These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Hi Larry, Seems that this may be a helpful resource: The International Journal for Dialogical Science. <http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/> Martin On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Martin, > thank you for your last clarification on Reddy's notions of the relation of > 2nd person and 3rd person "ways of knowing". Further on this topic of > "ways of knowing" I want to share a provocative quote from Joel Weinsheimer > in his book *Philosophical Hermeneutics and Literary Theory*. He is > exploring Gadamer's notion that theory and validity do NOT *contain* > understanding. This quote also may contribute to the discussion of > technology. Martin, I also remember you recommending that we read Hayden > White's insights. In the spirit of understanding understanding, Joel is > attempting to highlight Gadamer's distinction between *theory* & > *philosophy* > > Greg, > I'm also sharing this quote because of the theme you were exploring about > *the will to power* and the notion of *owning* that seems to be an > archetypal theme. > > > Gadamer's hermeneutic philosophy concludes that what is universal to > interpretation, if there is anythng universal at all, is not a canon of > interpretive REGULATIONS..... > It is, after all, primarily in industry, or more generally in technology, > that theories find practical applications. Even if students of literature > are repulsed by the notion of an interpretation industry, many still > cherish the notion that the IDEAL interpretation is that which is the > product of and is legitimated by applied theory and this suggests that > interpretation ideally consists of CONTROLLED production, of subjectively > REGULATED creation. Insofar as the ery purpose of literary or any other > theory is to GOVERN practice, Gadamer is quite right to state, ' Modern > theory is a tool of construction by means of which we gather experiences in > a unified way and make it possible to dominate them'. Offering dominion > over literary experience, interpretation CONTROLLED by applied theory is a > function of the WILL TO POWER". [page 30] > > Larry > > > > > > " > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca