The world correlate chapter 1

Hermeneutic and Culture

©By Abdel Hernández san Juan

   Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Hermeneutic and exegesis: Differences of the subject positions

   The purposiveness of this essay is focused in discussing several theoretical and hermeneutic problems almost undiscussed in the hermeneutic tradition and however crucial to stablish distinctions between hermeneutic and exegesis. Hermeneutic and exegesis are indeed similar concepts, both are immediately related to interpretation but in a subtly differentiated forms, the field of hermeneutic encompass much more issues than just the interpretation or reading of texts while exegesis is more constrained to the interpretation of texts.

    Thinking in hermeneutic putting aside exegesis by the moment, as I demonstrated in my essay The intramundane horizont, understanded at a level that presupposes the reestablishment of the phenomenological world of life, or the so-called present of the present in Derrida terms as he discussed it in respect to hurssel, his named “alive present”, as well as presupposing such a world in the context of our decursive experience, meaning the happening of our ordinary quotidian life in a sense that after the Popper distinctions between the concepts of worlds, Shutz and Habermas discussed, hermeneutic fulfill an ontological place.

     In fact, in the world of life, when we are not considering pre-texts or texts to be readen under it, but saying hermeneutic as the ways we have to endowed of sense activities by the mean of which we make interpretative senses of our own experiences, hermeneutic is fusioned with phenomenology while paradoxically without losing however its specificities, certainly we continue differencing in the world of life what correspond to hermeneutic and what to phenomenology, the second one is referred to the establishment of the idea itself of world to the body, impressions and subjectivity, while the first one to how that world acquire the weaves creates the relations of sense that endowed that world as intramundane, the meaningfulness interior to our practices.

    The ontological comprehension of hermeneutic at this level, however, was not a discernment of Gadamer. Although the Habermas interpretation of Gadamer may leads us to a reinterpretation of Gadamer focusing the attention on the relation between hermeneutic and pragmatism, such a relation, which even is not as such and as much well developed in Habermas as I have focused and developed it in all its consequences in a really elaborated form, was not inclusive to Gadamer himself.

   Moreover, outsiding the practical world of life and returning to the issue of pure being considered as an abstract issue out of a world as for example discussed by Hegel, Heidegger or Derrida, Gadamer certainly developed the possibility of a relation between being, aesthetic and interpretation which without a practical world, advanced the possibility for hermeneutic to work in an ontological level. In this sense we should recognize his worthy.

    While in both cases, lifeworld and aesthetic, regarding the former distinction Habermas-Gadamer, the subject is positioned in between something that simply is without extrinsecation to it and the self-source of him or her self-perception, in both cases we don’t have yet a subject in front of a text ready to be read, decodified or interpreted. Thus in both cases hermeneutic works ontologically instead of as a form of the subject extrinsecation of a text as something external and outer of his subjective position to be read as in exegesis. Whence, if we are working hermeneutic ontologically in whatever form regarding world of life or through the pure relation between being, aesthetic and interpretation, we should attempt to locate under it the position of the subject as working differently than in exegesis.

    This distinction between hermeneutic and exegesis is crucial, although in both cases we are speaking on interpretation, the position of the subject is internally and externally different with independence of the consideration about if such a text in the case of exegesis is considered as already given outside as pregiven, considered as a pre-text, as a language object as in semiotic or as a form of textualization attempting to read as text the non-textual.

   Of course, through a kind of alterity of him or herself, or through an alter ego the subject might imagine by the effects of universal presuppositions how that which he or she have experienced in the ontological level of hermeneutic elucidations, explications, makings of sense or interpreting, may be similar or equal to another subject’s experiences, but this is not yet reading.

   Under exegesis, the subject is positioned in front of a text produced even sometimes by another subjects.

   Someone may argue at this point that in the case of intersubjective communication the hermeneutic elucidation and explicitation process by one of the subjects in respect to another is developed under an interpretation in a form similar to exegesis since something said is being elucidated.

    Well, this is an interesting point to be tie up and clarified. In speech act the subject is certainly in front of a certain enunciation to be interpreted but in such a situation the process of making sense, elucidation and explicitation rule over or command the situation, nothing is there as the autonomy or the independence of a text to be considered itself, what we have in any case is far to be exegesis yet.

    In this sense we might say that in the ontological hermeneutic level nothing is like exegesis while in the reversal sense we must yes find a certain level of ontological hermeneutic inside certain forms of exegesis, for example, in certain forms of increasing or stricken of hermeneutic ontology into the domains of exegesis as when the elucidation of texts seems to be a part in a weaved or a texere, but in this cases we must not therefore speak of hermeneutic, but instead of hermeneusis meaning as a way to capture or seize under the sis the general sense of the dynamics of culture under senses. The distinction between sis and tic is here pivotal, the later overline the activity of elucidation or making sense by the subject interpretably, the former overline an alive texere or weaves of culture dynamics under micro senses.

  In fact, intersubjective communication as well as the contingencies of meaning others continue then working at the ontological level of hermeneutic to the subject, but when such enunciations are not addressed toward him, but toward others and overall when such enunciations acquire the form of outcomes to many subjects at the same time the subject have to interpret a text then we start the readings of exegesis, like it happen under interpreting a literary work, philosophical or of fiction, a novel, a films or a visual art work.

