>As you know, however, passing our eyes over a text -- reading --- is
>only part of the game. The rest is hermeneutics, or how to
>appropriately interpret/construe a text. This ancient practice is, for
>me, part of what is at the heart of this whole language thing. As I'm
>sure you would agree, the fact that one has 'read' does not insure that
>one has 'interpreted' approriately/accurately. After all, some people
>read only to find fault; theirs is not a 'fair' evaluation. Ask Normal
>Mailer.
Is there AN appropriate/accurate way to construe a text? Certainly it is
possible to take things out of context, miss cultural or historical
allusions, lack specialist knowledge and read into text meaning the author
did not intend, assuming the author was aware of their intention. Is the
above discussion not a demonstration of differing constructions of the merit
of certain ideas?
> However, to a skilled observer it is possible to discern evidence that
>a person is in fact interpreting/construing in ways which are:
>
>...preordained by their ontology, or characteristic 'way of being', and
>...by their ontology's caracteristic way of thinking/communicating').
>
>And yet, the person is totally blind to that fact, and probably will
>react with a feeling of insult if any such suggestion is made to them.
I would agree that people can construe in a characteristic way, but I am
unsure about it being a matter of being preordained. This would seem to me
to be the basis of the argument, that our world view creates us. For change
to exist we must also be able to create our world view.
Regards,
Bob Green
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%