«The Forest Garden» makes time forever "absent";

1.

Below, I will conduct an in-depth comparison of the narrative differences and connections between Ardakh Nurgaz's «The Forest Garden: Meditations on Postmodern Warfare» and T.S. Eliot's «Little Gidding» from six aspects: narrative mode, temporal structure, narrative subject, spatial construction, symbolic system, and thematic logic.

(Both belong to the lineage of "post-war-historical reflection poetics," but their narrative mechanisms are quite different.)

I. Comparison of Narrative Voice

Eliot: The narrator in «Little Gidding» is a highly self-reflective "metaphysical self."

This "self" is both an individual and a spiritual spokesperson for humanity as a whole.

It carries a "pastoral, meditative, morally scrutinizing" tone.

A witness across time: standing both in war-torn London and in the Church of England during the saintly era, and in timeless moments. The narrator maintains a "high, detached, religiously reflective perspective."

The narrator in «The Forest Garden» is a fragmented, self-divided subject with multiple identities:

a traveler in the contemporary city

a memorandum maker of ancient steppe civilizations

a survivor in the spiritual ruins of postwar times

a national self under the shadow of history

even an observer of ghosts, shadows, and the edge of death.

The tone: not religious admonition, but a post-traumatic soliloquy, chaos, hidden pain, and quest.

Elliot's narrator is unified and possesses philosophical stability;

The narrator of «The Forest Garden» is a fractured soul amidst fragmented history.

II. Comparison of Narrative Time

Eliot: Time is "timeless moments."

The time perspective in «Little Gidding» is:

Cyclical time

Eternity traversing historical moments

The present and past meet in "redemption."

Eliot emphasizes the spiritual sublimation of time:

"A people without history / is not redeemed from time."

Time ultimately tends towards a theologically unified point.

«The Forest Garden»: Time is fractured, traumatized, and entangled.

Time is presented as:

The juxtaposition of war embers, memories of steppe civilization, and the loneliness of modern cities

Waves, wind, sand, and the sun and moon constantly erode "traces of time"

Historical inscriptions (Тоныкөк碑), ancient symbols, and modern scenes collide.

Time has no redemption, nor a unified end.

Time is not transcended, but rather:

Pierced by wounds

Eatered by memories

Submerged by oblivion

Eliot's time is "a stairway to eternity,"

The time in «The Forest Garden» is "a ruin with nowhere to rest."

III. Comparison of Narrative Structures

Eliot's Structure:

A typical «Quartet» structure:

Four parts

Musical thematic repetition

Internal dialectical progression

A rigorous structure resembling prayers or meditations.

The Structure of «The Forest Garden»:

11 chapters

Constantly shifting rhythm, imagery, and perspective

No linear logic

Similarities:

Stream of consciousness

Symbolism

Postmodern fragmented narrative

Memory collage

It's more like a poetic film in the style of Tarkovsky or Parajanov, rather than Eliot's religious meditation style.

IV. Comparison of Narrative Spaces

Eliot: British Holy Land + Wartime London

Little Gidding is an ancient Puritan holy site

Using this to construct a "spatial symbol of the nation and soul"

Limited space but profound meaning.

«The Forest Garden»: Multiple Spaces Overlapping

Grassland (Large-scale Time)

City Streets (Modernity)

War Ruins (Historical Violence)

Coast, Forest, River (Natural Time)

Spiritual Hell and Underworld (Symbolic Space)

"The Forest Garden" is the core: the intersection of memory and vanishing.

Space is like a mirror shattered into countless pieces—

Each piece reflects a different history and self.

V. Comparison of Narrative Symbolic Systems

Eliot's Symbols:

Fire and Ice (Purification and Destruction)

Bird (Holy Spirit)

Ghost (Echoes of History)

Theological Contrast of Light and Darkness

Contrast Between the Middle Ages and Modernity

Symbolism possesses a theological and philosophical unity.

«The Forest Garden»'s Symbols:

Waves, Desert, Wind

Tree Roots, Leaves, Shadows

Blood, Arrows, Wounds

Bird (Soul, Lineage, Destiny)

Inscriptions and Stones (Silent Witnesses of History)

Broken Mirror, Water Reflection, Ruins

Bow Sound, қобыз (Grassland Memory)

The symbolic system is a mixture of multi-ethnic history, war history, grassland mythology, and natural philosophy.

There is no unified center, but rather a horizontally spreading network of symbols.

VI. Comparison of Narrative Themes

Eliot's core themes:

The purification of history and soul

Spiritual redemption in disaster

The eternal moment

Faith regaining meaning

His narrative moves towards sublimation.

The core themes of «The Forest Garden»:

The disintegration of post-war memory

The loss of national and individual identity

The rupture and fragmentation of history

The loneliness of existence

The yearning for light and the fear of shadow

The weight of silence

It has no "redemption,"

Only a narrative that constantly searches and returns to ruins.

