When Master Kar Yong taught us the 'kungfu' of bible interpretation, I was resistant to the idea that we gotta discover 'the original intended meaning' of the author.
It seems so rigid compared to the 'freeplay' in constructing allegorical, 'my own original' meaning for the text! In those days, I could 'see' hidden meanings all over the place i.e. what does pomegranate in the temple symbolise?
Who is the first kinsman-redeemer in the story of Ruth? (hint: Moses!)
But Carl Henry was right that my fanciful style of interpretation leads to a free-for-all “hermeneutical nihilism”…
In the absence of an objective textual meaning, no valid choice is possible between two or more conflicting interpretations.
The purpose of hermeneutic is discover 'what did the author mean to say then?' before applying it to our own situation - 'what does it mean to us now?'
This is not easy. For we all bring our own assumptions to the text.
That's why we have so many 'views'.
After more careful readings, the text can also challenge our assumptions so it is *possible* to spiral down closer to the author's intended meaning.
For postmoderns like Derrida, though, we cannot know the ‘original meaning’ of any text. The meaning derived by the interpreter differs radically from that of the author…
Grant Osborne describes in 'Hermeneutical Spiral':
"Since language (parole) can never yield complete access to the “self-presence” or thoughts (langue) that lay behind it, absence characterizes the search for meaning…
Then he quotes Derrida’s take on “outside-within tension”: (Be prepared for one of the most unintelligible paragraph I've ever read)
“Writing is the outlet as the descent of meaning outside itself within itself: Metaphor-for-others-aimed-at-others-here-and-now, metaphor as the possibility of others here-and-now, metaphor as metaphysics in which Being must hide itself if the other is to appear… For the fraternal order is not first in the place of what is called inter-subjectivity, but in the work and peril of interrogation; the other is not certain within the place of the response in which two affirmations espouse each other, but is called up in the night by the excavating work of interrogation. Writing is the moment of this original Valley of the other within Being. The moment of depth as decay. Incidence and insistence of inscription.”
If you dun understand what Derrida is saying, WELCOME to the club! I personally dun feel any compelling reason to read someone who isn't big on clear communication.
Foucault (quite a postmodern hero himself) once accused Derrida of writing obscurely and then attacking people (i.e. John Searle) for misinterpreting him.
It strikes me as odd though.
What "an incredibly nondeconstructionist nonpostmodern response for someone who maintains that the meaning of the text is not in the author’s intention, but in what the reader finds it saying to him or her!" (Millard Erickson)
Fans of Derrida may howl in protest, "Dave, u dun even understand him! Read his books, will ya?"
But as I've blogged here, why should I even try?
IF Derrida really said that all language is equivocal (open to two or more interpretations), never univocal (having one meaning)…
Why even complain that the meaning I get is different from his 'original intended meaning'?
(Now, that's a big IF...)
Did Derrida really say that? Could so many, many folks misunderstand him here?
Given his notoriously obscure writing style, I dun blame them!
But let's hear it from the man himself... here is a reasonably clear quotation from Derrida in "Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry" (thanks, Groothius!)
“If, in fact, equivocity is always irreducible, that is because words and language in general are not and cannot be absolute objects. They do not possess any resistant and permanent identity that is absolutely their own.”
If so, dun mind me indulging in a bit of 'linguistic freeplay' here! :)
It seems so rigid compared to the 'freeplay' in constructing allegorical, 'my own original' meaning for the text! In those days, I could 'see' hidden meanings all over the place i.e. what does pomegranate in the temple symbolise?
Who is the first kinsman-redeemer in the story of Ruth? (hint: Moses!)
But Carl Henry was right that my fanciful style of interpretation leads to a free-for-all “hermeneutical nihilism”…
In the absence of an objective textual meaning, no valid choice is possible between two or more conflicting interpretations.
The purpose of hermeneutic is discover 'what did the author mean to say then?' before applying it to our own situation - 'what does it mean to us now?'
This is not easy. For we all bring our own assumptions to the text.
That's why we have so many 'views'.
After more careful readings, the text can also challenge our assumptions so it is *possible* to spiral down closer to the author's intended meaning.
For postmoderns like Derrida, though, we cannot know the ‘original meaning’ of any text. The meaning derived by the interpreter differs radically from that of the author…
Grant Osborne describes in 'Hermeneutical Spiral':
"Since language (parole) can never yield complete access to the “self-presence” or thoughts (langue) that lay behind it, absence characterizes the search for meaning…
Then he quotes Derrida’s take on “outside-within tension”: (Be prepared for one of the most unintelligible paragraph I've ever read)
“Writing is the outlet as the descent of meaning outside itself within itself: Metaphor-for-others-aimed-at-others-here-and-now, metaphor as the possibility of others here-and-now, metaphor as metaphysics in which Being must hide itself if the other is to appear… For the fraternal order is not first in the place of what is called inter-subjectivity, but in the work and peril of interrogation; the other is not certain within the place of the response in which two affirmations espouse each other, but is called up in the night by the excavating work of interrogation. Writing is the moment of this original Valley of the other within Being. The moment of depth as decay. Incidence and insistence of inscription.”
