A number of scholars and philosophers have
pointed out that when writing a book or
any other text, the author is encoding ideas
which subsequently take on an existence of
their own.
When the text is read, the message that the
reader receives cannot be assumed to have
anything whatsoever in common with the
original intentions of the author.
Of course, to write responsibly and seriously
is to offer meaning to the recipient.
But the readers may find no meaning, more
meaning or different meaning from the
intended meaning.
The transaction between writer and reader
is, or may be, imperfect, and is beyond the
author's control.
Additionally, writers may, consciously or
unintentionally, be following a more or less
implicit or explicit agenda, with prejudices,
assumptions or ideological intentions being
more or less concealed beneath the surface
of the text. For example, an author may
may repeatedly refer to a subject in some
scornful or derogatory terms, inviting the
unwary reader to partake in that subtle
antipathy. Or there may be implicit teleology,
the notion that history has a direction. The
undercurrents in an author's mind can be
sometimes elucidated by winkling out the
metaphors and studying the figures that are
used to verbally illustrate the narrative.
Of course, a nod is as good as a wink to
a blind horse.
If anyone should doubt the fact that a
reader can miss or misinterpret an author's
meaning, just consider your own personal
experience. All of us must have encountered
a book or a film on more than one occasion,
and noticed elements that we did not
perceive during the initial experience.
Two versions of the same story ?
Which was ' truer ' ? The first ? the second ?
What if you read a book a hundred times,
and only got the real message at the last
reading. Does that make the previous ninety
nine all false, not the ' real ' story ?
How could you be certain ? By reading the
book another hundred times ?
And then you discover that the previous
' truth ' was not the truth after all, because on
the 200th. reading..." aha ! so , that's what it
was really all about ! "...How could you be
sure ? Especially, if all the experts in that
field say it means something else altogether...
How could they be sure ? Why is there
disagreement ( putting aside synthetic
disputes motivated by financial gain,
political advantage, etc. ) other than because
one person's sincere interpretation differs
from another person's sincere interpretation.
Sometimes the matter can be settled, by
careful examination, or measurement of some
empirical evidence. But such situations are
only a fraction of our total cultural, moral,
spiritual and psychological cosmos.
Consider the joke which you didn't ' get '
until a day later. The first interpretation you
made didn't catch the humour. The second
did. What changed ? The text stayed just the
same...
You re-interpreted the text. If you finally
laughed at the punchline, presumably, you
hit the correct interpretation. If only it was
always as simple as that !
Some texts, like the Bible or Shakespeare, are
so rich and dense that there seem to be new
depths and insights to be found however
many times the stories are read. In these
instances the reader is enjoying the
continuity of their own personal identity
so it might be justifiable to conclude that the
mindset which read, say, Joyce or Conrad or
Melville or Dickens, at age eighteen, would
have something in common with the mindset
which re-reads them a decade later. At least,
one may suppose that the individual will
have approximately the same worldview and
cultural background from one year to the
next, a common factor, but even so, they are
likely to find new interpretations and insights.
However, one can imagine that the
interpretations of Joyce, Dickens or Conrad by
individuals from markedly different cultural
and temporal backgrounds will invoke some
totally different interpretations, meanings, and
impressions.
Writers and artists are very frequently not
appreciated by their contemporary soceity,
then glorified by some later generation. The
text doesn't change. The people do, and their
interpretation of what the text ' means ' does.
Disagreement over meaning of texts should
come as no surprise, since disagreements and
apparent mistakes occur even in the course
of direct empirical observation of everyday
events.
The experience of returning to a text and
deriving a new interpretation - perhaps just
once, or many times,- is called the
' hermeneutic cycle'.
This hermeneutic cycle, or spiral, would seem
to be something an individual can pursue
alone, but also a broader social phenomena,
where a large number of people learn by
way of events and adjust their understanding
of the world.
If many individuals encounter a text and each
derives their own new interpretation, the
problem arises as to which, if any, is the
' correct ' or ' true' interpretation.
If it is impossible to decide, then the concept
of ' objective truth ', has vanished, evaporated,
and we seem faced with the discomforting
conclusion that any one interpretation is as
good as any other...
It seems that ALL text has ambiguity.
And because of this it would appear that
the possibility of any final and complete
interpretation is indeed impossible.
A reason why all text has ambiguity stems
from the very nature of words...
Words are intrinsically slippery, ambiguous
and fluid. They certainly change their
generally accepted meanings over the course
of centuries, and sometimes almost overnight.
The efforts which the lexicographers make to
pin them down in dictionaries, can only be
achieved by using other words. And if you
follow that game, it is like a kitten chasing
its tail. Word A is explained by Word B
which is explained by Word C which is
explained by Word A all over again. That
kind of thing. A self-referential system.
Of course, that is the reason why the
mathematicians, physicists and computer
programers favour numbers and Greek
symbols, because that allows a bit more
precision.
Unfortunately, you cannot write a poem or
a saga in algebra. At least, I have never
encountered such a thing, and doubt that
I could understand or enjoy it if I did.
All English speakers will know what ' red '
means, and when they see that colour, will
agree that it is, indeed, red. But what if one
is actually seeing green, another sees orange,
another sees yellow, a fourth, blue ? We have
no means of telling whether the verbal handles
which we attach to experiences of things, and
which we so readily share, are, in fact, attached
to the same internal experiences.
If everybody tells you, from childhood, to call
a particular thing by a particular name, that's
what you do. But maybe, the way you actually
experience that thing is very different to how
they experience it.
This is undoubtedly, in fact, the case. For
example, two people suffer an episode of, say,
sea-sickness, at some time in their life. For A, it
was just a mild, transitory queasiness. For the
other, B, the most severe illness experienced in
a lifetime. Vastly different experiences, but both
designated by exactly the same term.
So, if I tell you I felt sea-sick, which one am I
talking about ? If you are A, you think one
thing. If you are B, quite another. Person D,
who has never been to sea, can only imagine
what the condition is like. Without any first-
hand direct experience to draw upon, D must
invent any meaning that he or she brings to
the words ' sea-sickness'.
Later in life, D does indeed travel the sea in
a storm, and realises that real sea-sickness
bears no resemblance at all to their earlier
surmise as to what ' sea-sickness ' meant.
So here we have several very different
interpretations of what the text ' sea-sick '
' means '. Consider, that your worldview is
constructed from elements of this nature.
How could such a worldview lay claim
to ' objectivity ' or ' truth ' ?
There is undoubtedly something very complex
occurring when a reader studies a text. I don't
know precisely what happens, but, on one
level it must have something to do with
forming new neural connections in the brain,
or whatever it is that takes place there, when
we study, learn, compare ideas, assess and
evaluate conceptual data, and so on.
Obviously, there is that bio-mechanical aspect.
I find that the philosophical, or metaphysical
implications are even more intriguing.
TOP. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEXT.
| 
