The Other and its Role in Rumi’s Discourse

“The other” is among the important subjects raised in various fields of cultural, philosophical, anthropological, and semiotic studies. One of the main subjects in the mystical and cultural discourses of the East is “the other”. In principle, to look from the perspective of “the other” is an important subject in all mysticism. The subject of “the other” is also a feature of Rumi’s mystical and cultural discourse. In Rumi’s discourse, the other is manifested in different discursive and cultural functions and interactions are continuously made between the other and the ego. The problem being posed is how this interaction is realized and how it interferes with shaping the meaning. Therefore, the main question in the present study is how and according to which discursive and cultural conditions and functions, interaction between “the other” and the ego is realized and in what form of discourses these interactions are presented. In fact, the purpose of the present article is to explain the features of the “other-oriented” system Rumi had intended and the interaction between “the other” and the ego in two of Rumi’s sonnets as well as examining their role in shaping cultural and normative atmospheres. Our hypothesis is that in Rumi’s sonnets “the other” has a centralized presence, which is the center of accumulation and energy. But this centralized aspect continuously extends its presence in a variety of ways, in the form of discursive interaction, to the whole of space, and provides the context for the ego transcendence. Such a situation is the result of the fundamental presence of the superego, that all levels of his presence signs depend on him and connect with him in the presence of their meaning and value.
In Rumi’s discourse, superego as being “the other” is manifested in a vast variety of discursive functions and placed at the core of all discourse anaphora. This refers to the universal aspect of the presence of “the other”, which stores all energies and compressive and extensive accumulations. Accordingly, such centralized aspect of presence is torn apart, so it becomes “he”, “ego”, and “you” as various fragments of presence, on the one hand, and every moment, it transforms to a certain seeming as of the rover’s idol, on the other. When it takes the place of énonciateur, it is regarded as audience and while taking an audience’s place, it is regarded as énonciateur. In another manifestation, it is a meta-subject or meta-actor that takes control of everything -it is both act and patience, both actor and patient, both value and meta-value. Due to the presence of “other”, “ego” is sometimes pluralized and transforms into two present fragments of “self” and “ego”; as well, it occasionally paves the way for the fusion of these two distinct parts. Sometimes it degrades subject to the level of exclusion, breakdown and unsubjectness, and at the time of adaptation, starts a discursive and interactive dance with self to accompany it to the level of transcendence. This high capacity thereof relates Rumi’s poetry to different discourses, some of which are introduced in this study. Based on a semiotics approach, Rumi’s standpoint to “the other” and its contribution to forming cultural and normative atmosphere is clarified. A model for the ontological and other-oriented aspect of Iranian mysticism, according to Rumi’s idea, is hereby presented in this study too. In Rumi’s discourse of his sonnets, “the other” is manifested in a variety of faces and with different ways and properties, only with some of which this study has dealt. There is a constant interaction between “ego”, “the other” and superego in the discourse. This interaction is realized in the framework of its transcendental, phenomenal, tensional, emotional and identical functions. In such interactions, “the other” is in its peak of power and competency and enjoys a sublime capability of pressure and extension. It, nonetheless, constantly calls for ego to itself and receives it in its territory of presence in a democratic way. As well, it does not have a suggestive descending mode, it is not an absorption of “ego” into “the other”, and it does not even lead to the humiliation of “ego”; instead, it is a matter of “ego” transcendental presence, what reminds me of the concept of mortality followed by survival and my present transcendence. Superego is the phenomenal aspect of presence, which takes control of everything, even the énonciateur itself. It is a meta-actor consisting of all present modes as the root of all acts, beings, values, and meta-values. Such state is the outcome of full and fundamental presence of the otherhood of “other” or superego, which forms a specific phenomenal setting in discourse, the result of which is the realization of mystical aesthetic system.