Getting to my Guess

Ricouer's interpretation theory consists of three stages (1) The Guess, (2) Validation, and (3) Comprehension and Appropriation. Right now I' m thinking about the Guess. This is the phase where one elucidates one's preliminary understandings of the text. Here one allows the text speak and takes its discourse at face value. In phenomenological terms, one observes as the text reveals itself through the appearance of various horizons. One then makes a preliminary guess concerning the meaning of these horizons apart from exegetical inquiry.

Horizons are similar to themes. However, horizons are unlimited and they are never static. For example, when I gaze into the sunset on the horizon, the way the horizon appears to me changes because I change my physical proximity to it, the descent of the sun, the movement of the clouds, or the appearance or disappearance of people or objects on the horizon that I had not anticipated. Likewise, horizons that appear in lived experience or in text become visible and recede or change as new aspects previously hidden to me come into my view.

So, how will I get to my Guess regarding John's Apocalypse? Because I am approaching John's Apocalypse not as prophetic literature but as narrative, I am beginning with David Barr's analysis of this text as three interrelated stories about Jesus. Barr structures the text around three scrolls: (a) the Letter Scroll (1:1-3:22), (b) the Worship Scroll (4:1-11:18), (c) the War Scroll (11:19-22:21).

In order to develop my Guess I plan to write 3 articles of around 1200 words each, one article for each Scroll. In these articles, I will simply observe and document the horizons that appear to me and describe their relationship to my research question which is: What does organizational leadership mean in a chaotic, nihilistic, and apocalyptic era?

An Introduction to Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory

Ricoeur’s (1976) work, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning provides the foundation for this my dissertation's research procedures and analysis. The central aim of Ricoeur's work is to provide an understanding of the operation of language at the level of an entire literary work. The key problem in developing his interpretation theory is overcoming the apparent conflict between explaining the text and understanding the text. Ricoeur traces the source of this conflict to the 18^th and 19^th century Romanticist movement in hermeneutics. Romanticists created a dichotomy between explanation and understanding. The movement created two polar understandings of spheres of reality: nature (objective) and mind (subjective). Hermeneutists grounded their methodologies for explaining texts in the objective paradigm of the natural sciences. On the other hand, they grounded methodologies for understanding the text in the subjective paradigm of the human sciences. Over time, each term (explanation and understanding) became “a distinct and irreducible mode of intelligibility” (p. 72). In this system, interpretation was “a particular case of understanding” (p. 73). Ricoeur addresses this problem by asking four questions (p. 71):

(a) What is meant when somebody speaks?

(b) What is meant when somebody writes?

(c) What is meant when somebody means more than they actually say?

(d) How do we make sense of written discourse?

In response to these questions Ricoeur (a) establishes language as discourse, (b) shows that written language most fully displays the criteria of discourse, (c) demonstrates that plurivoicity (multiplicity of meaning) belongs not just to words or sentences, but to whole works, and (d) seeks resolution through the dialectic of explanation and understanding (p. xi).

Reference

Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, Tex.: The Texas Christian University Press.

Getting at Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory with MindManager

I've not written a post lately. However, that is not to say that I have not been working. I have been reading through Ricoeur's book Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. It is an excellent, but complex, explanation of his theory of interpretation.
To help me truly understand this theory, I've been using MindManager Pro 7, a mind mapping software to help me outline his arguments, keep track of all its internal references, and record my reflections as I learn.

My base map for the book is pictured above. Of course, each of these branches expand to show an unlimited amount of information. For another example, of what can be done in MindManger, see my post of 9/30/2007. The illustration of Ricoeur's Hermeneutic Arc was created in this program.

The real beauty of the program is the multiple ways you can illustrate relationships between topics/concepts. It's my favorite productivity tool. I've been using MindManager since 2002. If you writing a dissertation, want to better manage your projects at work, or even plan your next vacation, I highly recommend that you download the free trial and give it a try.

Get the books!!

I've spent months trying to learn Ricoeur through reading collections of his essays. These collections are fine, but its difficult to pull together the "big picture" of Ricoeur's thinking through reading lots of individual essays - even though the essays are grouped by subject. The advantage has been that I've gotten a pretty good overview of the breadth of his work and its been a good introduction to his concepts, how he uses language, and his style in writing and approaching philosophical problems. The downside is that one misses any complete systematic working out of his major themes.

Currently, I'm struggling to get my mind around his Interpretation Theory. So, I finally bought his book on the subject, and his three volume work Time and Narrative along with Oneself as Another, and The Rule of Metaphor. I've just started to delve into these books this evening and I'm already glad I got them.

For example, in just reading the introduction to Interpretation Theory, I learned that the central aim of the theory is to resolve the apparent conflict between explanation and understanding. Ricoeur does this by first establishing the nature of language as discourse. Then he establishes that only written language fully displays the criteria of discourse. In a third step, he extends plurivocity beyond words and sentences to full works of discourse. The fourth step shows how the conflict between explanation and understand can be overcome by showing how they are dialectically related to each other. Here the term dialectic, I believe, is intended in the Hegelian sense referring to a process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite (Merriam-Webster 11th ed.).

The moral of the story: When learning Ricoeur, reading the essay collections is helpful, but don't wait too long to get to the books.