For this project, complete the following steps. Note my examples of each step at the bottom of the page:1: IDENTIFY a textual moment (I define this as a chunk of dialogue of any length spoken by one character)2: Pluck out any three words from that dialogue3: Define each as you THINK the character defines them (you THEORIZE)4: Fill in the blank with a word or concept of YOUR choice, that you would be willing you defend: This character’s philosophy of _______ FRAMES his or her perception of the textual moment5: Determine what the anchor is that HOLDS the fixed structure together—“the thing without which nothing holds”; describe and defend in three-to-five sentences (you THEORIZE, basically, what a force is that binds HOW words can mean within your character’s philosophy. For instance, within a Christian philosophy, we might define “Jesus” as “Son of God,” “Mary” as “Mother of Jesus,” “Bible” as “Word of God,” and “marriage” as “union of man-woman.” However, the symbol of G-O-D is such that, without it, the words we just mention can NO LONGER be defined as the simplistic, joined-at-the-help definitions we created. Funnily enough, though, if we try to DEFINE G-O-D in this Christian scheme, we’d have little success, because being of Christian philosophy requires our subservience to G-O-D, at least in theory; the second that G-O-D is allowed to be defined and made possible through language, the word loses its allure, the scheme loses its majesty, and the whole fixed structure topples. Words like Jesus/Bible/Mary/marriage had their unitary definitions made possible by G-O-D, but if the latter is “just another word,” anything is able to “mean” anything else–everything becomes discourse, chaos. So structuralism relies on the existence of such a force as G-O-D; let’s call it, “the G-O-D factor)

Calculate Price

Price (USD)