Eliot: Searching for light in the darkness.

«The Forest Garden»: Wandering between light and darkness, unable to determine any meaning.

Summary (Simplified Version)

| Dimensions | Eliot's «Little Gidding» | «The Forest Garden» |

| Narrative Subject | A unified, philosophical "I" | A multi-layered, traumatized "Self" |

| Time | Cyclic, eternal, theological structure | Rupture, trauma, multi-layered juxtaposition |

| Structure | Rigorous, quartet-like | Fragmented, stream of consciousness, symbolic flow |

| Space | Holy Land + Wartime London | Multiple spaces: grassland—city—ruins—spirit world |

| Symbolism | Fire, ice, bird, light (theology) | Wind, tree, sand, blood, shadow, bird (history + nature + mythology) |

| Theme | Redemption in disaster | Searching for roots and being lost in historical ruins |

In short:

Eliot's narrative is "seeking eternity and redemption in disaster";

«The Forest Garden»'s narrative is "questioning identity and history in ruins, with no answers."

--- If needed, I can write further:

Chapter-by-chapter comparison (I–XI and quartet structure)

Symbolic system comparison table (bird, fire, tree, shadow)

Comparison of the philosophical views of time in the two poems (Bergson / Eliot / Steppe epic)

Which part of this extension would you like?

2.

Below, I will conduct an in-depth comparison of Ardakh Nurgaz's *The Forest Garden* and T. S. Eliot's *Little Gidding* from the perspective of philosophical time, and introduce Bergson's concept of *durée* (duration) and the cyclical-ancestral time view of steppe epics to analyze how the two poems construct their respective "poetic time."

The comparison is divided into three parts:

1. Eliot: Christian theology + modernist metaphysical time

2. *The Forest Garden*: Traumatic time + steppe epic cyclical time + natural time

3. How Bergson's "duration" presents different directions in the two poems

Finally, a comprehensive comparison table is provided.

I. Eliot's *Little Gidding*: The Timeless Moment and Theological Time

Eliot's view of time is deeply influenced by:

Christian theology

Neoplatonism

Bradley's "absolute empirical time"

and the "spiritual crisis" of modernism

1. The core proposition of time:

"Redeemed from time"—finding salvation from time

In *Little Gidding*:

War, fire, and historical chaos are "the suffering of time."

The poet attempts to find eternity in disaster.

For Eliot, eternity is not timelessness, but rather:

"A timeless moment"

This is the core philosophy of all Eliot's poetry.

2. Time is a cyclical and ascending spiral

Eliot said:

"What we call the beginning is often the end…

And to make an end is to make a beginning."

Beginning and end are two sides of the same point.

This bears some resemblance to Bergson's concept of continuity, but Eliot ultimately places it within a Christian framework of redemption:

Time → Experience → Revelation → Eternal State

History → Catastrophe → Purification → Soul Renewal

3. Time is the Fire of Judgment

Eliot symbolizes through "Fire":

The destruction of time

Also, the fire of purification (alchemical)

Therefore, in Eliot's work, time ultimately leads to:

Metaphysical unity (God's time)

II. «The Forest Garden»: A Tripartite Structure of Traumatic Time + Grassland Cyclic Time + Natural Time

Nurgaz's view of time is extremely complex because it simultaneously encompasses:

1. Fragmented time after war/trauma

2. Cyclic time of the grassland epic (ancestral spirits, wind, ley lines)

3. Periodic time of nature (tides, wind, seasons, tree roots)

These three types of time intertwine, resulting in a continuously fragmented time structure in «The Forest Garden».

1. Post-traumatic time: Time is fragmented, broken, and discontinuous. The poem repeatedly features: collapse, falling, disappearance, the night swallowing; the separation of shadow and self; war, flames, drops of blood; amnesia, forgetting, the inability to return to the beginning. This is typical post-traumatic time: Time is not linear; it is constantly "interrupted" by memory. The rhythm of time is determined by pain, not by historical continuity.

→ Completely opposite to Eliot's "seeking temporal unity."

2. Steppe Epic Time: Cycles, Returns, and the Eternity of Ancestral Spirits

In the Turkic-steppe epic tradition (such as «Khöltegovin» and «Mancas»):

Ancestors do not leave, but rather "return in cycles."

Sky—Earth—Trees—Rivers constitute a grand temporal field.

History is not linear, but rather the pulse of heaven and steppe.

In «The Forest Garden»:

Tonyk stele

Safras (wolves)

Wind, roots, sand, horses

The call of ancestral spirits

The spirituality of rivers and steppes

It preserves the cyclical time of steppe epics:

> Ancestors—Descendants—Nature—Death—Rebirth

Forming an endless time loop.

