Textual Interpretation: The text as a mirror

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree with many other thinkers that in reading a text, the text acts as a mirror. If this is correct, is there a "right" interpretation of a text? Is the point to see ourselves clearly or to understand the text - or is understanding the text seeing ourselves clearly?

Can other people know if we are seeing ourselves correctly?

 

[tomspug]

Nice anthill you're digging up!

I think we can agree that logic is definable, not open to interpretation, but logic is hardly useful in understanding our personal nature, is it?

I think a great example is how fiction can take on a life of its own. If the author focuses on simple, specific story, the truths drawn from it can be applicable to a vast amount of people. However, if fiction is strict, outlining its own meaning at the end of the story, the truths are limited to the context of the story. Instead of the experience being interpreted, the overall message is interpreted instead, usually with a "yes or no" whether the reader accepts it.

In fiction, at least, I think it's simply a matter of honesty. A person can THINK they believe something, but it is only true to the self (in my opinion) if you feel it. When Gandalf says that what is important is "what we do with the time that is given us", is his statement true? How do we know what the RIGHT thing to do with the time given us is? All we know is whether or not we agree with the statement. If we agree, then we accept that there IS a right and wrong.

We can think things like this in our heads, but do we KNOW whether or not it is true? A personal conclusion, I think.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think we can agree that logic is definable, not open to interpretation

I disagree. When logic is expressed in language, it is encased in the cultural biases of the language and loses its pure mathematical force. In other words, the rationale that sustains logic is inherently flawed or imperfect from a purist sense because the language that upholds it is impure. Pure logic has no words, but as soon as it is applied to language it loses something, and at times it loses everything.

 

[tomspug]

Ah, I see. Well, if logic is incorrect because of language, it is only because the reader does not have enough knowledge to see the pure logic behind it. Yet another reason to focus on 'truth' instead of logic, pure logic requires pure knowledge.

 

[Wandered Off]

When logic is expressed in language, it is encased in the cultural biases of the language and loses its pure mathematical force.

I think that answers your query then. Since text is inherently flawed in this way, it is at best a dirty mirror.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, I see. Well, if logic is incorrect because of language, it is only because the reader does not have enough knowledge to see the pure logic behind it. Yet another reason to focus on 'truth' instead of logic, pure logic requires pure knowledge.

Only a god could do this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that answers your query then. Since text is inherently flawed in this way, it is at best a dirty mirror.

It's merely limited by our humanity. We don't see perfectly in a real mirror, either. Is there any mirror that is absolutely perfect (dust-free, no scratches, no flaws whatsoever)? Is there any seeing of ourselves that is not flawed by our eyesight or interpretation of the image?

 

[Wandered Off]

It's merely limited by our humanity.

Absolutely. That's why the answer to this...

Can other people know if we are seeing ourselves correctly?

is "no, and we can't either."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Absolutely. That's why the answer to this...is "no, and we can't either."

Not if we assume (or prove) that there is a sensus communis (a common sense) that unifies and normalizes human experience despite its limitations.

 

[Wandered Off]

Not if we assume (or prove) that there is a sensus communis (a common sense) that unifies and normalizes human experience despite its limitations.

Even so, it would be lost once we attempt to communicate it or about it using words.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Even so, it would be lost once we attempt to communicate it or about it using words.

Just because we can't communicate perfectly because we are not gods does not mean that we cannot communicate effectively as humans.

 

[Wandered Off]

Definitely agreed.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not if we assume (or prove) that there is a sensus communis (a common sense) that unifies and normalizes human experience despite its limitations.

Which would be a shared view of reality, as many psychologists put it.

But really, looking into a dirty mirror is often better than looking into a clean one, especially when interpreting literature. A text with one correct interpretation would show a limited view of the human condition.

 

[Ozzie]

I agree with many other thinkers that in reading a text, the text acts as a mirror. If this is correct, is there a "right" interpretation of a text? Is the point to see ourselves clearly or to understand the text - or is understanding the text seeing ourselves clearly?

Can other people know if we are seeing ourselves correctly?

Language on a page is a barrier between the two subjectivities you mention when authority is the interpretation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Language on a page is a barrier between the two subjectivities you mention when authority is the interpretation.

what?