RCM을 이용한 디젤 분무거동 및 자발화 특성에 관한 연구 ( An Experimental Study on Diesel Spray Dynamics and Auto-Ignition Characteristics in the Rapid Compression Machine )

강필중,김형모,김용모,김세원 대한기계학회 2000 대한기계학회 춘추학술대회 Vol.- No.-

외국문학연구의 주체성과 문학작품의 창조성

강필중 오늘의 문예비평 1994 오늘의 문예비평 Vol.- No.-

Leaves of Grass에 있어서의 죽음

강필중 인제대학교 1994 仁濟論叢 Vol.10 No.2

이 글의 목적은 죽음을 『풀잎』(Leaves of Grass) 근저의 중심적인 문제로 생각해보는 데 있다. 『풀잎』의 대표 장시인 「나의 자아의 노래」("Song of Myself")의 제목이 말해주듯 휫트먼에 있어 중심적인 것은 자신의 자아인데 죽음의 문제는 그 자아의 자기의식과 긴밀히 연관되는 것으로 보인다. 휫트먼이 죽음을 중요한 시적 주제로 의식한다기보다는 그의 자아가 죽음의 문제와 결부됨으로써, 휫트먼의 시세계가 지니는 강한 단순성의 활력이 섬세한 시적 활력과 하나가 된다고 할 수 있다. 휫트먼은 흔히 민주주의적 비젼의 시인으로 불린다. 그가 만인과 만물의 평등한 일체(一體)를 노래하는 시인이기 때문이다. 그러한 '일체'는 시종 휫트먼 자신의 자아를 통해서만 드러나는데 죽음이 자아의 중심적인 문제라 한다면 죽음은 곧 휫트먼의 민주주의적 비젼과 연관된 문제가 된다. 죽음이 또 하나의 주제가 되는 것이 아니라 익히 알려진 문제의 주요한 속성이 되는 것이다.

절대의 언어적 형상을 찾아서

강필중 서울대학교 1991 영학논집 Vol.15 No.1

Whitman의 문학과 Art의 문제

강필중 인제대학교 1993 仁濟論叢 Vol.9 No.2

The thesis of this thesis is that the typically idealistic character of the American mind, such as that of Emerson the thinker and Whitman the poet, can certainly be located in their persistent, willful insistence on the essential naturalness of the American mind innocent of, and even superior to, all kinds of art. It is almost evident that they set nature against art on the implied basis of such a schematic binary opposition as that of' nature versus art', artificially rejecting the latter term as artificial, even inimical to nature. The emphasis itself put on nature against art is essentially - essentially in the historical viewpoint- conscious, willed, and so, far from being natural. It is characteristic of their mind that their emphasis on nature is too strong to be perceived artificial in its very nature. It might hardly be perceived so because it seems permeated by some sense of the 'primeval', being spiritualistic in presenting to the forefront nature interfused with the 'universal' spirit or soul. It, however, carries the indelible presence of conscious will working at the core of their mind. In the last instance, it is, first and foremost, through "the exercise of will" that they most economically obliterates the wide gap between themselves and the vast nature devoid, on their part, of any kind of traditional human meaning. Walt Whitman, the very American singer of "Song of Myself," celebrates himself as the "new identity" bearing the soul potently emphasized at the level of will in the vein of the American mind. As is the case with the characteristic American insistence, Whitman's self asserted in his poems is mostly anti-artistic, for the Whitmanesque self combined with the Emersonian soul blurs and even blocks the really natural working of his soul. It is not anti-artistic because Whitman lacks art in the narrow, superficial sense of the word, that is, artifice. It is anti-artistic in the sense of the word art that art cannot be restricted to its superficial, though integral, aspect of artifice, flowering itself as the real living soul with "intelligence" is not encumbered by the dominating egotistic will. Section 5 of "Song of Myself," famous for the "mystical experience" in it of "the marriage of the soul and the body," shows in its delicate context of 'a literary work of art' that the conscious will insisting on the soul strikes its root deep into the most live part, distinguished for its unmistakably "erotic" atmosphere, of the language of the poem. The intensely artificial ideality of the American mind persistently asserts itself in this poem, rendering it difficult for the 'negative' of the artistic potential to be developed out of its own. 'darkroom' of the willed 'nature' combined with the willed- mentalized- 'soul'. Therefore, the artistic potential per se, largely remaining in its negative state of art, in no way stands separate in its own right. The problem of art in Whitman and, in meaningful extention, in Emerson brings home to us the nature of American idealism at the level of real sense. The problem of art in its relation to the American idea of nature, nature that is "the symbol of spirit(will) " in Emerson's formulation, ultimately places Whitman and Emerson at the inner core of American material reality. Their very idealistic difference from, and seemingly radical criticism of, the material reality devoid of (the idea of) 'spirit' supports materialism from within, covering its 'weakness' of "understanding" through "Reason(Will) " at the ideal, potential level of reality by presenting the most 'practical' and even 'economical' way to master the material world 'once and for all'. The essential and intense artificiality of their idealism ensures its potentially practical character. Viewed in this way, Emersonian idealism and its 'correlative', Whitmaresque idea of "Myself," are typically American in its deep, as well as superficial, sense of the word.

특수성의 새 위상 - 루카치 리얼리즘론의 숙제

강필중 영미문학연구회 1997 안과 밖 Vol.2 No.-

N/A

학교체육의 문제점과 개선방향

강필중,김석일 한국스포츠리서치 2003 한국 스포츠 리서치 Vol.14 No.3

Divided into the internal, external of Physical Education and social political problems, the problems of Physical Education have been investigated and the plans of solution have been looked over in this research. Recently, the opinions for reconsideration and improvement about Physical Education have gathered the power from the social point of view. Now it's the time that Physical Education should be more emphasized and more recognized of being an absolutely necessary thing for the health of the students and people and for the life on a high level than be considered by mean of chasing after the private opinions and the personal profits. And the continuous administrative effort is needed so that Physical Education Policy which the government suggested may solve the conflicts of Physical Education organization and be driven forward in a right direction continuously.