But unlike Eliot's "theological cycle,"

this is a cycle of nature—lineage—land.

3. Natural Time: Tides, Wind, Trees, and Shadows Dominate the Rhythm of Time

Time in the poem is "etched" by natural phenomena:

Ocean waves

Direction of the wind

Shadows of trees

Desert migration

Raindrops and light

Bird migration

Birth and decay

This is a post-human view of time:

> Humans are merely objects of time;

> Nature is the writer of time.

→ Eliot's time is theological → Teleology

→ «The Forest Garden» is earth time → Purposeless but infinitely pulsating

III. Introducing Bergson: Two Paths of Durée

Bergson's three core points of time:

1. Time is a continuous flow

2. Memory and the present are superimposed, not separated

3. Time is not mechanical, but an empirical, intrinsic flow

Both poems absorb this idea, but through different paths.

1. Eliot + Bergson: Continuity Towards "Trans-Time"

In Eliot's work:

Memory constantly accumulates

History and the present permeate each other

Ultimately pointing to the "eternal moment"

Eliot transforms Bergson's continuity into:

"Seeing stillness in flow, reaching eternity in time."

Continuity is theologically interpreted.

2. «The Forest Garden» + Bergson: Continuity Towards "Fragmentation and Multiple Layers"

In «The Forest Garden»:

Memory constantly returns to the wound

Natural time overwhelms human time

History and personal experience are intertwined but cannot be unified

Continuity does not lead to transcendence, but rather:

"Time constantly accumulates, accumulating until it cannot be sustained and breaks."

The poet is submerged in continuity, rather than ascending from it.

This is continuity in post-traumatic experience.

IV. General Comparison: The Intersection of Three Philosophical Systems of Time

| Dimensions | Eliot's «Little Gidding» | Nargaz's «The Forest Garden» | Bergson |

| Forms of Time | Theological Time + Eternal Moment | Traumatic Time + Grassland Cycle + Natural Time | Continuity (Continuous Inner Flow) |

| Direction of Time | Towards Unity, Purification, Redemption | Multidirectional, Fragmented, Without a Unifying Center | Flow, Superposition |

| Memory | Memory is the path to the unity of the soul | Memory is the re-enactment of trauma, an endless return | Memory coexists with the present |

| Self | Stable spiritual self | Fragmented multi-identity self | Inner consciousness |

| Ultimate Goal | Reconciliation in eternity | Endless search for roots and loss | No end, no purpose |

| With Nature | Nature as a symbol | Nature as the essence of time | Time is the flow of life |

Conclusion (in one sentence)

Eliot seeks "eternity and redemption" in time;

«The Forest Garden» Eliot's «The Forest Garden» seeks "pain and identity" within time; Bergson, on the other hand, believes time itself is "continuous existence."

Eliot unifies time; «The Forest Garden» fragments time;

Bergson allows time to "flow."

Therefore, both are equally profound, but their philosophies of time take completely different paths.

.......

--- If you wish, I can write further:

A more systematic explanation of the steppe epic's view of time (Heaven—Earth—Ancestral Spirits);

A comparison of the time structure diagrams of Eliot's Quartet and the 11 chapters of «The Forest Garden»;

A comparison of the "time and absence" in the two poems from Derrida's perspective.

Which part would you like to expand on?

.......

3.

Starting with Derrida's ideas on time, traces, différance, absence, and hauntology, this analysis delves into the different treatments of "time and absence" in Ardakh Nurgaz's «The Forest Garden» and T. S. Eliot's «Little Gidding».

I divide this analysis into six parts:

I. Derrida's Basic Framework: Why "Time = Absence"?

In Derrida's work:

1. The essence of time is not appearance, but "différance"

—The present can never be self-sufficient; it is always torn apart by traces of the past and expectations of the future.

2. No "present" truly exists; it is always structured by absence.

3. The trace is the true form of time:

It is neither presence nor disappearance, but a "haunting" state between the two.

4. Therefore:

Time = Chain of Traces = Constantly Différance

Based on this, we analyze how the two poems shape "absent time."

II. Eliot's «Little Gidding»: A Theological Struggle for Presence Through Absence

1. Eliot's Absence is a "Redeemable Absence"

Eliot's war ruins, burned houses, ghosts, and the shadows of history do indeed constitute a "scene of absence":

The annihilated past

History no longer accessible

Empty spaces after bombing

Conversations with the ghost of the old man (in itself a form of hauntology)

But Eliot's strategy is:

Through meditation, to reintegrate absence into "the presence of God."

In Derrida's view, this is an attempt to end deferral, to allow meaning to "rest."

In other words:

For Eliot, absence can ultimately be filled with meaning.

The deferral of the world is ultimately unified through "eternity (the timeless moment)."

This is anti-deferral, a metaphysical act attempting to "close the door."

