For naive realists, reading of texts proceeds as if the meaning of the text is to be read straight off of the page without the need for interpretation. This leads to a tremendously impressionistic and naïve readings of texts.
The extreme which characterizes much postmodern thought sees reading a text as pure projection of the reader's horizon onto the text. Over and against this disparity (between naive realism and phenomenalism) Lonergan suggests that the meaning of a text is the intent of the author, in so far as the author successfully expresses it in the text. Gaining access to this is not like seeing (limited to the world of immediacy) but is achieved through a process. The interpreter begins with her own concerns, yet as she interacts with a text, and rereads it, holding off judgment, she can eventually arrive at a grasp of the reader's successfully embodied intent. For Lonergan, being an interpreter is an intensely difficult task which includes not only understanding the words or object of thought, "but of understanding the author himself, his nation, language, time, culture, way of life, and cast of mind" (Method in Theology 160).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Lonergan suggests that the meaning of a text is the intent of the author, in so far as the author successfully expresses it in the text."
Coming out of the Church of Christ tradition, whose hermeneutic is extremely naive, I agree that this kind of reading in unhealthy. I disagree, however, that the meaning of a text is the intent of the author. The intent of the author ought to have weight, much like the instruction manual for an electronic gadget. But that doesn't mean a hacker can't come along and discover an even better use for the gadget! I've written more extensively on these ideas here (this blog is defunct, so if you want to comment, you'll have to do it here or email me):
http://www.libraryofgondal.org/halcyonflies/2008/07/on-reading-and-writing.html
Consider, for instance, the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac. The author could not possibly have had in mind the sacrifice that God makes in his only son Jesus in order to found a new Kingdom. But to say that the story of Abraham and Isaac has no meaning which bears on the crucifixion is limiting--it places unnecessary bounds on the ability for texts to become alive, and if you believe that these texts are inspired by God, it places unnecessary bounds on God.
Post a Comment