휘트먼의 대신(代身)의 시: ‘로런스의 휘트먼’ 재고

강필중 영미문학연구회 2016 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.41

As a sequel to an essay that was an appreciating approach to Lawrence on Whitman without any reconsideration of critical terms, this essay makes a turn to reconsidering Lawrence on Whitman to see “Whitman’s mistake” Lawrence points to in a different light. It is an attempt to reach an understanding of the positive aspect of Whitman with his individuality appearing into the universe instead of disappearing into it. According to Lawrence, sympathy as “feeling with” is mistaken for “feeling for,” which brings about the disastrous disappearance of individuality on both sides, Whitman himself and the other beings he inadvertently identifies with. An unexamined premise here is that there is Whitman who takes the place of every other being and through that very act becomes one with them. Whitman, however, is not the taker. There is no ideal taker in the real Whitman. Rather, place taking just takes place and Whitman is none other than the place of being, the place of beings coming into being. The individual being of Whitman comes into its own every instant he is conscious of himself as the place of being. Whitman conceives himself to be dynamic place taking so that the danger of Whitman himself being mistaken for any active taker by himself seems to be manifest when he loses hold of his consciousness of his own coming into being. The idea of Whitman himself as the omnipresent taker is, manifest or latent, due to his tendency to give in to a generalization, a sort of amorphous self-image. This, however, is only a half-truth, and “the open road” is secure as long as the other positive half is undeniable. The following statement is true of Whitman’s “feeling for” beings: I myself am feeling (a gerund grammatically) for beings, and I do not feel for beings. “I am not the taker who takes your place.” In this regard, no consecration of myself to “the highway of love” is involved in here. As there is no me before you temporally, I am not here as the ideal substance of “me myself.” Without any decisive substance to perish, I, a reality without substance, am here. Appearance without any substance that precedes is the only mystery here I stand with. Reality without substance is the ground of being, as is shown by a spear of summer grass.

월트 휘트먼의 『풀잎』번역의 문제

강필중 영미문학연구회 1998 안과 밖 Vol.5 No.-

N/A

로렌스의 시와 망각의 주제

강필중 ( Pil Joong Kang ) 한국로렌스학회 2009 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.17 No.1

This essay is a thinking aroused by D. H. Lawrence`s poems, "The Ship of Death" especially, a thinking that ventures into the theme of oblivion, rigorously disclosing the groundlessness of the idea that oblivion is obliteration. One way of this thinking phrasing itself is to say that oblivion is the obliteration of the idea itself. The idea presupposes substantially whatever we know about ourselves, what we know as ourselves, which then is supposed to be obliterated, or nullified, through death and oblivion. That this presupposition and supposition is groundless is a great lesson Lawrence`s poems bring home to us, for when we are purely ourselves, any knowledge of ours of ourselves is like a fallen leaf cut out of the tree of life. Our fear of death and oblivion is the work of an uprooted idea rooting itself deep into our minds. One idea fixed in our minds is the idea that death is outside us. We usually say, without thinking, that we are dying. We are not dying in the sense that we are heading toward death outside us. Rather, we are dying in the sense that we are living and dying at the same time, partially dying and forgetting as if we were preparing for the consummation of ourselves through death and oblivion. Sometimes, even for one moment, we forget ourselves like a flower. An instant is enough, however, for us to lapse into self-consciousness. Self-consciousness and mental self-images it produces are already in the continual process of being forgotten, so whatever is supposed to be obliterated through oblivion is in no way secure. Whatever it is, it is not rooted in our being, in our being purely ourselves. Oblivion purifies our being of ideal impurities of whatever kind. It is not death only that we do not know. We do not know life itself, and we do not know ourselves. The only difference is that we know about life, while we don`t know about death. Knowledge about life is information and we have no information about death. Lawrence leads us to the way of oblivion to do without information. Unknown and unknowable, death and oblivion is our way of being ourselves. Insofar as our will to know persists, death is objectified in our minds as `the unknown and unknowable,` as an impurity. Frustration caused by the failure to know is an impurity too. Frustration drives us to our last escape. One of the rigors we need is that with which we see into the emptiness of the presumed fact that we simply are, because that is the stronghold we blindly hold to in the face of death outside. Like an empty bowl with no food in it, the very fact gives its holder nothing but pale obstinacy. A pathetic abstraction it is. Oblivion is change. And only the oblivion of man is change. A flower is purely itself embodying oblivion, and change, if any, is always and already done in its being itself. Change through the voyage of oblivion awaits man. Man that enters the unknown enters it as the unknown. We cannot tell one from the other, so `the ship of death` is seen nowhere on her voyage. A thinking of `the ship of death` is an adventure because as all that we know we are, namely `the old self,` is forgotten, there remains nothing left for us but the unknown itself, which is beyond all description. In a sense, however, the voyage is safe. All put in the name of `the old` is, in its very nature, the kind that is washed away as is experienced intermittently in the process of our lives. The old self is the one that perishes. Delusion persists, and perishes. Hence `faith` remains. The faith in `the ark of faith` is not fear-begotten. We are with God when we are purely ourselves, having left off knowing, Lawrence says. Seen nowhere, the ship is somewhere. As for the work of renewal, faith does the rest, as the last two sections of "The Ship of Death" envision it beautifully.