2. Eliot's "Specter" is Not Derrida's Specter

In «Little Gidding», the poet encounters a ghostly "old man" (a combination of Yeats, Pound, and Swift):

Eliot's specter is "the spokesperson for historical wisdom."

It comes to teach and warn, not to allow meaning to infinitely expand.

It is a "controllable specter."

Derrida's specter (spectre), on the other hand, is:

Unable to be integrated into a symbolic system

It does not provide complete meaning

It is forever in a state of "coming yet not arriving."

In contrast:

Eliot, through symbols such as prayer, holy sites, fire, and purification,

reframes the specter within the theological order of meaning

→ "The specter ultimately returns to presence."

This is the biggest difference between Eliot and Derrida.

III. «The Forest Garden»: Time is the abyss of deferral, absence can never be filled.

1. Time in «The Forest Garden» has no center; therefore, absence becomes the dominant force.

In «The Forest Garden»:

The ruins after war

The vanished ancient sounds

The echoes of ancestral spirits

Traces swallowed by the waves

The wind and shadows constantly moving

The past sleeping in the roots

The split between self and shadow

Language being eroded or dissipated

Many unnamed pains

All of these constitute a radical absence.

Unlike Eliot, the absence in «The Forest Garden» cannot be filled by any theological system or metaphysical structure:

There is no redemption

There is no unified meaning

There is no "eternal moment"

There is no religious endpoint

There is no perfect return of time

This perfectly aligns with Derrida's deferral structure.

In «The Forest Garden»:

Time does not move towards some kind of "presence," but is constantly torn apart by absence.

2. The ghosts in «The Forest Garden» are out-of-control, unplaceable ghosts. The ancestral spirits of the grasslands, the departed heroes, the souls of war victims, the vanished traces of language—

They:

Do not provide meaning

Do not guide the poet

Do not return to the center

Do not offer a unified explanation

They cannot even be fully expressed. These ghosts conform to Derrida's hauntology:

They are neither present nor entirely absent;

They are forces that tear apart the subject, interfere with meaning, and delay time.

Completely different from Eliot's ghost, which is "conversational and instructive."

IV. "Time as a Chain of Traces": The Key Difference Between the Two Poems

Eliot: Traces are integrable. Burnt cities, echoes of history, ghosts, ice and fire…

These are all signs of "the path to eternity."

Traces → Memory → Reflection → Redemption

This is a "teleological chain of traces."

«The Forest Garden»: Traces are Infinite Deferral and Loss

Shattered mirrors, reflections, sounds in the wind, vanished tree shadows, footprints swallowed by sand, words erased by the waves…

These traces share the following characteristics:

Constantly disappearing

Integrable

Unclassifiable

Cannot be transformed into ultimate meaning

Not even “a path to the past,” but merely “a flicker of absence.”

This is typical of Derrida: Time is not history, but the disordered drift of traces.

The time in «The Forest Garden» thus becomes pure deferral.

V. Subjective Temporal Structure: Presence vs. Absence

Eliot's Subject: Striving towards “Presence”

Eliot believed that ultimately, one can reach:

Spiritual unity

Soul purification

Reconciliation with history

The intersection of time and eternity

The subject ultimately possesses a certain “stable presence.”

The subject of «The Forest Garden»: A "ghostly subject" torn apart by absence. The "I" in the poem is constantly: Separated from the shadow, Disappearing by the sea, Torn apart by the wind, Lost in the shadows of the trees, Silent in the ruins, Intersecting with the voices of ancestors but unable to converse. The subject does not move towards unity, but towards differentiation and disappearance.

This is a typical post-structuralist subject: Unstable, centerless, torn apart by traces, floating in delayed difference.

VI. Conclusion: The Final Contrast from Derrida's Perspective

| Dimensions | Eliot's «Little Gidding» | Naurgaz's «The Forest Garden* | Derrida's Concepts |

| Time | Towards the eternal point of unity | Towards endless deferral and fragmentation | Deferred Time |

| Absence | Redeemable, integrable | Integrable, unending | Absent Structure |

| Trace | Pointing to God and the center of meaning | Pointing to loss, dissipation, and lack of center | Chain of Trace |

| Ghost | Instructive, interpretable | Out of control, disruptive of meaning | Hauntology |

| Subject | Ultimately stable, reconciled | Forever broken, adrift | Non-central Subject |

| History | Understandable and purifying | Constantly erasing itself like the wind | History without Presence | One-sentence conclusion (Derridaian):

Eliot strives to make time "present";

«The Forest Garden» makes time forever "absent";

And absence itself is «The Forest Garden» The true time of «The Forest Garden».

Eliot ends absence in "eternity";

«The Forest Garden» allows absence to continue to prolong, to continue to open, to continue to wound.

《The Forest Garden》让时间永远“不在场”

1.

