CJD

This is what I'd expect from someone merely reading a review. <insert a wisecrack about sugar plums and chiasms here> Don't blame Vanhoozer for that reviewer's failure.

Vanhoozer argues quite clearly on pp. 288ff. that the belief that there is a determinate textual meaning (as opposed to the deconstructionist's indeterminate supposition) is properly basic. In other words, it goes against common sense to suggest that a text has no determinate meaning, or rather a variety of 'meanings' based on the varied readings of every reader. From page 289:

If you would spend a little less time looking for an opportunity to antagonize, Vork, you would not now be chomping on your shoe.

Best,

CJD

Wallener

Since there is no external way of determining "determinate textual meaning", you are right back to everybody bringing their own "determinate textual meaning" to the text. And that is functionally equivalent to deconstructionism.

Vorkosigan

Yes, and that belief is culturally situated and derived from numerous other beliefs. There is no such thing as a properly basic belief. All beliefs exist in networks of other beliefs and values. There is no escape from that. Reformed theology is an exercise in reifying culturally and locally situated values as absolutes.

Further, the text clearly does NOT have a determinate meaning. Many Biblical writings are parabolic or allegorical or symbolic (what is the meaning of "bread" in the Synoptic tradition? What is the determinate meaning of Mark 15:39? What is the determinate meaning of "Son of Man" in the Synoptic Tradition, Ezekiel, and elsewhere?). In many places authors appear to have meant many things simultaneously. And when they engage in puns and wordplay, sending Shaul down to Sheol, what do you think the "determinate" meaning is?

The reason that I chew on my shoe is that leather is a lot chewier than lightweight Reformed Theology.

HOWEVER. I will read this book when I get the chance. That I promise.

Vorkosigan

CJD

You misunderstand. There is a way. Vanhoozer is speaking of the belief itself.

[edited to add: response to Wallener]

Wallener

I completely understand. The point is that a belief consistent across many individuals does not arise from the texts themselves. We have about 3000 years worth of existence proof on that point. That means such a belief has to come from outside the texts, which in turn means it comes from the cultural milieu the reader is embedded in.

His argument is simply put: the Bible has a determinate meaning if people bring their basic beliefs to the book instead of deriving them from the book. He is arguing from Derrida-Land.

CJD

I understand this quite well. I am no Reformed epistemologist. That said, the notion that all belief is socially located does not undermine Reid's (or Plantiga's or Vanhoozer's) view here. Everybody reifies their culturally and locally situated values as absolutes — especially when multiple generations are involved. These are the basics of the sociology of knowledge. The respectable position is knowing that, and holding to those 'absolutes' but loosely. But we have to get on with it, we have to say this or that text means this; we inevitably reify, or else you have Stanley Fish saying his laundry list is the best poem every written.

By determinate, Vanhoozer simply means that the author's text has intent, and that there are means to get at it. Your examples are not antithetical to this, they in fact exemplify the need for responsible, socio-grammatical interpretive criticism.

All in fun, Vork.

CJD

CJD

You don't seem to understand. It is not either/or. Vanhoozer is taking neither a deconstructionist position nor a dogmatic (or fundamentalist) position. He recognizes that meaning from a text comes both from the baggage people bring to it as well as methods employed to 'get at' the author's intent. And the latter is supposed to keep the former in check as much as possible.

[edited to add:The 'belief' I am speaking of is the belief that a text has meaning, not a belief in this or that meaning. Are we speaking about the same thing?]

post tenebras lux

Hmm, aren't you actually arguing that the belief that a text has a determinate textual meaning is properly basic?

Luxie

Diogenes the Cynic

Even if we assume the author had an intent (putting aside issues of multiple authorship, redaction, and authors' reinterpretations/recontextualizations of earlier material), there is still no way to determine from the text alone, exactly what that intent was.

CJD

Luxie,
Vanhoozer argues that, yes. Would he argue for something more fixed than that? Maybe. But this is our thread now.