The interaction of form and content (words and meaning) in the emergence of beauty and literary criticism based on that interaction in ‘Fotouhat’ ‘Ibn-Arabi’

We went through the Fotouhat book and scrutinized it, having this question in mind whether the relation between form and content or word and meaning and also the way they interact with each other, has been a matter of consideration for Ibn-Arabi or not. Additionally, assuming that it has been a matter of consideration for him and he has had a specific point of view, whether he has criticized a literary work based on his point of view or not? We came across some pages in this book intrusively, in which our two concerns have been addressed with a ‘yes’ answer. The gist of his elaborate answer to our first question is that the beauty of an artistic work has two scopes: Presential Scope and Epiphanic Scope. Regarding the presence, this beauty does not have something to do with words or meaning or a combination of them. However, this is related to the essence of that artistic work which is derived from the presential scope and joined to the truth of the beauty of the world of being, every artistic work is the emergence of that truth and simultaneously signifies the brilliance and coverage of that emergence. Now, artistic work is a pure indicator of that beauty. Therefore, this emergence of beauty can be named ‘goodness and virtue’.This goodness is achieved due to a combination of pure word and prodigious meaning. Furthermore, this combination is a mystery which can indulge the viewers of this work from living everyday life in their ‘worldly-nest’ and draw them close to the scope of the truth of beauty and truthful beauty. Then, he begins to criticize a piece of the romantic poem based on this two-scope beauty.We went through the Fotouhat book and scrutinized it, having this question in mind whether the relation between form and content or word and meaning and also the way they interact with each other, has been a matter of consideration for Ibn-Arabi or not. Additionally, assuming that it has been a matter of consideration for him and he has had a specific point of view, whether he has criticized a literary work based on his point of view or not? We came across some pages in this book intrusively, in which our two concerns have been addressed with a ‘yes’ answer. The gist of his elaborate answer to our first question is that the beauty of an artistic work has two scopes: Presential Scope and Epiphanic Scope. Regarding the presence, this beauty does not have something to do with words or meaning or a combination of them. However, this is related to the essence of that artistic work which is derived from the presential scope and joined to the truth of the beauty of the world of being, every artistic work is the emergence of that truth and simultaneously signifies the brilliance and coverage of that emergence. Now, artistic work is a pure indicator of that beauty. Therefore, this emergence of beauty can be named ‘goodness and virtue’.This goodness is achieved due to a combination of pure word and prodigious meaning. Furthermore, this combination is a mystery which can indulge the viewers of this work from living everyday life in their ‘worldly-nest’ and draw them close to the scope of the truth of beauty and truthful beauty. Then, he begins to criticize a piece of the romantic poem based on this two-scope beauty.