下面我从叙述方式、时间结构、叙事主体、空间建构、象征体系与主题逻辑六个方面，对Ardakh Nurgaz《The Forest Garden: Meditations on Postmodern Warfare》与 T.S. Eliot 《Little Gidding》之间的叙述差异与关联做深入对比。

（两者同属“后战争—历史反思诗学”的谱系，但叙述机制迥异。）

一、叙事主体（Narrative Voice）对比

Eliot：《Little Gidding》中的叙述者是高度自我反思的“形而上学的我”。

这个“我”既是个人又是人类整体的精神代言人。

带有 “牧师式的、冥想式的、道德审视者” 的语气。

是跨越时间的见证者：

既站在战争中的伦敦

又在圣徒时代的英国教会

又在永恒时间（timeless moment）

叙述者始终保持一个 “高处的、冷静的、宗教性的反思视角”。

《The Forest Garden》中的叙述者是破碎、自裂、多重身份并存的主体：

 当代城市中的行者

 古代草原文明的记忆者

 战后精神废墟中的生存者

 历史阴影下的民族之我

 甚至是幽灵、影子、死亡边缘的观察者

语气：

不是宗教的训诫，而是创伤后的自语、混乱、隐痛、求索。

Eliot 的叙述者是统一的、具有哲学稳定性；

《The Forest Garden》的叙述者是裂开的、历史碎片化中的灵魂。

二、叙述时间（Narrative Time）对比

Eliot：时间是“永恒中的时刻”（timeless moments）

《Little Gidding》的时间观是：

循环（cyclical time）

永恒穿越历史瞬间

现在与过去在“救赎”中相遇

Eliot 强调时间在精神层面被升华：

 “A people without history / is not redeemed from time.”

时间最终趋向神学意义上的统一点。

《The Forest Garden》：时间是破裂的、创伤的、纠缠的

时间呈现为：

战争余烬、草原文明记忆、现代城市孤独并置

海浪、风、沙、日月不断侵蚀“时间痕迹”

历史碑铭（Тоныкөк碑）、古代符号、现代场景互相撞击

 时间没有救赎，也没有统一的终点

时间不是被超越，而是：

被伤口刺破

被记忆吞噬

被遗忘淹没

Eliot 的时间是“通向永恒的阶梯”，

《The Forest Garden》的时间是“无处安放的废墟”。

三、叙述结构（Narrative Structure）对比

Eliot 的结构：

典型的 *Quartet* 结构：

四个部分

有音乐式的主题复现

内在的辩证推进

类似祈祷文、冥想文的 严整结构。

《The Forest Garden》的结构：

11 个章节

节奏、意象、视角不断转变

没有线性的逻辑

接近：

意识流

象征主义

后现代碎片叙述

记忆拼贴

它更像 Tarkovsky、Parajanov 式的诗电影，不像 Eliot 那种宗教冥想文体。

四、叙述空间（Narrative Space）对比

Eliot：英国圣地 + 战时伦敦

Little Gidding 是古老的清教徒圣地

借此构成“国家与灵魂的空间象征”

