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﻣﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭ َﻣ ْﻌﻠﹸﻮﻡٌ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺿﻌﻒ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻓﻌﻪ .ﻓﻜﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛ ّﻲ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﻱّ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﻛﻠﹼﻤﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﻌﺎ ﻭﺗﻨﺎﺯﻋﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ
ﺍﻵﻟﻴّﺔ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻫﻴﻮﻡ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺟﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻘﺾ ﻬﺑﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺠّﺔ،
ﺴ ّﻲ ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﺪّﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ؛ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ
                                                                    ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﳓﻦ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻻﳔﻠﻂ ﺑﲔ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛ ّﻲ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ﺟﺪّﺍ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ،ﺃﻭ
                                                                                     ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻛﱪ ؟
) (9ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﲏ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ،ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻻﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻨّﻲ ﻗﺪ ﲣﻴّﻠﺖ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ
ﺃﻥ ﺃﹸ ْﺩ ِﺭ َﻙ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﺎ ،ﺑﻞ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺃﺧﺬﻱ ﻟﻠﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻲ ﻟﻠﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ
ﻑ ﰲ ﺧﺎﺻّﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ différence
                            ﻼ ٍ
                              ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ .ﻓﺎﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎ ْﺧِﺘ ﹶ
 ،dans leﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ                 caractère de l'acte
ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ .ﻓﻠﻤّﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺁﺧﺬ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﺃﻓﻌﻞ ﻓﻌﻼ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺍ،
                                  ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺍ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺎ.
ﺴﻴّﺔ ،ﳏﺘﻮﻯ
         ) (12ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗُﻮ ِﻛﻞﹸ ﺠﻤﻟﺮّﺩ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊ ّ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻭﻭﻭﻗﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ .ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺛﺎﻥ
ﻳﺘﺄﺳّﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﺍ ﹸﳌ ْﻌﻄِﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﲔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ﲝﺴﺐ
           ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﲔ ،ﺃﻳّﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﻭﺃﻳّﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ.
) (13ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳّﻬﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗَُﺒﱢﻴﻦُ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﻬﻧﺎﺋﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ.
) (17ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺸﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻬﺑﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳُ ْﻌ َﺮﻑُ
                                                   ﰲ.
                                                    ﻛﻤﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻌﺮ ﹼ
) (18ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗُ ﹾﺄ َﺧﺬﹸ ﺃﺧﺬﺍ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻻ
ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﻲّ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ِﺑﻤَﺎِﻧ ٍﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺣﻜﻤ ّﻲ.
) (21ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺴﺘﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺎﻷﻭﱃ
                                                   ﺇﱃ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﺴﺘﻤ ّﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻﻬﻧﺎﻳﺔ.
) (22ﺃﻱ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﰲ ﺳﻠﻮﻛﻬﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻜﻲ ﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﺸ ّﻖ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱّ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺛ ﱠﻢ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﲢﺖ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳊﺘﻤﻴّﺔ ﺍﹼﻟﱵ ﺗﻀﺒﻂ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲّ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ
              ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻳﺎﺗُﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ُﻣﻌِﻴﻨًﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ ؟
) (23ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺒﻴﻨﻮﺯﺍ ،ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ،ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ،ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ.
ﺴ ّﻲ
   ) (24ﻭﻫﻲ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﲔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻳﻀﻄﺮّﻩ ﻷﻥ
                                                     ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳌﹸ ِﻌ ِ
                                                                              ﻳﺘﺒﻴّﻨﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﻫﻮ؟
) (30ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﺗّﻔﻘﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﰲ
ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴّﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﻃﻞ ،ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﺜﺮّﻭﺍ ﻭﺫﻫﺐ ﺃﻣﺮﻫﻢ
ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻴّﻨﻮﺍ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻤّﲔ ؛ ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﻋﻔﻮﻳّﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺄﺛﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﻳﻬﻢ ،ﻋﻄﺎﻟﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ ؟ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﺒّﻂ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ
ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻟﲔ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺛﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺑﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﺼﻴﻞ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ.
                            ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ،ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴ ّﻲ ﺁﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺍﻵﻥ.
