Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 747.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:56:25 +0000
From: "Brian A. Bremen" <bremen@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: 14.0743 multiple perspectives
I think the classic work of interpretation and hermeneutics in this regard
is Hans Georg Gadamer's _Truth and Method_.
Brian A. Bremen
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 743.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
> <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
>
> [1] From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com> (52)
> >
> [2] From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (74)
> Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
>
>
>--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:44:59 +0000
> From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
> Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
>
>Hi Willard,
>
>At 01:47 PM 3/14/01, you wrote:
>>So much for the context. Now my question. Who has written most clearly and
>>persuasively on the relevant paradox of interpretation, which takes control
>>of and to a varying degree remakes its object in the very act of its own
>>subservience?
>
>Funny how threads intertwine. This reminds me of the work of Harold Bloom,
>from the mid-seventies through the mid-eighties, whose work I've been
>reviewing for another purpose. "Clearly and persuasively" may be arguable
>in his case (the stuff was nothing if not controversial: some readers found
>it by turns over-audacious and obscure). But works like *The Anxiety of
>Influence*, *A Map of Misreading*, *The Breaking of the Vessels* all
>examine this theme.
>
>> Since we can actually do away with the necessity of
>>physically subordinating commentary and other sorts of interpretative
>>notes, and thus give leash to their heretofore suppressed primacy, will we
>>not (also paradoxically) be increasing the importance of interpretation --
>>rather than minimising it, as some have dreamed computing would do?
>
>Yes. It is a good lesson to assimilate, that our very acts of "clarifying,
>for all time, the truth of the matter" really amount to adding
>interpretations (new or not so new) to the stack.
>
>I have been looking at *The Breaking of the Vessels*, which transcribes
>lectures Bloom gave in 1981. One of the fascinating things about this
>little volume is that no typographic distinction is made between quotes and
>commentary. Just to give you a taste (I open the book at random): having
>quoted Wilde's *The Critic As Artist*, Bloom writes:
>
> Are [Wilde's characters] Vivian and Gilbert not speaking
> the language of poetry and the language of criticism? Wilde
> is one of the pioneers at insisting upon the identity of the
> two languages. Yet he has persuaded only a few critics and
> poets after him. What is or isn't criticism always has been
> problematic, and perhaps readers ought to be less certain
> than they have been as to what is or isn't poetry. What is
> most problematic here is the notion of language, since
> increasingly we all trope upon the word "language" whether
> we are conscious or not of our turning of the term. Wilde
> was far enough ahead of his time so that most of us still
> lag behind him. Yet any memorable criticism, from Longinus
> to our moment, has had very little to do with the modest
> handmaiden's role prescribed by the modern Anglo-American
> academy....
>
>Best regards,
>Wendell
>
>======================================================================
>Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
>Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
>17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
>Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
>Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
>======================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:45:33 +0000
> From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
> Subject: Re: 14.0740 multiple perspectives?
>
>Willard,
>
>The beast described below is closer to the creatures of digital imaging
>than those of text encoding but it perhaps captures the long tradition in
>bibliography of being aware fo the "remaking of its objects".
>
> > So much for the context. Now my question. Who has written most
clearly and
> > persuasively on the relevant paradox of interpretation, which takes
> control
> > of and to a varying degree remakes its object in the very act of its own
> > subservience? Since we can actually do away with the necessity of
> > physically subordinating commentary and other sorts of interpretative
> > notes, and thus give leash to their heretofore suppressed primacy,
will we
>
>/snip
>
> > be increasing the importance of interpretation --
> > rather than minimising it, as some have dreamed computing would do?
>
>
>D.F. McKenzie, drawing upon the work of Peter de Voogd on the marbled
>pages of Laurence Sterne's _Tristam Shandy_
>
><cite>
>Each hand-marbled page is necessarily different yet integral with the
>text. As an assortment of coloured shapes which are completely
>non-representational, a marbled page as distinct from a lettered one might
>even be said to have no meaning at all. Most modern editions, if they do
>attempt to include them, and do not merely settle for a note of their
>original presence, will print a black-and-white image of them which is
>uniform in every copy of the edition. By doing that, of course, subvert
>Sterne's intention to embody an emblem of non-specific intention, of
>difference, of undetermined meaning, of the very instablility of text
>from copy to copy.
></cite>
>
>One can of course imagine an electronic edition where the image of the
>marbled page is produced by a program that more or less randomly generates
>a marbled page on the fly. One can also image an electronic edition that
>provides a gallery of extant marbled pages from earlier editions. Or a
>combination of both so that future readers can compare images of extant
>physical copies with computer-generated "facsimile simulations".
>
>Think of Ovid on an electronic billboard --- the physicality of the
>inscription matters. Paul Monette in the preface to a collection of
>elegies in honour of his dead lover recalls the importance of the setting
>to the reading experience:
>
><cite>
>In the summer of 1984 Roger and I were in Greece together, and for both of
>us it was a peak experience that left us dazed and slightly giddy. We'd
>been together for ten years, and life was very sweet. On the high bluff of
>ancient Thera, looking out across the southern Aegean toward Africa, my
>hand grazed a white marble block covered edge to edge with Greek
>characters, line after precise line. The marble was tilted face up to the
>weather, its message slowly eroding in the rain. "I hope somebody's
>recorded all this," I said, realizing with a dull thrill of helplessness
>that this _was_ the record, right her on this stone.
></cite>
>
>Of course the allusion to "peak experience" brings to mind Timothy Leary
>would have added "set" to my mention of "setting" above. Mind set of the
>readers. It is perhaps worth quoting Leary just to illustrate how close
>psychedelic experience is to reading:
><cite>
>The specific reaction has little to do with the chemical and is chiefly a
>function of _set_ and _setting_; preparation and environment. The better
>the preparation, the more ecstatic and revelatory the session. In initial
>sessions and with unprepared persons, setting -- particularly the actions
>of others -- is most important. With persons who have prepared
>thoughtfully and seriously, the setting is less important.
></cite>
>from _The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of
>the Dead_
>
>No doubt this in not quite what you had uppermost in your mind but these
>selections are not so distant from any consideration of what D.F. McKenzie
>calls the sociology of texts. And quoted here they serve to emphasize
>whenever we ponder the complexities of computing and its fungible
>artefacts, we remember that we are dealing with humans and machines and
>very much like musical instruments both are prepared.
>
>But half the fun is being surprised in one's unpreparedness -- it leaves
>room for improvisation in the face of instability. Is that not the moral
>of many and Ovidian tale?
>
>--
>Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
> some threads tangle in tassles, others form the weft
> http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
-- Brian A. Bremen, editor William Carlos Williams Review Department of English The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-1164 bremen@curly.cc.utexas.edu Phone: 512-471-7842 Fax: 512-471-4909
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 16 2001 - 02:20:59 EST