空间有限但意义深重。

《The Forest Garden》：多重空间叠加

草原（大时间）

城市街道（现代性）

战争废墟（历史暴力）

海岸、森林、河流（自然时间）

精神地狱与冥界（象征空间）

“The Forest Garden ” 是核心：记忆与消逝的交叉点

空间如同镜面碎裂成无数片——

每片反射不同的历史与自我。

五、叙述象征体系对比

Eliot 的象征：

火与冰（净化与毁灭）

鸟（圣灵）

幽灵（历史的回声）

光与黑暗的神学对比

中世纪与现代之间的对照

象征具有神学与哲学统一性。

《The Forest Garden》的象征：

海浪、沙漠、风

树根、叶、影子

血、箭、伤口

鸟（灵魂、族脉、命运）

碑铭与石头（历史沉默的见证）

断裂的镜子、水影、废墟

宝音、қобыз（草原记忆）

象征体系是多民族史、战争史、草原神话、自然哲学混合体。

无统一中心，而是横向扩散的象征网络。

六、叙述主题对比

Eliot 的核心主题：

历史与灵魂的净化

灾难中的精神救赎

永恒的时刻

信仰重新获得意义

他的叙述走向 升华。

《The Forest Garden》的核心主题：

战争后记忆的瓦解

民族与个体身份的迷失

历史的断裂与碎片性

存在的孤独

对光的渴望与对影的恐惧

沉默的重量

它没有“救赎”，

只有不断寻找、不断重返废墟的叙述。

Eliot：在黑暗中寻找光。

《The Forest Garden》：在光与黑暗之间徘徊，无法确定任何意义。

总 结（极简版）

| 维度   | Eliot 《Little Gidding》 | 《The Forest Garden》              |

| 叙述主体 | 统一的、哲学化的“我”            | 多重破碎、创伤的“我群”          |

| 时间   | 循环、永恒、神学结构             | 断裂、创伤、多层并置            |

| 结构   | 严整、四重奏式                | 碎片化、意识流、象征流动          |

| 空间   | 圣地 + 战时伦敦              | 草原—城市—废墟—灵界多重空间       |

| 象征   | 火、冰、鸟、光（神学）            | 风、树、沙、血、影、鸟（历史+自然+神话） |

| 主题   | 灾难中的救赎                 | 历史废墟中的寻根与迷失           |

一句话总结：

Eliot 的叙述是“在灾难中寻求永恒与救赎”；

《The Forest Garden》的叙述是“在废墟中追问身份与历史，且没有答案”。

---

如果你需要，我还能进一步写：

逐章对应对比（I–XI 与四重奏结构）

象征系统对照表（鸟、火、树、影）

两首诗的哲学时间观比较（Bergson / Eliot / 草原史诗）

需要我哪个部分的延伸？

2.

下面我将从哲学时间观（philosophy of time）的角度，对Ardakh Nurgaz《The Forest Garden》与 T. S. Eliot《Little Gidding》作深入比较，并引入Bergson 的 durée（绵延）与草原史诗的循环—祖灵时间观来分析两首诗如何构建各自的“诗性时间”。

整个比较分三部分：

1. Eliot：基督教神学 + 现代主义形而上学时间

2. 《The Forest Garden》：创伤时间 + 草原史诗循环时间 + 自然时间

3. Bergson 的“绵延”如何在两首诗中呈现不同方向

最后给出综合对照表。

一、Eliot《Little Gidding》：永恒时刻（Timeless Moment）与神学时间

Eliot 的时间观深受：

基督教神学

新柏拉图主义

Bradley 的“绝对经验时间”

以及现代主义的“精神危机感”

1. 时间的核心命题：

“Redeemed from time”——从时间中获得救赎

在《Little Gidding》中：

战争、火灾、历史混乱是“时间之苦”

诗人试图在灾难中找到永恒（eternal）

而永恒在 Eliot 那里不是无时间性，而是：

“时间中的永恒瞬间”（a timeless moment）

这是 Eliot 全部诗歌的核心哲学。

2. 时间是循环而上升的螺旋

Eliot 说：

 “What we call the beginning is often the end…

And to make an end is to make a beginning.”

开始与结束是同一个点的两面。

这与 Bergson 的绵延有某种相似，但最终被 Eliot放入基督教救赎框架：

时间 → 体验 → 启示 → 永恒状态

历史 → 灾难 → 净化 → 灵魂更新

3. 时间是审判之火

Eliot 通过 “Fire” 象征：

时间的毁灭

又是净化的火（炼金式）

所以在 Eliot 中，时间最终走向：

形而上学统一（God’s time）

二、《The Forest Garden》：创伤时间 + 草原循环时间 + 自然时间的三重结构

Нұрғазұлы的时间观非常复杂，因为它同时包含：

1. 后战争/后创伤的破碎时间

2. 草原史诗的循环时间（祖灵、风、地脉）

3. 自然界的周期时间（潮汐、风、季节、树根）

这三种时间交织，使得《The Forest Garden》的时间呈现持续裂解。

1. 创伤时间：时间是碎片、断裂、不连贯

诗中不断出现：

倒塌、坠落、消失、黑夜吞噬

影子与自我分离

战争、烈焰、血滴

失忆、遗忘、无法回到原点

这是典型的 Post-traumatic time（创伤时间）：

时间不是线性的

而是被记忆不断“打断”的

时间的节奏由痛苦决定，而不是由历史连续性决定

→ 与 Eliot 的“寻求时间统一” 完全相反。

2. 草原史诗时间：循环、回返、祖灵的永在

在突厥—草原史诗传统中（如《Күлтегін》《Манас》）：

祖先并不离开，而是“循环回归”

天—地—树—河构成一个大时间场

历史不是线性的，而是天与草原的脉动

《The Forest Garden》中出现：

Тоныкөк碑

 Сақ сарбазы

狼（böri）

风、根、沙、马

祖灵的呼声

河与草原的灵性

它保留了草原史诗的循环时间（cyclical time）：

> 祖先—子孙—自然—死亡—再生

> 形成一个无尽的时间环。

但不同于 Eliot 的“神学循回”，

这是自然—族脉—地的循环。

3. 自然时间：潮汐、风、树、影子支配时间节奏

诗中时间被自然现象“刻写”：

海浪

风的方向

树的影子

沙漠迁移

 雨滴与光

鸟类迁徙

出生与腐朽

这是非人类中心（post-human）的时间观：

> 人类只是时间的一个客体，

> 自然才是时间的书写者。

→ Eliot 是神学时间 → 目的论

→ 《The Forest Garden》是大地时间 → 无目的但无限脉动

三、引入 Bergson：绵延（Durée）的两种路径

Bergson 时间的三个核心点：

1. 时间是**持续的流变

2. 记忆与当下是叠加，而非分离

3. 时间不是机械的，而是经验性的内在流动

两首诗都吸收了这个思想，但路径不同。

1. Eliot + Bergson：绵延走向“超时间”

在 Eliot 那里：

记忆不断叠加

历史与现在相互渗透

最终指向“永恒的瞬间”

