IndieAgora

I wanted to compare two concepts that seem to come to similar conclusions about meaning.

The first is from Hans Georg Gadamer (Hermeneutics):

In phenomenology, the ‘horizon’ is, in general terms, that larger context of meaning in which any particular meaningful presentation is situated. Inasmuch as understanding is taken to involve a ‘fusion of horizons’, then so it always involves the formation of a new context of meaning that enables integration of what is otherwise unfamiliar, strange or anomalous. In this respect, all understanding involves a process of mediation and dialogue between what is familiar and what is alien in which neither remains unaffected. This process of horizonal engagement is an ongoing one that never achieves any final completion or complete elucidation.

This concept comes most readily (the use of my language here is relevant) from Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. He speaks of what is present-at-hand or ready-to-hand also known as ready-made meaning that is for our use. Heidegger switches from the Cartesian (and for that matter the Platonist) view of ideas and thinking as being seen with sight faculties and instead speaks of consciousness in terms of hands, that thought and intentionality is always towards something in the world, not necessarily an object though, he's talking about meanings and concepts.

Gadamer goes further with this 'thinking hand' and focuses on Human Understanding as it appears to itself, for itself. Understanding is always reaching for, grasping and then letting go. The Horizon it is in sets limits on what can be grasped, reached for or released, especially when looking at the historical meaning of language and signs, which is the main interest of Hermeneutics.

It is here that I will  turn to Michel Foucault's epistemes:

However, if in any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one episteme that defines the conditions of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in a theory or silently invested in a practice.

In a previous thread on epistemes, I understood this term to mean a collection of discourses within the time we are in, but each collection of discourses forgets the previous episteme, which places a limit on what can be understood and so a careful Archaeological and Genealogical 'dig' of ideas and concepts needs to take place in order for us to understand how epistemes change over time.

We are talking about how social norms and scientific knowledge has particular emphasis and goals, with criteria as to what it calls 'true' and 'false'. Science itself is part of an epoch of epistemes. Thomas Khun has a similar notion of a Paradigm, whereby the (relatively) invariant dominant paradigm governing scientific research (supposing that one paradigm always is pervading, except under paradigmatic transition).

So comparing these two notions we can see how they have similarities.

[list=1]
[*]They both explain an experience 'within' a particular time frame
[*]They both reveal limitations as to what can be understood
[*]They both validate Hermeneutics and Genealogy as specialist tools for dealing with this problem
[/list]
People come from different backgrounds and it is not possible to totally remove oneself from one's background, history, culture, gender, language, education, etc. to an entirely different system of attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking. People may be looking for a way to be engaged in understanding a conversation or dialogue about different cultures and the speaker interprets texts or stories based on his or her past experience and prejudice. Therefore, "hermeneutic reflection and determination of one’s own present life interpretation calls for the unfolding of one’s ‘effective-historical’ consciousness.” During the discourse, a fusion of “horizons” takes place between the speaker and listeners.

We could say this is relativism and that we are rejecting the pursuit of 'absolute truth' even if absolute truth is never possible. What Gadamer and Foucault also uncover however, is that there are no fixed essences to signs (probably moreso Foucault), only empty spaces that open up and reform signs, reshape them and transcend yet include themselves.

The better term to use for this type of investigation is perspectivism - this is a dirty word for Analytic philosophers, but it's really the best possible way to attempt to grasp what is over the horizon, so to speak. Absolute truth may not exist, but history is something we can say 'happened' and that we can, by altering our point of view from a dominant authority (our everydayness), see another meaning and possibly grasp it in some way.

It is all about the perception of someone is projecting to others and they do the same. Through the 5 senses we gather and express them at the same time, a constant "push/pull" of signals, or communication. It is not possible to "remove oneself from one's background, history, culture, gender," etc. in someone's mind if they believe it so...meaning that someone else can if he/she wanted to if they understand the concepts the belief is based on. Its like learning a system as a whole and not worried that a sub-system goes down because you know how the whole thing works because you were taught by a person of high respect, a awesome supervisor. Notice I had to put "respect" and "awesome" to convey that this person is someone who you trust, therefore will continuously try to understand him. This notion of truly giving your self for the greater good is expressed in the U.S Constitution. People just simply forgot...but doesn't mean I did, or others who have served in the military. So, there has to be a greater good or purpose...a unified notion to strive for. There really hasn't been a real unified reason to come together in the U.S other can World Wars. Therefore, something drastic has to happen in order to do this, so the Government acts for the greater good and joins the War for this reason, however, the perceived reason was because the sinking of a U.S ship that never took place. Now, if someone had a perspective of the greater good as a belief then the opposite of that would be of free thinkers, such as when people found out that the ship never sunk and we went to war for "nothing." So, the government doesn't like free thinkers because they think and think....and thinking is not Order...its Chaos. All the laws, regulations, etc that the system was built upon a notion of freedom, and the protection of those who choose to truly utilize it...even in extreme cases, like War. I can explain what we can do, however, I have no power to do this or a notion to speed up time in order to "see" it physically. 

The problem with philosophy is that it is not equipped to answer its questions alone...and it needs something to fill in the gaps that often occur. This is impossible because thinking through philosophy  is the primary belief system that is used. I understand that some people have tried to merge notions, but the primary is always think think think.....Science at least has a clear notion that what ever it can not solve, chunks it up to spiritual reasoning, unconditionally.

This doesn't mean you have to totally forget who you are but the "perspective" of a spiritual being is all you need to come to some type of conclusion.

This is why I shift between different notions and can relate them because in my mind, it is all the same...like everything is on the same level of respect and therefore communication between these notions come to a compromise....which is my own compromise..not some dead guys or some "God's" influence.

I think it was Brad Warner who said that so many people look at a bucket of sea water and think that they understand and know eveything about the ocean.
I like structuralism and post-structuralism because it approaches philosophy with an interdisciplinary approach.

I think it was Brad Warner who said that so many people look at a bucket of sea water and think that they understand and know eveything about the ocean.
I like structuralism and post-structuralism because it approaches philosophy with an interdisciplinary approach.


That's good that you understand that different approaches can lead to new horizons. However, to truly see that which can not be sought is to encompass "every single notion." In other words, just be open minded to the possibilities of you may have the "wrong" notion with respect. It is really hard to let go, because it would mean that you wouldn't be you anymore...and this scares people. However, people need to realize that they are changing as they are born...oxygen is keeping you alive and also killing you slowly until you grow old and complete your life cycle. But understand this maybe the key to help people open up and be rid of their "demons" because someone has possibly found the way to do it but doesn't mean anyone needs to actually "do it" in order to be open minded. Its a mindset..like believing in  Jesus walking 2,000 years ago because he had this notion to "understand" others but limited by the knowledge of his time and so happens to have a way to express his views on paper to be passed down. Its really annoying sometimes to keep saying the same thing over and over but fun because its in different perspectives that I gained over time and continue to do so...until my life cycle ends, which would be a glorious death, at-least I imagine it would be.