tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post7224956952420285692..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: An engagement with Nicholas Wolterstorff "Resuscitating the Author"Jonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-87454955398671461232009-06-09T14:45:46.071-04:002009-06-09T14:45:46.071-04:00919sex色片直播網919sex色片直播網視訊交友9073985cc免費影片85cc免費影片85c...<a href="http://eee192.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">919sex色片直播網</a><a href="http://eee193.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">919sex色片直播網</a><a href="http://eee194.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊交友90739</a><a href="http://eee195.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">85cc免費影片</a><a href="http://eee196.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">85cc免費影片</a><a href="http://eee197.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">85cc免費影城</a><a href="http://eee198.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">85cc免費影城</a><a href="http://eee199.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">831成人</a><a href="http://eee200.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">831成人</a><a href="http://eee201.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">777美女dvd</a><a href="http://eee202.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">777美女dvd</a><a href="http://eee203.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">777成人</a><a href="http://eee204.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">777成人</a><a href="http://eee205.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊交友90739</a><a href="http://eee206.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">77p2p影片網</a><a href="http://eee207.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">77p2p影片網</a><a href="http://eee208.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">77p2p</a><a href="http://eee209.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">77p2p</a><a href="http://eee210.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">735聊天室</a><a href="http://eee211.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">735聊天室</a><a href="http://eee212.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">711成人</a><a href="http://eee213.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">711成人</a><a href="http://eee214.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">707網愛聊天室</a><a href="http://eee215.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">707網愛聊天室</a><a href="http://eee216.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊聊天室</a><a href="http://eee217.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">69成人</a><a href="http://eee218.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">69成人</a><a href="http://eee219.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">666成人光</a><a href="http://eee220.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">666成人光</a><a href="http://eee221.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">530誘或成人網頁</a><a href="http://eee222.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">530誘或成人網頁</a><a href="http://eee223.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">5278cc免費影片</a><a href="http://eee224.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">5278cc免費影片</a><a href="http://eee225.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">5278影片網</a><a href="http://eee226.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">5278影片網</a><a href="http://eee227.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊聊天室v6 0</a><a href="http://eee228.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">4u成人</a><a href="http://eee229.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">4u成人</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-48879207379842408462006-10-09T09:05:00.000-04:002006-10-09T09:05:00.000-04:00Poetry often is a kind of solipsistic endeavor, wh...<i>Poetry often is a kind of solipsistic endeavor, where the meaning might not even be evident to the writer. When I'm particularly engaged in writing, especially fiction, I feel like I'm writing things without consciously understanding why.</i><br /><br />I remember a few years back I was deeply engaged in a Hebrew poetry class. We focussed on the Psalms and at the end of the semester we had a major research paper due on the exegesis of a 6-8 verse section of text.<br /><br />Always the optimist and desiring a challenge I chose Psalm 137. This is the Psalm where the Jews are lamenting their captivity in Babylon and ultimately it ends with a curse on the Babylonians for their abuse of the Hebrews.<br /><br />As a young, wide-eyed optimist my focus on the text was to determine the <i>meaning</i> of the text. To find the theological significance and to understand how this fits within the doctrines of the church. The completion of the paper simply left me confused and a bit frustrated. Only as I later began to reflect on some of the considerations of philosophical hermeneutics and also genre did I begin to recognize that the poetic text of Psalm 137 was an expression and that the true significance was probably less about doctrine formulation.