Eliot 将 Bergson 的绵延转化成：

 “从流动中看到不动，从时间中抵达永恒。”

绵延被神学化。

2. 《The Forest Garden》 + Bergson：绵延走向“碎裂与多重层次”

《The Forest Garden》中：

记忆不断回到伤口

自然时间压过人类时间

 历史与个人经验纠缠但无法统一

绵延不是带向超越，而是：

“时间不断叠加，叠加到无法承受而破碎。”

诗人被绵延淹没，而不是从中飞升。

这是后创伤经验中的绵延。

四、总对比：三种时间哲学体系的交叉

| 维度   | Eliot《Little Gidding》 | Нұрғазұлы《The Forest Garden》  | Bergson     |

| 时间形式 | 神学时间 + 永恒瞬间           | 创伤时间 + 草原循环 + 自然时间 | 绵延（持续的内在流动） |

| 时间方向 | 通向统一、净化、救赎            | 多向、破碎、无统一中心        | 流动、叠加       |

| 记忆   | 记忆是走向灵魂统一的路径          | 记忆是创伤的重现，是无尽回返     | 记忆与现在共在     |

| 自我   | 稳定的精神性自我              | 裂开的多重身份自我          | 内在意识        |

| 终极目标 | 永恒中的和解                | 无终点的寻根与迷失          | 无终点，无目的     |

| 与自然  | 自然为象征                 | 自然为时间本体            | 时间即生命流      |

结论（一句话）

Eliot 在时间中寻找“永恒与救赎”；

《The Forest Garden》在时间中寻找“痛感与身份”；

Bergson 则认为时间本身就是“持续的存在”。

Eliot 让时间“统一”；

《The Forest Garden》让时间“破碎”；

Bergson 让时间“流动”。

因此二者同样深邃，但时间哲学走向完全不同。

---

如果你愿意，我可以进一步写：

草原史诗时间观的更系统解释（天—地—祖灵）

将 Eliot 四重奏与《The Forest Garden》11章做时间结构图对照

以德里达（Derrida）视角比较两首诗的“时间与缺席”

你想扩展哪一部分？

3.

下面从德里达（Derrida）关于时间、痕迹、延异、缺席、幽灵性（hauntology）的思想出发，深入比较 Ardakh Nurgaz《The Forest Garden》 与 T. S. Eliot《Little Gidding》 对 “时间与缺席” 的不同处理方式。

我将这个分析分为六个部分：

一、德里达的基本框架：为什么“时间 = 缺席”？

在德里达那里：

1. 时间的本质不是出现，而是“延异”（différance）

   ——现在永远无法自足，它总是被过去的痕迹与未来的期待撕开。

2. 任何“当下（present）”都不存在，它总是被缺席结构化。

3. 痕迹（trace）是时间的真正形式：

   它既不是在场，也不是消失，是介于两者之间的“幽灵性”。

4. 因此：

时间 = 痕迹链条 = 不断延异的缺席

基于此，我们分析两首诗如何塑造“不在场的时间”。

二、Eliot《Little Gidding》：缺席通向“在场”的神学努力

1. Eliot 的缺席是“可被救赎的缺席”

Eliot 的战争废墟、烧毁的房屋、幽灵、历史的阴影，确实构成“缺席的场景”：

被灭去的过去

不再可触及的历史

被轰炸后的空洞空间

与老人幽灵的对话（本身就是 hauntology）

但 Eliot 的策略是：

通过冥想，将缺席重新纳入“上帝的在场”之中。

在德里达看来，这是企图终止延异，使意义“安息”。

换句话说：

对 Eliot 来说，缺席最终可以被意义填满。

世界的延异最终通过“永恒（the timeless moment）”获得统一。

这是反延异的，是试图“封口”的形而上学动作。

2. Eliot 的“幽灵”不是 Derrida 的幽灵

在《Little Gidding》中，诗人遇见一位幽灵般的“老人”（综合了 Yeats / Pound / Swift）：

Eliot 的幽灵是“历史智慧的代言人”

它来教导、警示，而不是让意义无限延异

它是“可掌控的幽灵”

而 Derrida 的幽灵（spectre）是：

无法被符号系统整合

不提供完整意义

永远处于“既来临又未抵达”的状态

相比之下：

Eliot 通过祈祷、圣地、火焰、净化等符号

将幽灵重新框入神学意义秩序  → “幽灵最终归于在场”

