The sig- quote in Nate's message is gterrific.)
Paul, as the author of your messages (the authorial you -- I'm conceding
Eva's point), you have certainly been consistent. Is consistency the way to
LBE? The (belaboured) exchange that I responded to by stomping my foot was
very much about both comprehension and interpretation: ESPECIALLY
comprehension of *the other's argument* and INTERPRETATION of Marx. For you
to treat your interpretation of Marx as a matter of (irrefutable) fact is
to invite the ire of those who wish to engage in a dialog -- that is, an
exchange of views. AS Bakhtin makes clear, meaning is never IN the words
themselves but in the exchange between "voices" -- i.e., voiced utterances,
language used by someone in response to what was said before and in
anticipation of a response .... Hence, the refusal to engage in an other's
sensemaking is a kind of bullying. Phil was not engaging in dialog, but you
are the one I'm addressing, because you so regularly perform as the judge
of what other people say.
Judy
>
>So basically I'm saying again what I've said consistently. It's just not
>all just interpretation. There is a distinction between comprehending what
>exists independently of any individual's consciousenss of it and to which
>any individuals consciousness must accomdate itself if the individual is to
>get past it (to convert it from a horizon of limitation to an element of an
>action, if you like) and the interpretation of it. Some things are mainly
>interpretation, others aren't. There are certain structures, patterns,
>processes and situations that have a description that must be used if any of
>the succeeding levels and possibilities of interpretation are at all
>possible. If you don't comprehend the language for describing it then you
>don't even come close to the level of interpreting anything expressed in
>that language..
>
>What do you think?
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:13 PM
>Subject: Re: . rRe: reflection (on ending duels - still belabouring)
>
>
>>
>> Paul, it's pretty clear to me that there is no such a thing as
>> comprehension that is not also interpretation,
>> and no matter what the topic or the listserve, an email message is not and
>> can never be equivalent to its supposed explicit referential meanings.
>>
>> I and many others here have found Bakhtin very helpful for articulating
>why
>> that is.
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> On the other hand, listservs devoted to topics in
>> The only time anything
>> >clear cut would emerge would be when someone made a statement that was
>> >simply a misrepresentation of the text at the comprehension, not the
>> >interpretation level;
>>
>>
>>
>> eg, statements to the effect that 2+2=5 or that
>> >Vygotsky's dog salivated upon hearing the bell ring, or other such
>> >statements. If such statements are made and someone else points to the
>> >error it would seem that we would fall back on the first rule
>(non-activity
>> >system derived -- rather using Lakoff's principle that conversation is
>meant
>> >to be helpful) to determine whether the individual or the interaction is
>the
>> >focus of the assertion. And sometimes people, through this process, also
>> >find out that they were mistaken and improve their comprehension in the
>> >process. So you ask: does the person say: "Q is not X" or does she say
>"You
>> >are wrong that Q is Y."
>>
>> >I guess it just goes to show that their are boolean and fuzzy list servs
>and
>> >activity systems and that people in fuzzy ones shouldn't blame other
>> >people's understanding/insight/judgment/personality/character/etc in
>> >disagreements about where the boundary is.
>> >
>> >Paul H. Dillon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:08 PDT