Notes on Textual Interpretation

1.1

In reading older texts embedded in a time-linear development of a particular tradition, it is widely (and rather uncritically) accepted that the meaning of the text is wholly dependent on the author’s intent with respect to the historical context of the same. The “context” becomes a form of meta-communication limiting or expanding the discursive domain of “allowed” meanings. Whereas it is true that an author can intentionally inject the necessary context for interpretation as a forward, preface or introduction of the main subject matter, it is obvious that the discourse of the author must end somewhere, putting the task of working out the meaning “in context” on the reader.

1.12

At some point, against the obsessive whim of a puritanical advocate, the reader must inject their own contemporary intuition, bias, and preconceptions in order to render the discourse intelligible to themselves. This is unavoidable; all communication must rest on a common basis of signs, emblems, images, concepts, and the whole agora of mental representative currency.

1.13

Discourse—either textual, oratorical, or emblematic—passes from one generation to the next; one geographical, historical and societal context to the next, with each carrier filtering, adding, removing, interpreting, re-interpreting the same on each their own contemporaneous and “modern” situation. It is a fallacy to think that each successive carrier of a particular tradition adds “context” to the source intent of the traditions; which also means that one should not, as some uncritically assert, assume that all historical copyists, translators and commentators understood the original meanings of what they processed.

1.131

An example can be found in the manner which Christians, Jews, and Muslims treat their own scriptures. They all assert that some meaning exists in scripture that is yet to be determined by some future reader suffering a particular event—of which prophecies are rather lurid examples. Since there is no way to determine the real context of a passage that outlines a future event, each carrier of the text must copy, process and retain that which is incomprehensible (or only comprehended with respect to the historical situation of the prophecy--till the prophecy is accepted as "fulfilled.").  And as such, each generation must pass on their own contemporaneous cognitive moments into the development of the textual tradition. The commentators will each add their own present perspectives into the chain, mirroring (i.e. speculation) the text into their extant world. These respective “reflections” of the text in the author’s absence will create family resemblances between the successive organa of interpretation. Sometimes jurists and legalistic interpreters will mistake the successive family resemblances as reflections of a unified intentional source meaning, even if the interpretive products of these systems contradict or obliterate each other.

2.1

In religious discourse, it is also asserted that each future individual will reawaken a personal meaning of a particular ancient text with respect to their own life, following a contemporaneous organum of interpretation based on some historical context developed and retained during the life of the textual and oral traditions. The complexities that arise from this enduring project often bring about the existence of self-privileged interpreters (priests, scholars, jurists), who dictate the confines of the discourse and its application to the user of the tradition. Some have even imploded the dialectic into discursive techniques used to limit meaningful dialectical criticism against a particular tradition. (See the claims echoed by Terry Eagleton, et al, the best criticisms against a tradition are found in the actual literary tradition for which one is criticizing).

2.12

This usually means that a dissenting users of the tradition (in its oral and textual aspects), who wishes to breath life back into an incomprehensible text, will find themselves in a hostile relationship with the privileged holders, preservers and interpreters of the tradition. The usual method of quelling this dissent, as executed by the “jurists” of the tradition, is to accuse the user of “adding their own interpretation” when their views are not in line with the general consensus of the priests and faithful adherents. This of course means that the priests and jurists must suddenly reduce what was formally considered “incomprehensible” to something that is fully comprehended within a fabricated “historical context” of the tradition. In other words, the mysteries of the tradition are held up as “incomprehensible” till the user makes a claim on the interpretation that disagrees with the jurist’s and scholar’s uncomprehending-comprehension. Once that happens, the formerly “incomprehensible” tradition, suddenly switches to the realm of understanding, if only to discredit and quiet the views of the dissenting user.

3.1

It is not hard to see that it is far easier for a theologian/jurist to deny a particular interpretation than to assert a meaningful replacement.

4.1

These statements can be made about any textual tradition: i.e. biblical, legal, constitutional, philosophical, hermetical, historical, etc.

5.1

As for religious traditions, it is not hard to see why such traditions should eternally commit to copying incomprehensible elements, as the transmission to and from and the retention of adherents requires a fundamentally static gap between human questions and mystery answers.

6.1

Each carrier of a particular tradition (meme-plex) will merge their own extant cognitive agora of understanding around the transmission of the tradition. Each interpreter will combine the extant programs of integration of the tradition into the life of the adherents into an oral history of the application by privileged users.

1.14

With the example of alchemy and hermetic tradition, one cannot therefore assert that the medieval alchemists of the 15^th-17^th century fully understood the meaning of textual sources (e.g. as the Emerald Tablet) of the 1^st to 12^th centuries. Some scholars of alchemy and hermeticism have said that the medieval alchemists were on the “leading edge” of technology of their time. But these same scholars claim that the best understanding of alchemy and hermeticism cannot be obtained by 20^th century researchers “injecting their own 20^th century ideas” into the text. They, instead, claim that we should strive to understand the historical context and divorce our own contemporaneous cognition from the reading. However, when a researcher divorces his own contemporaneous cognition from his interpretation and reflection of an older text, he is nevertheless reconstructing a bias of an earlier author in order to understand.

1.141

As such, the 20^th century researcher finds himself suspended his preconceptions in order to admire the—in particular—14^th century preconceptions of an even earlier source. While this may be a good exercise for the researcher to see through the eyes of another, he nevertheless replaces his own preconceptions with another’s (a potentially less correct) primordial understanding. Many alchemists decried the manner of which the “ancients” or the “sages” chose to explain an alchemical notion—citing examples from their own contemporaneous observations as a better path of understanding.