We Always Take Ourselves Along

Remember the trio from How-to-Study-the-Bible class: observation, interpretation, and application. They were the holy trinity of Bible study. The thought was (at least in my head) that these were three distinct operations. They followed in logical order. When one was done, you moved on to the next. "Wrong!!" says Gadamer. "It is not the case that there is first a pure, objective understanding of meaning, to which special significance accrues when it is subsequently applied to our questions. We always take ourselves along whenever we understand, so much so that for Gadamer understanding and application are indivisibly fused."Never thought of it that way before: "We always take ourselves along whenever we understand." I believe that is true. At least, I don't recall every leaving myself locked up at home (shutters pulled) when out understanding the world - or the Bible.

Quote from Jean Grodin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 115.

On Heidegger's Mode of Being as Basic Way of Knowing

Heidegger's understanding of fore-understanding is worthy of our understanding. He believes "human understanding takes its direction from the fore-understanding deriving from its particular existential situation, and this fore-understanding makes out the thematic framework and parameters of every interpretation." Heidegger calls this fore-structure (or, fore-understanding) existential "because it is a way of existing, a fundamental mode of being, by the power of which we deal with and try to find our way around in the world. Understanding means less a 'kind of knowledge' than a 'knowing one's way around.'... This everyday understanding almost always remains implicit. As a 'mode of being' it is not consciously thematized. We live too much within it for it to need to be made explicit. Nevertheless, all the 'things' and events that we deal with in our life-world are pre-interpreted by this anticipatory understanding." Hmm, a "mode of being" (an implicit, not-consciously-thematized, lived-in, pre-interpreted way of existing) as the basic way of knowing - anything and everything. Interesting.

Quotes taken from: Jean Grodin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 93-94.

Kearney's View of Self's View of Other

On the notion of how we get to "know stuff" at a very basic level, Kearney has this to say, "Should the child be well-tended and protected by loving arms and tender care he/she may experience a minimum of pain; an awareness of well-being and security would likely then predominate... Conversely, if the baby experiences many deprivations and traumas, his/her general image of the Other would likely be one in which all that is not-Self is mainly a source of frustration and pain... [the former leading to an] image of Self as having an ability to affect the Other, and thus in turn affect its own condition. [The latter leading to an image of Self in which Self is] relatively powerless and incapable of affecting either its own state of being or aspects of the Other." One wonders how much hope and hopelessness/purpose and purposelessness (at a societal level) may have their roots in an early-gained "view of reality" - a view tacitly gained in the environment of Self's earliest and closest caregivers. Hmm, should this be true...

Michael Kearney, Worldviews (Novato: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Inc., 1984) 73.

Self-defeating Hermeneutics

Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Thiselton, Osborne, and Vanhoozer - they have all helped us take seriously the role of preunderstandings (alias: worldview or metanarrative) in the process of interpretation and getting at meaning. Concerning these preunderstandings and the human framework of understanding, Moises Silva goes against the flow of many a theological hermeneutics professor when he writes in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, "These ideas (concerning preunderstandings) have immediate consequences for the way we interpret the Bible and do theology. The common insistence that we should approach the text without any prior ideas regarding its meaning becomes almost irrelevant. And the standard advice given to theological students to study the text before consulting commentaries, or to determine its meaning before considering its application, appears self-defeating." Hmm, not what I heard in seminary. Or the sanctuary.

Moises Silva, ed. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 21. 

On Humility, Listening, and Knowing

As of late I've been contemplating the relationship between being humble, listening, and knowing. This trio is, I believe, huddled together. The three are closely related. They depend on each other. Where one is, you find the others near by. Where one is missing, the others get twisted. Look how the trio plays out in the story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Pascal and the Ultimate Wager

I admit I've not been much of a reader of Pascal - too old, too dry, too... certainly his book, Pensees, never entered my head as a candidate for a book report in high school or university. But, I must be getting older (or, old). He's an interesting philosopher/theologian. One of his more curious arguments is known as the argument of the wager. God either is or isn't. and we we must therefore lay odds (wager) for or against Him.

• If I wager for and God is — infinite gain;
• If I wager for and God is not — no loss.
• If I wager against and God is — infinite loss;
• If I wager against and God is not — neither loss nor gain.

Another Stab at Defining Metanarrative

After refining. And re-refining. And... I'm toying with the following as a definition for metanarrative (or worldview - holding that metanarrative and worldview are talking about the same thing - the former from the perspective of form, the latter from the perspective of function). This definition is a "take-off" of one used for worldview by Worldview Resource Group (www.wrg3.org). Anyway, here is the proposed definition: Metanarrative is the perceived reality in which a community lives - that perceived reality being formed by a story-grid through which the community interprets and interacts with all reality. This definition highlights the fact that metanarrative/worldview is primarily a communal as opposed to an individual affair. The community size is not stated. It might be the community of secular-humanists in North America, or the community of Plains Cree of Canada, or the community Punjabi immigrants in Vancouver, BC, or the community of north-eastern Montana ranchers.