Re: [xmca] understanding understanding

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Martin,
thanks for this link to the International Journal for Dialogical Sciences.
In the same spirit of exploring the notion of *understanding understanding*
 I'm sending a link to a scholar [Jean Grondin] who has engaged deeply with
Gadamer's writings.  It is only an 8 page document but introduces Gadamer's
ideas in a seriously playful *way*


http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/grondinj/pdf/play_festival_ritual_gadam.pdf

The article is a fascinating interpretation of the centrality of play,
festival, and ritual in our ways of becoming human.

Larry

PS Greg,
The article also engages with the modern sense of self as preoccupied with
self-control



On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> Seems that this may be a helpful resource: The International Journal for
> Dialogical Science.
>
> <http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/>
>
> Martin
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>
> > Martin,
> > 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* &
> > *philosophy*
> >
> > Greg,
> > 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]
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "
>  > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca