One Year Older
06.20.07 - So on what occasions, then, is perception in need of interpretation? On only a very few, I suppose. And those occasions would be incredibly particular; something along the lines of seeing a blurry dot upon the horizon and not knowing whether it is [to call it] a deer or an elk. And here we have a clear example of something we could call “misinterpretation” and mean it as a synonym for “mistake”. However, under what I would want to call normal circumstances, that particular function that we call perception has no need for that particular function we call interpretation. In other words, we don't interpret when we perceive. (I have P.I. §330 in mind here.) Now, of course these few and rather specialized instances of interpretation during otherwise normal perception ought to be investigated further, but the next question needs to be whether or not language, in particular the specific acts of labeling and remembering, requires in any way an act of interpreting. My instinct is telling me no, but in order to show this we're going to need to not only deconstruct but most likely dynamite certain preconceived notions of knowledge, interpretation and recollection, certain epistemological stalking-horses that, for centuries, have made us believe that we're more removed from reality than we really are. (And I dare you to count how many metaphysical-linguistic assumptions are being made in that last sentence.)
What use then, to us, is interpretation? My hunch is that the fields of science and medicine grossly under-use the concept of interpretation.
P.I. §333: “ 'Only someone who is convinced can say that.' - How does the conviction help him when he says it? - Is it somewhere at hand by the side of the spoken expression? (Or is it masked by it, as a soft sound by a loud one, so that it can, as it were, no longer be heard when one expresses it out loud?) What if someone were to say “In order to be able to sing a tune from memory one has to hear it in one's mind and sing from that?'” And this stabs at the heart of the matter, that when I recognize A as A, there is no process accompanying that act – that is to say, that there is no shadow A that follows and precedes A and allows me to fit A into a shape that is A-shaped.
What use then, to us, is interpretation? My hunch is that the fields of science and medicine grossly under-use the concept of interpretation.
P.I. §333: “ 'Only someone who is convinced can say that.' - How does the conviction help him when he says it? - Is it somewhere at hand by the side of the spoken expression? (Or is it masked by it, as a soft sound by a loud one, so that it can, as it were, no longer be heard when one expresses it out loud?) What if someone were to say “In order to be able to sing a tune from memory one has to hear it in one's mind and sing from that?'” And this stabs at the heart of the matter, that when I recognize A as A, there is no process accompanying that act – that is to say, that there is no shadow A that follows and precedes A and allows me to fit A into a shape that is A-shaped.
posted by Joel | 2:02 AM
1 Comments:
my defense of organized medicine is admittedly half-hearted, but:
they disallow the concept of interpretation due to the result of litigation that would follow. (where does the LAW, universally integrated, if not perhaps known, fit into this?)
Post a Comment
<< Home