[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] understanding understanding

thank you for your last clarification on Reddy's notions of the relation of
2nd person and 3rd person "ways of knowing".  Further on this topic of
"ways of knowing" I want to share a provocative quote from Joel Weinsheimer
in his book *Philosophical Hermeneutics and Literary Theory*.  He is
exploring Gadamer's notion that theory and validity do NOT *contain*
understanding. This quote also may contribute to the discussion of
technology.  Martin, I also remember you recommending that we read  Hayden
White's insights. In the spirit of understanding understanding,   Joel is
attempting to highlight Gadamer's distinction between *theory* &

I'm also sharing this quote because of the theme you were exploring about
*the will to power* and the notion of *owning* that seems to be an
archetypal theme.

Gadamer's hermeneutic philosophy concludes that what is universal to
interpretation, if there is anythng universal at all, is not a canon of
interpretive REGULATIONS.....
 It is, after all, primarily in industry, or more generally in technology,
that theories find practical applications.  Even if students of literature
are repulsed by the notion of an interpretation industry, many still
cherish the notion that the IDEAL interpretation is that which is the
product of and is legitimated by applied theory and this suggests that
interpretation ideally consists of CONTROLLED production, of subjectively
REGULATED creation.  Insofar as the ery purpose of literary or any other
theory is to GOVERN practice, Gadamer is quite right to state, ' Modern
theory is a tool of construction by means of which we gather experiences in
a unified way and make it possible to dominate them'.  Offering dominion
over literary experience, interpretation CONTROLLED by applied theory is a
function of the WILL TO POWER". [page 30]


xmca mailing list