A broken syllogism

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Matt Kozusko: "Davy's"
• Previous message: Abra: "Re: Authors, critics, readers..."

anonymous wrote:

> Interpert for
> yourself.  Don't take it beyond the most obvious and relevant meaning.
> Looking at details and attempting to decipher them to such an extent as
> to find a meaning that isn't there is wrong.  You find a message that
> the isn't there.  Therefore you are believing in things that don't
> exist.
 
Interpreting for oneself within your prescribed boundaries ins't exactly
interpreting for oneself.  Who is to determine the "obvious and
relevant" meaning?  And who is to serve as arbiter in cases deciding
what's "right" and "wrong" in reading literature (or letters or
bibliographies or lists of ingredients on packages of chewing gum,
etc.)?  Finally, how can you find meanings that aren't there?          

What you're proposing is that everybody read in a manner commensurate
with your own, or with what seems sensible to you.    
 
Erin's challenge wasn't necessarily hostile.  I trust it was in earnest
and in good faith, only sufficiently pointed to address what borders on
dogma in your own post.      


-- 
Matt Kozusko    mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu

• Next message: Matt Kozusko: "Davy's"
• Previous message: Abra: "Re: Authors, critics, readers..."