<br /><br />When dealing with some poetry (but certainly not all) it seems as though the meaning is very closely tied with the response. The writer of Psalm 137 seems to be intent on expressing the intensity of his/her emotions with the purpose of calling forth a similar emotion from the audiance. But if this is the case, then the emotions stirred in the reader will vary based upon who is reading. A Jew who endured Babylonian abuse will be more sympathetic to the text of Psalm 137 then, say, a contemporary Babylonian!Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-39538361039870783802006-10-07T03:43:00.000-04:002006-10-07T03:43:00.000-04:00I had another thought on my run this morning about...I had another thought on my run this morning about this post. Earlier we exchanged views about what is the "locution" of a text. I'm going to go back to Gen 1:3 -- "<i>And God said, 'Let there be light.'"</i> When the text is a quotation there's a temptation to regard the material inside the quote -- <i>Let there be light</i> -- as the locution, the content of the text. But the content includes also the <i>And God said</i> part. The whole sentence is one locution, that happens to contain another person's locution as a quote embedded inside of it.<br /><br />This is important because it calls attention to the fact that every locution implies a locutor: a speaker or a writer of the content. So for Gen 1:3 to include a quotation calls attention to the person who spoke: God. However, the text also points to the other person, the one who said what God said: the writer. Is the writer who quotes God a reporter, a storyteller, a propagandist? In recognizing the trace of the writer in every text, you have to try to infer illocution. And I don't know how you do that without infering authorial intent. So I think we're in agreement here: Wolterstorff is too naive in his hermeneutic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-66432529312864329702006-10-06T17:01:00.000-04:002006-10-06T17:01:00.000-04:00Yes, I think it's difficult to infer meaning of me...Yes, I think it's difficult to infer meaning of message from meaning of words. You're exactly right about poetry and parables. In fact, I think these kinds of genres are sometimes <i>intended</i> to force the reader to understand meaning for him/herself. <i>"Let he who has ears to hear..."</i> -- doesn't that suggest that some readers will be unable to grasp the <i>real</i> meaning of the message even if they understand the words and the story they tell? Poetry often is a kind of solipsistic endeavor, where the meaning might not even be evident to the writer. When I'm particularly engaged in writing, especially fiction, I feel like I'm writing things without consciously understanding why. So there's some kind of simple ideal world of texts that Woltersdorff would like to inhabit, but that doesn't always apply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-74635824440310699402006-10-06T14:51:00.000-04:002006-10-06T14:51:00.000-04:00As a writer you eventually have to click the “send...<i>As a writer you eventually have to click the “send” button and hope for the best. Once your text is launched into the world, it just has to fend for itself.</i><br /><br />What interested me also about Wolterstorff's article is that he raises the ethical issue: Do we have an ethical responsibility to the author?<br /><br />The other thing here is to ask how this discussion applies to blogs. I can author a blog and then clarify my text by leaving comments. But if there are comments on the page, then doesn't this change the "text." What is the "text" in the case of a blog?<br /><br /><i>I’m all in favor of a written text being meaningful, and agree that an author uses a text in an attempt to convey not just content but meaning to the reader. I’m personally skeptical about whether those who read what I write understand precisely what I mean.</i><br /><br />What happens when we introduce a different genre? Let's switch to something like poetry. In poetic works is "meaning" really that important? Or is "movement" the point of emphasis? A poet seeks to move people and may or may not have a great deal to invest by way of "meaning."<br /><br />How does that apply to poetic books of Scripture, like the Psalms? These have been used heavily in the past as passages that were invested with theological meaning, and the result was to build systematic theologies based on snipits of poetry.<br /><br />Also consider the parables of Christ. These seem to be written to shake us out of our comfort zone: A spiritual shock therapy for the soul! To understand the "meaning" of a parable is one thing, to be "moved" is a completely different thing, all together. Maybe the meaning just is the impact....<br /><br />If poetry is meant for "movement" and less about "meaning," then where is the place of authorial intent? Is there a particular "movement" that the author intends? Or can there be multiple "movements" depending upon where a person is currently located.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-10324813304761643662006-10-06T14:19:00.000-04:002006-10-06T14:19:00.000-04:00Woltersdorff says he doesn’t just want to engage t...Woltersdorff says he doesn’t just want to engage the content of the text as <i>“a repetition of something past;”</i> he wants somehow to have an engagement with the author about what the author means by the text. I’m all in favor of a written text being meaningful, and agree that an author uses a text in an attempt to convey not just content but meaning to the reader. I’m personally skeptical about whether those who read what I write understand precisely what I mean. It’s hard to write content that’s good enough to convey meaning clearly. It’s also hard as a reader to be sure you’ve understood not just the meaning of the words but what that particular aggregation of words meant to the writer. There is, alas, no present engagement to be had between reader and writer – except, of course, if both are alive and can discuss the text. As a writer you eventually have to click the “send” button and hope for the best. Once your text is launched into the world, it just has to fend for itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-69363956412897468312006-10-05T16:20:00.000-04:002006-10-05T16:20:00.000-04:00The locution distinctions are complicated, but I w...The locution distinctions are complicated, but I would modify your understanding just a bit - tweak it just a little:<br />Locution is not, necessary, what the words mean. I have always understood it as the <i>medium</i> of speaking and/or writing. The utterance, itself "Shoot her!" is the locution. Or the scribling of some ink on a paper...or the typing of some script on a word processor. The act of communicating is what I have always understood as the locution.<br /><br />Illocution is not so much the <i>intent</i> as it is the effect of the utterance. On Austin's example, then, in uttering the locution "Shoot her!" the speaker has <i>urged</i> the hearer to perform an action. This urging is the illocution.<br /><br />The perlocution is the result that the locution (the speech itself) and the illocution (the urging to shoot) has on the hearer: He persuades the hearer to shoot!<br /><br />W. seems to want to locate interpretation in the illocution. In doing so it would seem as though he would not completely abandon the author, as he emphasizes in this article. On the other hand, interpreting the illocution would not be equivalent to the author's intention. Hence the following emphasis (explicitly stated) by W. in his article:<br /><br /><b>illocution</b> does not equal <b>authorial intent</b><br /><br />W. calls his view "authorial discourse." I wish he had fleshed out just a bit more how illocution is not authorial intent, but I believe he does much more of this in <i>Divine Discourse</i> and other published material.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-56610109712943618032006-10-05T15:01:00.000-04:002006-10-05T15:01:00.000-04:00This is a complex post with a lot of ideas I only ...This is a complex post with a lot of ideas I only vaguely understand. So I have this little book called <i>How to Do Things With Words</i> by J.L. Austin. He distinguishes between kinds of speech acts: the locutionary (He said to me “Shoot her!”), the illocutionary (He urged me to shoot her), and the perlocutionary (He persuaded me to shoot her). Locution is what the words mean, illocution is the speaker/writer’s intent, perlocution is the reader/hearer’s response. The reader/hearer has to make an interpretation in moving from locution to illocution, from content to intent. So Wolterstorff wants to stick with the locution instead of trying to infer the illocution. <br /><br />It’s not clear whether a pure locution can ever be retrieved from a text without inferring illocution. So: “He said to me ‘Shoot her’” should really be read “I assert that he said to me ‘shoot her.’” The “I assert” part is the illocution: my intent is to convey factual information. I think the program of assigning Biblical texts to literary genres is an attempt to infer illocutionary intent. So: behind the locution of Genesis 1 is an inferred illocution: the author intended to convey factual information about the Creation, or the author intended to tell an allegory on the subject of the Creation, or the author intended to deliver a polemic about the superiority of his gods. Presumably Woltersdorff wouldn’t infer the illocution: he’d assume that all Biblical texts convey meaning plain and simple.<br /><br />When Wolterstorff criticizes Ricoeur for reading the locutionary meaning of a text disconnected from the writer, I’m not sure I understand his point. What else could he want from the writer other than the illocutionary intent behind the text, which he says is unnecessary? Maybe what he has in mind is this: you can read a text as a pure artifact, stripped of locutionary meaning. Then you as reader must impose meaning on the text. Wolterstorff disagrees: for him the text always contains the author’s locutionary meaning, embedded in the words that the author selected.<br /><br />At first I agree with that idea. Language is a meaning system; to write a text is to create a meaningful linguistic artifact. Or, more directly, to write a text is to utter a meaningful communication. Writing is meant to be read; the writer writes in the hope that his meaning will be understood by the reader. But doesn’t the communicative exchange follow the sequence from locution (meaning) to illocution (hope of being understood) to perlocution (right understanding received by the reader)? <br /><br />That’s about as far as I can get tonight.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.com