) (31ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺷﺒﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﳌﹼﺎ ﻋﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﻷﺭﺍﺀ ﺳﺒﲑ،
ﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ
                 ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺳﺒﲑ ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺁﻻﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺳﺒﲑ ﻛﺎﻥ ُﻳ ِﻘ ﱡﺮ ﲟﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺧﺎ ّ
ﺴ ّﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺁﻻﻥ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
                                                             ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺣ ّ
ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻓﻌﻼ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺍ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻻ ﻫﻮ
ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺧﺎﺻّﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻗ ﹼﻞ
    ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﳐﻠﹼﻔﺎﺕ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ .ﻓﺎﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺁﻻﻥ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﲑ.
ﻭﺍﻋﻠﻢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ َﺗ ﱠﺪِﺛﺮُ ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺤﺒﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ .ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ
ﺃﻣّﻬﺎﺕ ﻣﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﻊ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻣﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻣﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻐﻴﲑﻩ.
ﻭﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ،ﳚﻮﺯ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ .ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ
ﺲ ﻭﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ،ﹼﰒ ﻳﺒﺘﺪﺃ
                 ﺤﱡﻴ ِﺮ ﺑﲔ ﲡﺎﺭﺏ ﺫﺍﺕ ﹶﻟ ْﺒ ٍ
                                          ﳜﻄﻮ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﻋﻤﻼﻗﺔ ،ﺇﺫﺍ ﻫﻮ ﲣﻠﹼﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﱠﺘ َ
ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺠﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﲝﺎﺛﻪ .ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺳﻠﻔﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮّﺅﻳﺔ ،ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ
ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺿﻤﻨﻴّﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ،ﻭﺃّﻧﻨﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻣﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺨﻠﹼﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺒّﻘﺔ َﻳ ْﺮﻗﹶﻰ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ .ﺃﻓﻠﻢ
ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﺮﻉ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻟﻠﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ )ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻄﺎﻥ
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ؟ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﺎُﺗﺮَﻯ ﳍﺬﺍ
                                      ﻱ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ( ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺴﺎﺅﻝ  :ﺃ ّ
                                                                   ﱯ ﺃﻭ ﺃ ّ
                                                                          ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﻳ ّ
ﳘﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ،ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ
                                                              ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﳍﺎ ّﻡ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺃ ﹼ
ﳓﺪّﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﺎُﺗﺮَﻯ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﰱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ؟
ﻭﻫﻠ ّﻢ ﺟﺮّﺍ .ﻭﺑﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺧﱪﻳّﺔ ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺋﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻳﺪﻭﺳﻴّﺔ.
ﻭﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ِﻋ ْﺒﻨَﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪَ ،ﺧ ﹶﻄﺄﹰ ،ﻣﻌﺎﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺋﻴّﺔ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ،ﻋﻠﻰ
ﰊ؛
 ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻭﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻧﻔﻌﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ :ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﲡﺮ ّ
ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ،ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ،ﻓﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆ ّﺳﺲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺃﻳﺪﻭﺳ ّﻲ.
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﲟﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﺑﺄﻥ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﲟﻨﻬﺞ :ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﰲ "
ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ " ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﳉﺪّﺓ .ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ
ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻋﺮﺿﺎ ،ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺘّﻔﻖ ﻣﻌﻪ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﺮﻯ ،ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ .ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ،
ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺷﺮﻭﺣﻪ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺗﻌﻤﻴﻘﺎ ﻭﺗﻜﻤﻠﺔ .ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﳍﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ
                                                                                 ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪﺓ.
ﻓﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ،ﻫﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺔ .ﻓﻴﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ ،ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ
ﺟﺬﺭﻳّﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻳّﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ )ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺜﻨﺎﺀ
ﻱ ( ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻕ .ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻋﺎﺩ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ
                                                                  ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺮّﻭﻭ ّ
ﺾ ﺃﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍ ﹸﳌﺤَﺎَﻳِﺜﱠﻴ ِﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ
                                        ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻣﺮّﺍﺕ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻠﻞ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻏﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ َﺗ ْﻨ ِﻘ َ
ﺗﺮﻭﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲟﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ) ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴّﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠ ّﻲ ( .ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ،ﻻﳏﺎﻟﺔ ،ﳏﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ
ﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ  :ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻄﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ
ﺗﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣَُﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻖُ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ
ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺪﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﱠﺒﺲ " ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﻮ ﲤﺜﹼﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ " ﻓﻘﺪ ﺫﻭّﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ
ﺤﺼَﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻠﻮّﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺴﻴّﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﺍﺭﻳّﺔ ،ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ،
                                                                  ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﻻ ُﺗ ْ
ﺼﻞﹲ ﻣﻦ
     ﺤ ﱠ
       ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ " ﲤﺜﹼﻼﺕ " .ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ِﺑﹶﺄ َﺧ َﺮ ٍﺓ ﻭﻛﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ُﻣ َ
ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ﻭﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺫﺍﺗﻴّﺔ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ
                                                ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺃ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ ﻋﻨّﺎ(٥).
ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺼﺮﻳّﺔ ﺃﻭ ﳌﺴﻴّﺔ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ،
ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ﺍﶈﺎﻳﺜﺔ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ  :ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ
ﻱ
ﻳﻘﺼﺪﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ِﺑَﺘ َﻮ ﱡﺳ ِﻄﻬَﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟ ّﻲ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ ّ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﻭﻋﻴﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﲪﺮ .ﺑﻞ ﺍﻷﲪﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﻒ
ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻕ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﰐ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ،ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻚّ ،ﻝ"ﺷﺒﻴﻪ " ﺑﺎﻻﲪﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻴﺲ
ﻫﻮ ﺇ ﹼﻻ " ﺷﺒﻪ ﺃﲪﺮ " :ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴّﺔ ،ﻭ "ﺍﳍﻴﻮﱃ " ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ
                                       ﺷﺄﻬﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﱃ ﻃﻠﺒﺎ ﻻﻗﺘﻨﺎﺹ ﺍﻷﲪﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ.
" ﳚﺐ ﺃ ﹼﻻ ﻧﻐﻔﻞ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ " ﺗﻠﻮّﺡ" ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻮﻥ،
ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻞ)ﺭ( ) ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ " ﺍﻟﺘّﻤﺜﹼﻞ " ( ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎ
                ﺟﺬﺭﻳّﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﻥ ،ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﹼﻞ ،ﺃﻱ ،ﻋﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻛﻴﻔﻴّﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ).ﺯ("
ﺴ ٍﺮ َﺟﻠِﻴ ﹶﻞ
            ﻭﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻔﺾ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ .ﻟﻜﻨّﻨﺎ ﹶﻟﻨُ ﹶﻘ ﱢﺪﺭُ ِﺑﻴُ ْ
ﻀ ِﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻋﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ .ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ِﺑ ْﻨَﻴ ﹰﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ
                                                                                      ﺍﻟ ﹶﻔ ْ
ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﻃﻼ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻭﻋﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻴّﺎ ﺫﺍ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﲟﻮﺿﻮﻉ
ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻕ .ﻓﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻔﻮﺳﻔﺮﺳﻴّﺔ ﻣﺒﻬﻤﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﹼﻔﻪ ﰲ ﻭﻋﻴﻲ
ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻲ ﻟﺒﻄﺮﺱ :ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺫﻱ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﻪ ،ﺑﺼﺪﻳﻘﻲ ﺑﻄﺮﺱ،
ﻭﺍﻋﻠﻢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺭﺷﺎﺩﺍﺕ :ﻭﲝﻖّ ،ﻓﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ
ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺍﲰﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳓﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﻬﺪﺍﻓﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ،ﻓﻼ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻗﺪ ﳝﻨﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ
ﻧﺸﺒّﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ )ﺃﻟﻮﺍﺡ ،ﻭﺭﺳﻮﻡ ﻭﺻﻮﺭ ﻓﻮﺗﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴّﺔ ( ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻴّﺔ.
ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺖ ﻟﻠﻔﺼﻞ ﻓﺼﻼ ﺟﺬﺭﻳّﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ
ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺮ ّﺩ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴﻴّﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﳎﺮّﺩ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﺩﻳّﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ .ﻭِﺑﹶﺄ َﺧ َﺮﺓٍ،
ﻓﺒﺤﺴﺐ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ،ﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ،ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ،ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻭّﻝ ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻮﺗﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴّﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺮﺍﺑﻂ :ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ،ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻻﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ،
ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ ﻟﻜﻮﻬﻧﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻮﺗﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴّﺔ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﺟّﺐ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻟﻔﻬﻤﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻠ ّﻢ ﺟﺮّﺍ .ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻦ
ﺸﱢﺒ َﻪ ﻭﻗﻮﻓﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ
                ﺃﳓﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺎ ﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻴﻮﻻﱐﹼ ،ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧُ َ
ﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺄﺧﺬﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﺬﺍ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺎ ﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ " ﻧﻔﺴ ّﻲ " .ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﻨﻮﻋﲔ
                                                                  ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟ ّ
ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ " ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻠ ّﻲ " .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﺎﻫﺎ ﲟﻮﺿﻊ
" ﻓﻠﻨﻌﺘﱪ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺩﻭﺭﺭ ،ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸّﻴﻄﺎﻥ .ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ
            ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩّﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻣَُﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻘﹸﻪُ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ " ﺍﻟﺮّﺳﻢ " ،ﺃﻱ ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﳎﻠﹼﺪ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺫﺍﻙ(٩ )".
ﺴﻮﺩﺍﺀ،
     ﹼﰒ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ،ﳓﻦ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻠﻜﻢ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﻁ ﺍﻟ ّ
ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺼّﻐﲑﺓ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻠﻮّﻧﺔ ،ﻳﻈﻬﺮﻟﻨﺎ " ﻓﺎﺭﺱ ﳑﺘﻂ ﻓﺮﺳﺎ " ،ﻭ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ" ﺍﳌﻮﺕ " ،ﻭ"
ﺍﻟﺸّﻴﻄﺎﻥ " .ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﱄﹼ ،ﻻ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺻﺪﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ :
ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺻﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺘﻤﺜﹼﻠﺔ " ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ " ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺻﺪﻳﻦ
                        ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻠ ﹶﺔ " ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺱ ﺑﻠﺤﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻀﻤﻪ ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ).ﺹ("
                                                                    ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺎﺕ " ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ َ
ﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺯﺍﺩﻫﺎ
         ﺗﻠﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﻀﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻻﺷ ّ
ﺠ ﱠﺰﹶﺃ ﹰﺓ.
         ﺗﺪﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻣُ َ
ﻭﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻋﺎﺩ ﻬﺑﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺸّﻜﻮﻙ ﱂ
ﻓﻠﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺴﻮﻑ ﻧﻼﻗﻲ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﻬﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﹼﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﻗﻔﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ
                                                                                    ﺍﻵﻧﻒ.
ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ،ﺃﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﺰﻝ ،ﻓﻴﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧّﻪ ،ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺎﺩّﻬﺗﻤﺎ
ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ،ﻓﺴﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻌﺐ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻗﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﻣﻨﻬﺎ .ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻌﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﲔ " َﻣ ْﻌﻘﹸﻮ ﹶﻓ ْﻴ ِﻦ " ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﱂ ﻳﻔﻘﺪﻩ .ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ
ﻭﻋﻲ ــ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﲎ .ﻭﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﻘﻄﻊ ﻫﻮ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺣﺼﻮﻻ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺍ ،ﻓﻨﻤﻴّﺰ
ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟ ِﻔ ْﻌ ِﻠﱠﻴ ِﺔ ﻟﻠﺘّﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻲ )ﺍﳍﻴﻮﱃ ﻭ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ُﺗﺤِﻴﻴﻬَﺎ (،
ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ " ،ﺍﳌﻌﲎ " ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ .ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺴّﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻴّﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻤّﻰ
ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﺯ ،ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺒﺴﻪ ﻳﺴﻤّﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻮّﺍﻡ .ﻓﻤﺜﻼ " ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﹸ ْﺪ َﺭ ﹶﻛﺔﹸ " ﻫﻲ ﻧﻮّﺍﻡ
" ﻛ ﹼﻞ " ﻣﻌﻴﺶ " ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﹼﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ﻷﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﻈﺮ ﻭﻧﻘﺼﺪ
ﻣﻜﻮّﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴّﺔ ﺃﻭ ،ﰲ ﺍﺗّﺠﺎﻩ ﻋﻜﺴﻲّ ،ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨّﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ،ﻣﺜﻼ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ﻣﻦ
ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ) .(١٢ﻭﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻼﻗﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺗّﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ،ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ،
ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘ ّﻲ ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ .ﻓﺄﻥ " ﻳُﻮ َﺟ َﺪ " ﻫﻮ
ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ " ُﻣ ْﺪ َﺭﻛﹰﺎ " .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲّ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺃﻥ "
                        ﻳﺪﺭﻙ " ﻻﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ " ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ " ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠ ّﻲ(١٣).
  ﻓﺎﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ِﻣﺜﹶﺎِﻟﻲﱟ ،ﻭﳕﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻜﺘﻮﻥ
ﻱ ﻟﻠﻨّﻮﺍﺯ" :ﻓﺄﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ُﻳﺤِﻴ ﹸﻞ
                                  Lectonﺍﻟﺮّﻭﺍﻗ ّﻲ .ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻖُ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭ ّ
                   ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﻨﻮﺍﺯﻱّ؛ ﻭﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻗﺘﻀﺎﺀ ﺃﻳﺪﻭﺳﻴّﺎ).ﻕ(
ﻭﺇﻥ ﺗﻘﺮّﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ،ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳋﺰﻝ ،ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺮّﻕ ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻴّﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ
ﻱ ﳑﺘﻸ .ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ
                  ﺨﱠﻴ ﹶﻞ " ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻮﺍﻡ ﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻧﻮﺍﺯ ّ
                                                  ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ؟ ﺇ ﹼﻥ " ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﹸَﺘ َ
ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻜﻨﺔ :ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ .ﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﺍ ﺃﻧّﻪ
ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳋﺰﻝ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ :ﻓﺎﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ
ﺍﳌﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﲟﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻜﻨﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺫﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ ،ﻭﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻤﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﳓﻀﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ
ﻧﻨﺼﺮﻑ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻟﻮ ﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﺩﺭﺍﺟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻔﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ ،ﻓﻌﻠﻰ
ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ،ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻜﻨﺔ ،ﻻ ﰲ ﺫﺍﰐ ،ﻭﻻ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺫﺍﰐ .ﻭﺍﻵﻥ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ
ﺿ َﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻓﲔ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ َﻧ ْﻌ ِﺮ ﹶﻓﻪُ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻧﻮّﺍﻡ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲّ؛
                                                                         ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﻗﺪ ﻭُ ِ
                            ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ.
ﻱ ﺳﺒﺐ
    ﻱ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ؟ ﻭﻷ ّ
                                          ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ؟ ﻭﻷ ّ
               ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﳋﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻤﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲّ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﺎ ﻧﻠﻔﻰ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﳌﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴّﺎ ﻭﻋﺎﳌﺎ ﺧﻴﺎﻟﻴّﺎ.
ﻱ .ﺃﻓﻠﻢ
      ﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻴﺐ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻜ ﹼﻞ ﻳﺘﺄﺗّﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ) ،(١٤ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﺯ ّ
                                                                          ﻭِﻟ ُﻤﺠِﻴ ٍ
ﺻ ﹶﻞ ﻟﺘﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻴّﺔ ﺑﲔ
                           ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﹶﺃ ﱠ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﺘﻮﺳّﻂ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺎﺕ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺍﺕ ؟ ﻭﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻴّﺰ
                      ﰲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﻧﻮﺍﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﹸ ْﺪ َﺭ ﹶﻛ ِﺔ.
" ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺑﺸﺠﺮﺓ ﻣﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸّﺠﺮﺓ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻭﺻﻔﺎ ﺻﺎﺩﻗﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ
ﺕ ﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻣﻴّﺔ ﻫﻲ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ
                                  ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻻ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ .ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍ ﹸﳌَﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻘﹶﺎ ِ
ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻞ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻴّﻞ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ،ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻓﺘﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻬﻮﺭ
ﺺ
ﺨ ﱡ
  ﺺ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ،ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳُ َ
                               ﺨ ﱡ
                                 ﺺ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ "ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺑﻠﺤﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺩﻣﻬﺎ " ،ﻭﻃﻮﺭﺍ ُﻳ َ
                                                                         ﺨ ﱡ
                                                                           ُﻳ َ
                                             ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ،ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ).ﻝ("
ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ،ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ،ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﳉﻮﺍﺏ .ﻓﺎﳋﻴﺎﻝ " ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺘﻮﺭ ﻳﻌﺰﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﻱ
"ﻗﺪ ﺷُﱢﺒ َﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ .ﻓﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﲔ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﲔ ﺑﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺏ" ﺍﻻﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭ
ﻭﺇﻧّﻨﺎ ﻟﻨﺸﺎﻳﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺴﲑ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻳﻌﺔ .ﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳّﻤﺎ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ.
ﻓﺄﻭّﻻ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻓﻌّﺎﻝ ﻓﻬﻞ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﰲ ﺍﳍﻴﻮﱃ ﺃﻡ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﰲ ﳕﻂ
ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ؟ ﻓﻘﺪ ﳚﻮﺯ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺯ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮّﺭ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎ ﻓﻌّﺎﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺼﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ
ﺴﻴّﺔ ﻣﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ .ﻓﺴﺒﻴﻨﻮﺯﺍ ﻭﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺴّﺮﺍ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ.
                                                                      ﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺣ ّ
ﺚ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺱ ،ﻭﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ
                 ﻱ ﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣُ ْﻨَﺒ ِﻌ ٍ
                                    ﻓﺎﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻜﻮّﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻋﻔﻮ ّ
ﻣﻨﺒﻌﺚ ﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﺭﺑّﻤﺎ ﻧﻈ ّﻦ)ﻡ( ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﻴّﺔ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻼﺀﻡ ﻣﻊ
ﻱ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﺒﺴﻂ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸّﺄﻥ .ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳّﺔ
                                                                ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ّ
ﺣﺎﻝ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗُ ﹶﻘ ﱠﻄ َﻊ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﻌﺎ ﺟﺬﺭﻳّﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ
ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ .ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﺃﺳﻠﻔﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮّﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺗﺬﻛﹼﺮ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﺀ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍ ْﺳِﺘ ْﻤﺜﹶﺎ ﹰﻻ ﻟﻠﺸّﻲﺀ "
ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﺀ " ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﻴّﺔ .ﹶﻓَﺒﱢﻴﻦٌ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ
ﱄ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺌﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﺣﺘّﻰ
                                                                        ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎ ﹼ
ﻱ .ﻓﺈﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﺎ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﲔ ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﲔ
                                       ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﲟﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳉﺬﺭ ّ
)ﻭﻫﻮ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻜ ّﻲ ( ،ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎﻥ ﻓﻌّﺎﻻﻥ .ﻓﻌﻠﻰ
ﻂ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴّﺔ ؛ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﻣﻦ
                                                      ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ِﺑَﺘ َﻮ ﱡﺳ ٍ
ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺨﻠﹼﻰ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ "ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺜﺎﻝ " ،ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﺇﻳّﺎﻫﺎ
ﲏ ﻟﻠﺰّﻣﻦ .ﻭﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ،ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ُﺭ ِﺩ ْﺩﻧَﺎ ﺇﱃ
                                            ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃ ّ
ﻭﰲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ،ﻓﻬﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻳﻖ ،ﻭﻻ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ
ﺗﻐﻔﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻧﺎﻫﺎ .ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﺮﻧﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺮ،
ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﺮﺏ ﺻﻔﺤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻨّﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﳌﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴّﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﺘﻤﺲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺣﺪﺳﻴّﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟِﺒ ْﻨَﻴ ِﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺔ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ .ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ
ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﻳﺺ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺎ ّﺩﻳّﺔ ) ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ
ﻱ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ
                                                   ﻓﻮﺗﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴّﺔ ،ﻭ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ ( .ﻭ َﺣ ِﺮ ﱞ
ﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻠﻴﺺ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﺍﻟﺸّﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺩﺃﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ
                                                               ﺨ ﱢﻠ َ
                                                                    ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻧُ َ
ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ .ﻭِﺑﹶﺄ َﺧ َﺮ ٍﺓ ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ،ﻓﻼ ﺑ ّﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺤﺺ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﻮﱃ ﺍﳋﺎﺻّﺔ
ﺑﺎﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻨﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻋﺴﻰ ﺃﻧّﻨﺎ ،ﰲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺴﻌﺎﻧﺎ ،ﳓﻦ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻐﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﻳﺪﻭﺳ ّﻲ
ﻱ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺻﻒ :ﻓﺎﻟﺴّﺒﻴﻞ
                             ﻟﻨﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺋﻴّﺔ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ َﺣ ِﺮ ﱞ
                                               ُﺣ ﱞﺮ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﺼّﻮﺭﺓ.
