[lit-ideas] Re: Interpretation and Elision
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:50:49 -0600
Phil Enns:
If all we have are the experiences
from our given world, what is added by the claim that those experiences
are then interpreted through the lens of that given world?
No, no, no, no. Initially all we have is our given world -- meaning all its
interpretations of experiences that that world perceives, all subsequent
experiences are seen through the lens of that given world.
And for
Heidegger, there is no interpretation of experience, rather experience
and the world of experience is given.
You could be right, but I interpreted Heidegger as saying that we are taught
that certain associations are given to certain perceptions, a quack means a
duck, as certain motor sound means a Mercedes -- we don't need to think our
way to those conclusions, the associations are automatic and until those
associations no longer work for us then we have no reason to question them.
Only when something no longer works for us do we really become aware of it
and begin to re-interpret the "facts" we've always presumed we knew.
On your account, the experience is already an interpretation. So there
is an interpretation of an interpretation.
As I see it, every experience is shaped by prior interpretations, so, yes, I
was taught what meaning to assign to every experience in my life. Taught my
world's interpretation of that experience. We learn how to perceive.
Almost all of those prior interpretations were taught us by our world.
why not just agree with
Nietzsche and Heidegger: Life is itself a perspective and all activity
an expression of that perspective.
I do agree with that.
On this account, an account I have
no trouble accepting, there is no need to add interpretation except in
the most ordinary sense where one interprets a facial expression, a
poem, a phrase from another language, etc.
But of course there's the need for interpretation. We are continuously
confronted with the inadequacy of our learned perspectives to explain events
in our world, technology alone challenges us daily with contradictions to
our beliefs and the opening up of radically new possibilities. And then
there's the slow warping of ideas akin to Bloom's misreading thesis, a
warping that over time and cumulative error effects a reinterpretation of
what we had previously thought we thought. And with the shrinking of the
world, we're continually confronted by other worlds who insist their world
is the right world. Interpreting signs and signals and cryptic literary
messages seems to me the least significant aspect of interpretation. What
is my life about? -- that's what drives interpretation.
From Nietzsche's
perspective, the problem with this talk of interpretation is that it
requires a god-like interpreter and a super-real thing to be
interpreted. All terribly metaphysical and no longer plausible. Or in
Heideggerian terms, it suffers from onto-theology.
Nonsense. Only if you're looking for Absolute Truth do either of these
criticisms hold. I'm not talking about positing a meaning for the universe.
Coherence, that's all, let me live with some semblance of coherence.
Everything you think, every value you hold, every decision you make is the
result of an interpretation of your world -- an interpretation that is for
the most part given you by your culture, not work out by you, but it is up
to you to keep that inherited world coherent. Which means continuing to
interpret and reinterpret when necessary one's experiences.
Mike Geary
Memphis
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