If you dun understand what Derrida is saying, WELCOME to the club! I personally dun feel any compelling reason to read someone who isn't big on clear communication.
Foucault (quite a postmodern hero himself) once accused Derrida of writing obscurely and then attacking people (i.e. John Searle) for misinterpreting him.
It strikes me as odd though.
What "an incredibly nondeconstructionist nonpostmodern response for someone who maintains that the meaning of the text is not in the author’s intention, but in what the reader finds it saying to him or her!" (Millard Erickson)
Fans of Derrida may howl in protest, "Dave, u dun even understand him! Read his books, will ya?"
But as I've blogged here, why should I even try?
IF Derrida really said that all language is equivocal (open to two or more interpretations), never univocal (having one meaning)…
Why even complain that the meaning I get is different from his 'original intended meaning'?
(Now, that's a big IF...)
Did Derrida really say that? Could so many, many folks misunderstand him here?
Given his notoriously obscure writing style, I dun blame them!
But let's hear it from the man himself... here is a reasonably clear quotation from Derrida in "Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry" (thanks, Groothius!)
“If, in fact, equivocity is always irreducible, that is because words and language in general are not and cannot be absolute objects. They do not possess any resistant and permanent identity that is absolutely their own.”
If so, dun mind me indulging in a bit of 'linguistic freeplay' here! :)
Comments
Although he notes that there is no one correct Christian philosophy, there are limits to the extent to which a philosophy can be employed to illuminate Christian truth. For example, a Christian scholar cannot incorporate scientific materialism, deconstructionism, or moral relativism into Christian theology without distorting fundamental truths about the order and nature of things taught in Scripture and church history."
Francis Beckwith, on things we can learn from Pope John Paul II
Works by E. D. Hirsch Jr (b. 1928)
1967 Validity in Interpretation. Hirsch, an English professor at the University of Virginia, examines the origins and development of literary criticism, asserting that "the will of the author is the determiner of textual meaning." He would continue to explore this theme in The Aims of Interpretation (1977), in which he argues that authorial intention is stable and knowable and that "critics have an ethical obligation to acknowledge and respect it when determining the significance of a text."
1976 Aims of Interpretation. Hirsch attacks the New Criticism and argues for a renewed multidisciplinary, humanistic approach to literary criticism.
- it persuades pro-Derridean 'seekers' or 'pre-Christians' that you respect Derrida's influence even if you don't agree with his views, leading to (hopefully fruitful) conversation with them and so on
- it helps you grasp in greater depth the issues Derrida was concerned with and perhaps even stimulate you to propose helpful modifications to Derrida's 'theories' which incorporate his positive insights WITHOUT his (apparently) confusing and/or relativistic style, method, etc.
- it keeps us humble and open to learn from others (even as we ask that they learn from us)
every single virtue of what you said IMPLIES that I can understand what Derrida (the author) intended to convey about his concerns and so on...
If
Am I correct? Or am I wrong? :)
It only makes sense in a non-deconstruction framework (if I understand him rightly on this issue)...
Lemme quote you on that:
"In fact, as any philosophy enthusiast can easily show, Derrida’s view - that the meaning of texts continually fluctuate – can be applied back on itself, thereby rendering it self-contradictory and incoherent as a statement of reality."
http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/derrida.html
That IS the point I'm making here...
He once wrote that everybody thinks the reader can TRY to understand the author's intended meaning but they disagree about...
1) whether they should do it
2) whether they can, if they did
Derrida seems to say 'no' bcos of its 'totalizing' effects, problems of iterability of language, intertextuality etc.
I'm not attempting a detailed analysis here, nor should this post be expected to say all that can be said... my point is much humbler...
If that is true, why complain when people don't or can't understand Derrida?
I'd not try to modify a philosophy which has as its foundation the 'death of god'... For without the Author, any meaning is possible...
In theology departments, it's more the Enlightenment dualism b/w God and the world that is alarming. They don't couch it as clearly as Bultmann does these days, but its pervasiveness can be suffocating. e.g. Biblical studies departments hardly engage with theology departments. Why? because systematicians make too many assumptions with supernatural overtones that causes biblical scholars to squirm in their seats. I had a friend who was told not to pursue his research on the atonement in John's Gospel b/c he's reading too much of later doctrinal developments into the text. Actually, what the NT prof. meant as I undestood it, was that you cannot presuppose divine action upon the world when you approach the text.
It seems to me that even if we do recover some kind of metanarrative, it is not enough for our "ministry of reconciliation" as Paul puts it. A metanarrative can be situated within a closed system both theoretically and practically. We need to push for what I call an "organic relatedness" to all of life. "Jesus is Lord" ought to be the reforming slogan.