) (3ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﲢﻠﻴﻠﻴّﺔ ،ﺍﻟﻨّﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮّﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪّﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ.
) (4ﻭﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘّﺠﺮﺑﺔ ،ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧّﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻛﺴﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﺘّﺠﺎﺭﺏ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ
ﺃﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪﺱ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺎﺕ ،ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺿﺮﺏ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻏﻔﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ
ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺑﻘﻮﻥ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻣﻴّﺎﺕ ).ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴّﺔ،
                                                     ﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ(.
                                                               ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺴّﺎﺩﺱ ،ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ،ﺍﳊ ّ
  ﺻ ﹶﺔ ﹸﻇﻬُﻮ ِﺭ ِﻩ Son
                     ) (6ﺃﻱ ،ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻧﻮﺍﻣ ّﻲ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺧَﺎ ﱠ
caractère d'apparaitreﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻨﻮّﺍﻣﻲ
ﰐ ﳕﻴّﺰ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ
                     ﻱ ﺫﺍ ﹼ
                          ﺍﳌﺮﻛﹼﺐ ، Composéﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳّﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﻧﻮّﺍﺯ ّ
                                ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻴّﻠﻲّ ،ﻭﺧﺎﺻّﺘﻪ ) .ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ،ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻟﺜﺔ ،ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻟﺚ(.
ﱄ.
 ) (9ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱّ ،ﺃﻱ ﻣَُﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻖُ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣَُﺘ َﻌ ﱠﻠﻖُ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﻣّﻞ ﺍﳉﻤﺎ ﹼ
ﱯ ﻭﻭﺭﻗﻲّ ،ﻣﻄﻠ ّﻲ ﲟﻮﺍ ّﺩ ﺳﻮﺩﺍﺀ ﻭﺧﻀﺮﺍﺀ ،ﻭﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ
                                                     ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺧﺸ ّ
ﺇﻥ ﻳﻘﻒ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ ﲨﺎﻟﻴّﺎ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ
                                        ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻮﺣﺔ ،ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸّﻴﻄﺎﻥ.
) (14ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧُ ْﺪ ِﺭﻙُ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﺃﻭّﻟﻴّﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺘﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ
ﺍﻷﻣﻜﻨﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻨّﻮﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛ ّﻲ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳋﺰﻝ ،ﺃﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﱰﻉ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳّﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ
ﻱ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ﰲ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ
                                                  َﻣ ْﻌَﻨَﻴ ْﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳّﺘﲔ .ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ِﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩّﺓ ﺃ ّ
    ﻭﺃﻳﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺮﺗﻀﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮّﺃﻱ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻄﺮ.
ﺧﺎﲤﺔ
                            ) (1ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﺤﻘﲑ ،ﻭﻛﺄﻧّﻬﻢ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ّﻲ ﳍﺎ.
) (2ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﳒﺰ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘّﺄﺳﻴﺴﻴّﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ،ﰲ ﻣﺼﻨّﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﻼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻨّﻒ ،ﰲ
                                                                                          ﱄ.
                                                                                           ﺍﳋﻴﺎ ﹼ
ﺘ ّﻡ ﺘﻌﺭﻴﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﹼﻌﻠﻴﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺭﺒﻴﻊ  ٢٠٠١ﺒﻁﺒﻠﺒﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻭﺍﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﹼﺔ.
                                                                             ﻟﻄﻔﻲ ﺧﻴﺮاﷲ
                                                                                    ﺗﻮﻧﺲ
                                                         ﺗﺎرﻱﺦ اﻟﻤﻴﻼد  ١٩٦٥/٠٢/٢١ﺑﻄﺒﻠﺒﺔ
                                                                         ﺑﺎﺣﺚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ
                                                 اﻟﺒﺮﻱﺪ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻲ kirallalotfi@yahoo.fr
                                      ﻋﻨﻮان ﻡﻮﻗﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﺮّبMembres.lycos.fr/philosophie15 :