这是 Eliot 与 Derrida 最大的差异。

三、《The Forest Garden》：时间是延异的深渊，缺席永远无法被填补

1. 《The Forest Garden》的时间没有中心，因此缺席成为主导力量

在《The Forest Garden》中：

战争后的废墟

消失的古代声音

祖灵的回声

被海浪吞没的痕迹

风与影子不断移动

树根中沉睡的过去

自我与影子的分裂

语言被侵蚀或消散

诸多“未被命名”的痛感

这些全部构成一种 radical absence（根源性缺席）。

不同于 Eliot，《The Forest Garden》的缺席无法被任何神学系统、形而上结构补全：

没有救赎

没有统一意义

没有“永恒瞬间”

没有宗教终点

没有时间的圆满回返

这完全符合 Derrida 的延异结构。

在《The Forest Garden》中：

时间不是走向某种“在场”，而是被缺席不断撕裂。

2. 《The Forest Garden》的幽灵是失控的、无可安置的幽灵

草原祖灵、逝去的英雄、战争亡魂、消失的语言痕迹——

它们：

不提供意义

不引导诗人

不回到中心

不给予统一解释

甚至无法完整被言说

这些幽灵符合 Derrida 的 hauntology：

它们既不在，也不完全不在，

是撕裂主体、干扰意义、延异时间的力量。

与 Eliot 那个“可对话、可教诲”的幽灵完全不同。

四、“时间作为痕迹链条”：两首诗的关键差异

Eliot：痕迹是可被整合的

烧毁的城市、历史回声、幽灵、冰与火……

这些都是“通往永恒”的标志。

痕迹 → 记忆 → 反思 → 救赎

这是“目的论的痕迹链条”。

《The Forest Garden》：痕迹是无限延异与失落

碎裂的镜子、倒影、风中的声音、消失的树影、被沙吞没的脚印、海浪抹去的词语……

这些痕迹有以下特征：

不断消失

不可整合

不可归类

不可转化为终极意义

甚至不是“通向过去”，而只是“缺席的闪烁”

这是典型的 Derrida：

时间不是历史，而是痕迹的失序漂移。

《The Forest Garden》的时间因此成为纯粹延异。

五、主体时间结构：在场 vs 不在场

Eliot 的主体：努力走向“在场”

Eliot 认为最终能抵达：

精神统一

灵魂净化

历史的和解

时间与永恒的交界点

主体最终拥有某种 “稳定的在场”。

《The Forest Garden》的主体：被缺席撕裂的“幽灵主体”

诗中“我”不断：

与影子分离

消失在海边

被风撕散

在树影中迷失

在废墟中失声

与祖先的声音交错但无法对话

主体不是走向统一，而是走向差异化与消失。

这是典型的后结构主义主体：

不稳定、无中心、被痕迹撕开、在延异中漂浮。

六、总结：德里达视角下的最终对比

| 维度 | Eliot《Little Gidding》 | Нұрғазұлы《The Forest Garden》 | 德里达概念      |

| 时间 | 走向永恒的统一点              | 走向无尽的延异与裂解        | 延异时间       |

| 缺席 | 可被救赎、可被整合             | 不可整合、不可终结         | 缺席结构       |

| 痕迹 | 指向上帝与意义中心             | 指向失落、消散、无中心       | 痕迹链        |

| 幽灵 | 教诲性的、可解释              | 失控的、扰乱意义的         | hauntology |

| 主体 | 最终稳定、和解               | 永远破碎、游离           | 非中心主体      |

| 历史 | 可被理解与净化               | 像风一样不断擦除自身        | 无在场的历史     |

一句话结论（德里达式）：

Eliot 努力让时间“在场”；

《The Forest Garden》让时间永远“不在场”；

而缺席本身才是《The Forest Garden》的真正时间。

Eliot 让缺席终止在“永恒”；

《The Forest Garden》让缺席继续延异、继续开放、继续伤口化。

Ардақ Нұрғазыұлы. Саябақ (поэма)

https://abai.kz/index.php/post/16235

Ардақ Нұрғазыұлы. Саябақ

https://bilim-all.kz/olen/19000-Sayabaq

阿尔达克·努尔哈兹：林园——后现代战争的沉思录（节选）

http://www.miniyuan.com/read.php?tid=8499

Ardakh Nurgaz: Beneath the Fruit Tree (An Essay on the Poem 'The Garden of Trees')

https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4047

Ардақ Нұрғазыұлы. Саябақ (поэма)

https://massaget.kz/debiet/ardak-nurgazyiulyi-sayabak-poema-42667/

Ардақ Нұрғазыұлы. Саябақ

https://www.zharar.com/index.php?do=shorttexts&action=item&id=46825