[lit-ideas] Re: Popperian Jurisprudence [Amended]
- From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:13:11 +0100 (BST)
R. Paul (Emeritus of Oregon) wrote:
> to search for such partially decisive actions and events, yet in need of
> validation,
> as, e.g. when a player touches the chess piece she's about to move but does
> not reveal
> its ultimate destination. Whether its 'ultimate destination' is determined
> observationally or by interrogating the player has no clear answer.
Possibly malapropos, but yet: note the double entendre of the term
'destination' in Paul. Should we take it to mean 'topographical end point,' or
'hermeneutic meaning'?
To add to the confusion, should we understand Paul to make an
objective/subjective distinction here, allowing the observational method to
produce some objective aspect of the move, while the interview makes possible
subjective perspectives on the piece's destination? The passive voice in Paul's
last clause enable us to ask if interpretations of a move should be admitted
only from those immediately involved in the game or if extra diegetic readers
are entitled to bring their understandings to bear.
All this has a Freudian thing to it. More on it later.
Cheers,
Dr. Torgeir Fjeld
Oslo, Norway
no.linkedin.com/in/torgeirfjeld //
http://independent.academia.edu/TorgeirFjeld // ; http://facebook.com/phatic
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
