So Tell Me...

[Paladin]

Who cares what the poet meant when the words were first written, now ages and ages hence. When the words of the poem are loosed into the world they cease to belong to the poet, and who knows what is carried upon that wind?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Who cares what the poet meant when the words were first written, now ages and ages hence. When the words of the poem are loosed into the world they cease to belong to the poet, and who knows what is carried upon that wind?

Hehehe! What would an archeologist from thousands of years in the future think if he found a copy of The Wizard of Oz? {Subtle reference to the old movie Zardos.}

{And then there's the question: Is the Hokey Pokey really what it's all about?}

[Paladin]

You mean the one with Sean Connery?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Who is the poet's designated successor, and does it matter whether or not he is also a poet?

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

You mean the one with Sean Connery?

That would be the one.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Who is the poet's designated successor, and does it matter whether or not he is also a poet?

Chris

I don't know. Maybe one simply arises, part of the program. Maybe only another poet can catch the wind. Lately the thought arises that it doesn't take a zen master to understand actuality, only one with the heart of a poet.

[wil]

I agree it is all interpretation. And all about the sum total of my expereiences and my perception of them.

Think about how you thought about a song before the video came out. The song was interpreted by you, you made the connections, the emotions rang out of your thought...then you saw the video and the artists interpretation.

So yeah, the poet's thought may be interesting contemplation, but the end effect is personal.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by wil

I agree it is all interpretation. And all about the sum total of my expereiences and my perception of them.

Think about how you thought about a song before the video came out. The song was interpreted by you, you made the connections, the emotions rang out of your thought...then you saw the video and the artists interpretation.

So yeah, the poet's thought may be interesting contemplation, but the end effect is personal.

Although this isn't the Abrahamic forum, let me say it would be nice if everyone thought and felt that way about the Bible . . .

The whole idea of one single meaning for a Religious Text just doesn't seem right. It assumes that a person's life experiences are adequate for an objective interpretation. Two smart people can summon the best of their knowledge and seek to be as rational in their interpretation as possible, but their interpretations will be different. Even when employing the best of our knowledge, the meaning of a Religious Text is dependent on the sum total of our life experiences.

The resulting interpretation is a product of your personal values and different people will put emphasis on different things. There is no single meaning. It's a matter of emphasis.

Even the question of whether something is propaganda is itself subjective. Pretty much everything you write that isn't "factual" can be propaganda. People call something propaganda because they're suspicious and skeptical of it. They call it propaganda because they believe it serves some immoral, evil, devious or sinister purpose. Newspapers and magazines that are filled with sensationalism can be considered "propaganda." People just don't normally call it propaganda because they don't consider it as serving an "evil" agenda.

It's propaganda because you want to think of it as propaganda. Nothing is propaganda as a fact. The statement or assertion that something is propaganda is itself propaganda because you want to attach an evil connotation on the item.

The meaning of any literature, including a Religious Text, is what you want to make of it.

I don't doubt that the author had an intention. But if you do know the intention, you probably have a relationship with the author. The relationship causes you to want to interpret the text a particularly way. No problem.

Do you have a right to see things that way? Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Besides, since you have a relationship with the author, you have a good idea what he meant. But remember that that is your relationship with the author, not someone else's. You cannot decide what the text means to someone else. You can talk about what the author told you, but you can't get past the fact that it was your experience of the author.

I believe that even if everyone had a relationship with the author, they'd still see things differently. Everyone having a relationship with the author does not mean that everyone all of a sudden loses their individuality and spontaneity.

People bring their personal life experiences, temperaments, attitudes, idiosyncrasies, habits, etc. and this influences what the author introduces in a conversation. It influences what the recipient, guest or visitor learns from the author. It influences the guest's experience of the author.

So Paladin,

I cannot tell you what the authors of the New Testament meant when they wrote whatever they wrote but I can tell you what it means to me (over in the Christianity forum whenever we discuss it).

[Paladin]

Actually Salty there exists certain criteria to determine what is propaganda. It is closely associated with the list of logical fallacies. Things like the appeal to emotion, using clever slogans that are inherently fallacious but sound good. The study of propaganda is really quite interesting.

Wil,
That's exactly it, sort of carries an existential flavor doesn't it?

[_Z_]

maybe there is only one wind, and all our musings derive from that same source, hence another age another interpretation, but we are all saying the same thing.

...and my friend galgamiesh from planet zorg agrees.

[juantoo3]

Leave it to our good friend Paladin to make me think.

The thought that comes to me (if I can adequately express it) is the question of which is more important: what the original author meant, or that he is/was able to invoke an experience in the reader (even if that experience is unrelated to the original intent)?

The heart and mind of a poet certainly has its place. But when interpreting a shop manual for rebuilding an automatic transmission for a 1954 Chevy, I can't help but wonder the appropriateness?

Perhaps I misunderstand the original question. Poetry has long been valued, and poets have been venerated across many cultures. A thousand years ago the poets were the rock stars of their day. There is much of value in poetry and poetic license. I'm just not sure we should or could imply an all-encompassing caveat that poetic interpretation is *always* the best interpretation.

A lot depends on the author. A lot depends on the subject. A lot depends on the audience.

A lot depends on the author's intent. A lot depends on the audience's interpretation of that intent.

If the object of communication is to convey a precise interpretation, then I would think a more loose poetic interpretation would dilute the intended communication.

The question we have left as I see it, is to what degree can we presume sacred texts to be written as poetic communication, and whether and how much we can presume a more direct "shop manual" intent from the original authors?

I suspect a bit of both, but delineating between the two is a long-standing complication that has vexed religious endeavor as long as there have been texts to translate and interpret.

[Paladin]

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

-- William Carlos Williams

[juantoo3]

Precisely.

[_Z_]

so much depends on that which seemingly has no significance.

its all them chickens fault.

[juantoo3]

Even the insignificant holds significance.

In my humble opinion anyway.