14.0747 Gadamer on interpretation

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: Fri Mar 16 2001 - 02:03:42 EST

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "14.0748 "user""

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 747.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                   <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
                  <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>

             Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:56:25 +0000
             From: "Brian A. Bremen" <bremen@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
             Subject: Re: 14.0743 multiple perspectives

    I think the classic work of interpretation and hermeneutics in this regard
    is Hans Georg Gadamer's _Truth and Method_.
    Brian A. Bremen

    > Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 743.
    > Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
    > <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
    > <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
    >
    > [1] From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com> (52)
    > >
    > [2] From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (74)
    > Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
    >
    >
    >--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:44:59 +0000
    > From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
    > Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
    >
    >Hi Willard,
    >
    >At 01:47 PM 3/14/01, you wrote:
    >>So much for the context. Now my question. Who has written most clearly and
    >>persuasively on the relevant paradox of interpretation, which takes control
    >>of and to a varying degree remakes its object in the very act of its own
    >>subservience?
    >
    >Funny how threads intertwine. This reminds me of the work of Harold Bloom,
    >from the mid-seventies through the mid-eighties, whose work I've been
    >reviewing for another purpose. "Clearly and persuasively" may be arguable
    >in his case (the stuff was nothing if not controversial: some readers found
    >it by turns over-audacious and obscure). But works like *The Anxiety of
    >Influence*, *A Map of Misreading*, *The Breaking of the Vessels* all
    >examine this theme.
    >
    >> Since we can actually do away with the necessity of
    >>physically subordinating commentary and other sorts of interpretative
    >>notes, and thus give leash to their heretofore suppressed primacy, will we
    >>not (also paradoxically) be increasing the importance of interpretation --
    >>rather than minimising it, as some have dreamed computing would do?
    >
    >Yes. It is a good lesson to assimilate, that our very acts of "clarifying,
    >for all time, the truth of the matter" really amount to adding
    >interpretations (new or not so new) to the stack.
    >
    >I have been looking at *The Breaking of the Vessels*, which transcribes
    >lectures Bloom gave in 1981. One of the fascinating things about this
    >little volume is that no typographic distinction is made between quotes and
    >commentary. Just to give you a taste (I open the book at random): having
    >quoted Wilde's *The Critic As Artist*, Bloom writes:
    >
    > Are [Wilde's characters] Vivian and Gilbert not speaking
    > the language of poetry and the language of criticism? Wilde
    > is one of the pioneers at insisting upon the identity of the
    > two languages. Yet he has persuaded only a few critics and
    > poets after him. What is or isn't criticism always has been
    > problematic, and perhaps readers ought to be less certain
    > than they have been as to what is or isn't poetry. What is
    > most problematic here is the notion of language, since
    > increasingly we all trope upon the word "language" whether
    > we are conscious or not of our turning of the term. Wilde
    > was far enough ahead of his time so that most of us still
    > lag behind him. Yet any memorable criticism, from Longinus
    > to our moment, has had very little to do with the modest
    > handmaiden's role prescribed by the modern Anglo-American
    > academy....
    >
    >Best regards,
    >Wendell
    >
    >======================================================================
    >Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
    >Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
    >17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
    >Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
    >Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
    >======================================================================
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:45:33 +0000
    > From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
    > Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
    >
    >Willard,
    >
    >The beast described below is closer to the creatures of digital imaging
    >than those of text encoding but it perhaps captures the long tradition in
    >bibliography of being aware fo the "remaking of its objects".
    >
    > > So much for the context. Now my question. Who has written most
    clearly and
    > > persuasively on the relevant paradox of interpretation, which takes
    > control
    > > of and to a varying degree remakes its object in the very act of its own
    > > subservience? Since we can actually do away with the necessity of
    > > physically subordinating commentary and other sorts of interpretative
    > > notes, and thus give leash to their heretofore suppressed primacy,
    will we
    >
    >/snip
    >
    > > be increasing the importance of interpretation --
    > > rather than minimising it, as some have dreamed computing would do?
    >
    >
    >D.F. McKenzie, drawing upon the work of Peter de Voogd on the marbled
    >pages of Laurence Sterne's _Tristam Shandy_
    >
    ><cite>
    >Each hand-marbled page is necessarily different yet integral with the
    >text. As an assortment of coloured shapes which are completely
    >non-representational, a marbled page as distinct from a lettered one might
    >even be said to have no meaning at all. Most modern editions, if they do
    >attempt to include them, and do not merely settle for a note of their
    >original presence, will print a black-and-white image of them which is
    >uniform in every copy of the edition. By doing that, of course, subvert
    >Sterne's intention to embody an emblem of non-specific intention, of
    >difference, of undetermined meaning, of the very instablility of text
    >from copy to copy.
    ></cite>
    >
    >One can of course imagine an electronic edition where the image of the
    >marbled page is produced by a program that more or less randomly generates
    >a marbled page on the fly. One can also image an electronic edition that
    >provides a gallery of extant marbled pages from earlier editions. Or a
    >combination of both so that future readers can compare images of extant
    >physical copies with computer-generated "facsimile simulations".
    >
    >Think of Ovid on an electronic billboard --- the physicality of the
    >inscription matters. Paul Monette in the preface to a collection of
    >elegies in honour of his dead lover recalls the importance of the setting
    >to the reading experience:
    >
    ><cite>
    >In the summer of 1984 Roger and I were in Greece together, and for both of
    >us it was a peak experience that left us dazed and slightly giddy. We'd
    >been together for ten years, and life was very sweet. On the high bluff of
    >ancient Thera, looking out across the southern Aegean toward Africa, my
    >hand grazed a white marble block covered edge to edge with Greek
    >characters, line after precise line. The marble was tilted face up to the
    >weather, its message slowly eroding in the rain. "I hope somebody's
    >recorded all this," I said, realizing with a dull thrill of helplessness
    >that this _was_ the record, right her on this stone.
    ></cite>
    >
    >Of course the allusion to "peak experience" brings to mind Timothy Leary
    >would have added "set" to my mention of "setting" above. Mind set of the
    >readers. It is perhaps worth quoting Leary just to illustrate how close
    >psychedelic experience is to reading:
    ><cite>
    >The specific reaction has little to do with the chemical and is chiefly a
    >function of _set_ and _setting_; preparation and environment. The better
    >the preparation, the more ecstatic and revelatory the session. In initial
    >sessions and with unprepared persons, setting -- particularly the actions
    >of others -- is most important. With persons who have prepared
    >thoughtfully and seriously, the setting is less important.
    ></cite>
    >from _The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of
    >the Dead_
    >
    >No doubt this in not quite what you had uppermost in your mind but these
    >selections are not so distant from any consideration of what D.F. McKenzie
    >calls the sociology of texts. And quoted here they serve to emphasize
    >whenever we ponder the complexities of computing and its fungible
    >artefacts, we remember that we are dealing with humans and machines and
    >very much like musical instruments both are prepared.
    >
    >But half the fun is being surprised in one's unpreparedness -- it leaves
    >room for improvisation in the face of instability. Is that not the moral
    >of many and Ovidian tale?
    >
    >--
    >Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
    > some threads tangle in tassles, others form the weft
    > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance

    -- 
    Brian A. Bremen, editor
    William Carlos Williams Review
    Department of English
    The University of Texas at Austin
    Austin, TX   78712-1164
    bremen@curly.cc.utexas.edu
    Phone:  512-471-7842            Fax:  512-471-4909
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 16 2001 - 02:20:59 EST