Patience Required

I was on a roll. Last week I finally finished reading Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory. Over the weekend, I wrote about 8 pages on the philosophical basis of my methodological approach. Then I hit a road block. I realized that before I could continue further, I had to have a good understanding of the first three chapters of Ricoeur's Time and Narrative (Vol. 1).

This was discouraging, I thought I had enough conceptual knowledge to complete the methodology section of the introduction. However, when it came down to it I needed a bridge between Ricoeur's theory of interpretation and my application of it to John's Apocalypse. That bridge is in Ricoeur's understanding of mimesis as the mediator between time and narrative.

So, I have spent the last three evening working through one and a half chapters. Patience. I have to remember that "reading is writing" in the sense that it is what I read that produces what I write. Perhaps the drive to keep getting words to page is a good thing. I hope it makes me read faster . . . it certainly makes me want to read faster!

The first chapter of Time and Narrative (Vol. 1) explores St. Augustine's concept of time from his Confessions (Book XI). I have found it intriguing how St. Augustine combines intellectual inquiry with communion with God. Indeed, his learning is expressed in a conversational (prayerful) interaction with God. Here's an example:

I would hear and understand, how “In the Beginning Thou madest the heaven and earth.” Moses wrote this, wrote and departed, passed hence from Thee to Thee; nor is he now before me. For if he were, I would hold him and ask him, and beseech him by Thee to open these things unto me, and would lay the ears of my body to the sounds bursting out of his mouth. And should he speak Hebrew, in vain will it strike on my senses, nor would aught of it touch my mind; but if Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know, whether he spake truth? Yea, and if I knew this also, should I know it from him? Truly within me, within, in the chamber of my thoughts, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without organs of voice or tongue, or sound of syllables, would say, “It is truth,” and I forthwith should say confidently to that man of Thine, “thou sayest truly.” Whereas then I cannot enquire of him, Thee, Thee I beseech, O Truth, full of Whom he spake truth, Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and Thou, who gavest him Thy servant to speak these things, give to me also to understand them. (Book XI, Chapter III)

As a matter of a spiritual experiment, I want to try applying this approach in my own intellectual inquiry concerning this dissertation.

Catching Up

Well, I am supposed to be posting something on a daily basis to help me verify my progress to myself. As you can see, it has been several weeks since my last post. Thankfully, that does not mean that I have not been working on my dissertation! It does mean that I've been very busy doing my dissertation and other things.

Two weeks ago, I traveled to Vancouver to present a paper at the International Leadership Association's annual conference. I was able to meet with my dissertation chair at the conference. Since I am doing my dissertation away from campus, it was a delight to have the opportunity to speak with him face to face. He was encouraging and I needed some encouragement at this stage in the process! Looks like I'm still on target for a May graduation!

Writing the introduction has been painfully slow. I have had to spend a great deal of time learning Ricoeur's interpretation theory before I could write about it. I am happy to say that I've gotten about 15 pages done on the methodology section of the introduction. I am beginning to see light at the end of the introduction tunnel!

So, what have I learned in the past few weeks about the dissertation process?

1. Keep plugging away at it - a paragraph here and there eventually turns into a page, a page here and there eventually becomes a section, a section here and there eventually becomes a chapter.
2. Maintaining other academic projects in addition to the dissertation provides for variety and increases your doctoral skills. The paper I presented at the ILA conference was totally different research from my dissertation topic. I also have another research project going that will hopefully lead to a conference presentation at an international conference in July. It is good to note these are not projects that I started during my dissertation, but research that began (in both cases) about two years prior to beginning my dissertation.
   
3. Take advantages of opportunities to meet with your dissertation chair face to face. Although, we have been communicating via phone and email during the writing process, it was really good to have the face to face time.
   

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.

Ricoeur's Theory of Metaphor

Ricoeur's Theory of Metaphor changes the understanding of the the function of metaphor by modifying the classic substitution theory of metaphor into a theory of tension. The following mindmap outlines the development of this theory. Click on the image to make it larger.

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.

Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory

I've spent the weekend trying to get my mind around Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory. The figure at the left summarizes what I have learned.

Historically, exegesis and appropriation have stood in opposition to each other . It has been thought that an epistemological hermeneutic (Schleiermacher) stands in natural opposition to a ontological hermeneutic (Heidegger). Ricoeur attempts bridge the gap between the two in his concept of a hermeneutic arc. Ricoeur accepts the necessity of exegesis as a grounding point for appropriation. This is appropriate because of the nature of text. Text differs from discourse in the sense that the fixation of text in a medium has endowed the text with a life that is separate from the author, obstensive references, and its original audience. Thus, the text is an object for analysis. Second, it is not in acquiescence to some superiority of the natural sciences that calls for an epistemological starting point, but rather the nature of linguistics that provides text with a structural system that can be analyzed.

Appropriation is the ontological grounding of interpretation in lived experience. For Ricoeur (1981) appropriation means "to make one's own what was initially alien" (p. 185). Appropriation "actualizes the meaning of the text for the present reader" (p. 185).

It is the hermeneutic arc that restrains appropriation from becoming simply a subjective interpretation and that prohibits the relativism of all interpretations to same value; which, of course, would mean that no interpretation could be generalized outside of the interpreter.

By proceeding from an epistemological grounding toward an ontological grounding, the rigor of various exegetical and hermeneutic methods are applied to the text that allow an appropriation to emerge that "follows the 'arrow' of meaning [within the text] and endeavors to 'think in accordance with it'" (p. 193). The callouts above the arch: intertexture analysis, metaphor analysis, and plot analysis are the analytic tools I intend to employ the find the "arrows of meaning" that will point me through the text to new new understandings about organizational leadership and new self-understanding.

Reference

Ricoeur, P. (1981). Appropriation (J. B. Thompson, Trans.). In J. B. Thompson (Ed.), Paul Ricoeur hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action, and interpretation (pp. 182-193). New York: Cambridge University Press.