Hermeneutic and Exegesis: similarities of the subject positions/an analysis of religion homology

     Now in both cases hermeneutic and exegesis as forms and moments of interpretation we have of course similarities, for example, we have under both a kind of humble position to the subject, a certain discernment of a horizont of humbleness rule over or command the specificities of hermeneutic, even in reading texts when we start to call exegesis also a form of hermeneutic or in reverse hermeneutic a form of exegesis, let explain why, if we said that our attitude in front of the object to be elucidated will be interpretative something presuppose indeed a humble position, if our relation with the text will be interpretative mean accepting a receptive relation, it is less about our pregiven sense of the true and or about our wishes to possess and more about listening something to be comprehended, in this sense the general epistemology of hermeneutic including exegesis is equivalent and similar to the kind of ethical codes we have in front of religion, in a few words, the relation between hermeneutic and culture on the one side and between culture and religion, on the other, is one of an homology.

   So we have in hermeneutic a kind of equidistance coincident with the ethic of theology and religion, beyond if we are or no religious in terms of consmovisions or believes in some religion, certainly what characterize the relation between religion and culture is precisely the explicitation about that we don’t have the domain on all the territory of true, that always a part of the true will fall out of our reach.

   Thus, this idea of true in theology may be defined as homologue with the idea of true implicit in hermeneutic also in exegesis, if the interpreter don’t have access to comply the intentionality of the author of a text even supposing to have some access, nothing guaranty the same interpretation to many interpreters in a similar situation even in front of the same text or things to be elucidated, the heterogeneous irreducibility of interpretations and polysemy’s in the interpretation of a text certify the fact that nothing might be say on the internal true of the text and nothing on the internal true of interpretation more than accepting that indeed the true of the relation between interpretation and the text is an hermeneutical, interpretive one true.

   If god exist as a regent of the source of the world only to god must be conceded a relation to the idea of true beyond us and whence our relation with our own knowledge must start by accepting this humble position, that our relation to what we interpret should cede without voluntarism in favor of accepting us humbles in front of the true, if I accept that the true of my relation with the text will be hermeneutic I accept to said something on it interpretably so that I am not over or upon the text while also the text is not necessarily upon me, my contribution will consist about how rich, versatile or variate, attractive or interesting my interpretation could be and this is something veritable only by the linguistic community, in religion nothing is over or upon the community of believers, in hermeneutic nothing is over or upon the language community, nothing is over the general culture in which my interpretation and the text relates in between.

    With this we are not negating or relativizing the scientificity of hermeneutic, I myself had developed scientific essays of hermeneutic demonstrating the reach of an hermeneutical procedure around several phenomena’s in society, culture, language as in the ontology of the life world, but only precising a correlate of ethic position between hermeneutic and culture and religion and culture as an homologous one as well as distinguishing the different position of the subject first and its similarities later characterizes hermeneutic and ontology on the one hand and exegesis and texts on the others.

   If we are speaking on the objective space of society understanded as a contingent co-current world of many others with their own interpretations, no one can guaranty the coincidence of various interpretations of the texts, in a similar form within religion it is impossible to guaranty one interpretation of the religious texts and tradition, something Habermas discussed in regard to Gadamer arguing the reason to a criticism beyond just interpretation.

   How can we stablish an agreement on the internal true of the text when such countless interpretations are not coincident in between, how to be agree on the ontology of the text?.

The Nudes of Empty immanence

    Certainly, and here start the issue discussed by Terry Eagleton we can consider in terms of literary criticism as a Marxist issue.

   Eagleton set up a well know example to illustrate the implications of such a relativism, he called out and back Russian formalists question on the ontology of the text about what is it that can we consider literary itself?, how to be agree about what literacy is? and when a text must be defined as literary?.

    He choiced and take a way a fragment of text, a phrase from a novel and introduced it to a groups of man’s speaking in a bar asking the question about if that phrase can be considered literary to receive the answer by all the presents that of course it was not to later let them know that it was literary since he take it from a novel.

   In a counter critical exercise Eagleton choiced a phrase taked from an ordinary dialogue in a bar an introduced it within a group of novelists and poets asking to them if they consider it literary to receive the answer by all the presents that of course it is literary to later let them know that it was not since he take it directly from a dialogue in a bar.

   As we know the Eagleton example was set up to later develop an strong critique to the presuppositions of almost all the epistemologies in literary criticism tendencies to adjudicate immanence and ontology to the texts, phenomenology, hermeneutic, semiotic, pychoanalis and marxism, to made explicit the transference of such epistemological presuppositions to the ontology of the text negating any possibility to adjudicate immanence to the texts itself as his examples made it obvious.

  However, at the end, after examining all the consequences of Eagleton objections marxist criticism is also obligated to say something on the text itself other ways is the renounce to interpret it.

  Marxist criticism as any other form of criticism have to in a last instance and in an equal form take the text by itself and interpret it choosing to do so certain presuppositions and parameters.

    Whence, hermeneutic superates marxism or at least marxist literary criticism, like empiricism and positivism is obligated to be subordinated to hermeneutics. The critical Eagleton nude on the relativism of the immanence of the text is then waited from the other side, immanent or not, the text will have to be interpreted and the hermeneutic true will ever be the winner.

   The marxist critical nude at the end fall in an aporía, if our interpretation will be not elucidations on the immanence of the text so that meaning can’t be fixed as a property of the texts itself as demonstrated with the bar example, then everything consist in describing the text without interpreting it but as we well know that is impossible the presupposition about that the text may be described without being interpreted is contradictory itself