>>> i imagine that PARADISE LOST would be virtually
>>> incomprehensible to someone totally lacking a sense
>>> of christian myths . . .
>
>I disagree. This is where you are ignoring the
>position of ignorance. You're assuming that from a
>position of knowledge, a position of ignorance would
>be a much worse position to be in. However, I would
>argue that Paradise Lost would perhaps be more
>intelligible to someone reading it without any
>knowledge of christian myths as they would read it as
>a straight narrative indeed they would read it as a
>myth, rather than a religious poem slapped in the
>middle of a very complicated theological context.
point very well taken . . . there are always
alternate ways of making sense of something,
ways that are not part of the conventional
interpretations . . . but there are still
going to be times when without the key
provided by a frame of reference, conventional
or otherwise, something may remain close
to incomprehensible . . . now i suppose it
could be argued that the fundamental categories
necessary to devise SOME reading of any text
are categories always already provided by
shared [i.e. universal] human experience -- but
isn't this a kind of essentializing that we should
at least be suspicious of . . . for example, even
by john's own arguement wouldn't a reading of
P.L. as myth rather than as religious tract
require that one have some notion of myth
already in place . . . and that the text would
remain unintelligible to someone whose culture
had NO concept of the eternal or transcendental
but was rooted entirely in material reality
and, as john anticipates, there is another
not unrelated issue
>I think the problem with this whole thread has been
>the sloppy idea of intelligibility. I think you are
>all assuming there is an a priori meaning that someone
>has to successfully get in order to understand the
>film. This undervalues the active and creative process
>of watching a film and making sense of it.
i had not intended to raise this issue but, since
we're already there . . . yes, i do believe that
there is an a priori meaning -- or at least an a
priori framework that radically contrains the
range of available accurate meanings . . . and,
though i recognize that this is a matter of choice
and not of necessaity, i'm MUCH more interested
in recovering this meaning than in being "creative"
and making new sense of the book or film . . . in
short i'm interested in watching a film to try
to discover what some other intelligence is
trying to show me rather than in using it for
explorations of my own . . . but this, i grant, may
have little to do with the possibilities of something
being intelligible
mike
|