|
dunedan---i asked not because i wanted to be intrusive (though i have no problem with that on occasion) but because, in my experience anyway, it's pretty routine that people have quite different interpretations than i do of what i write and often those interpretations are more interesting than what i thought i was doing when i arranged the words in a particular order. granted i'm working in a form that allow me to try to maximize that play, but still...
the point is that it's not at all clear that the people who wrote words are best at interpreting their meaning, nor is it obvious that intent in the use of a word exhausts meaning---and this last point regardless of genre. so it is not at all obvious that the intent of the framers is definitive in establishing the meaning of what the framers wrote. nor is it obvious.
in terms of historical methodology, it's pretty basic that statements about intent constitute only **one** device to shape interpretations of statements.
this is particularly the case for law within the american common law tradition, which was set up to be adaptable to changing circumstances.
but the point is more general--it's at best naive---at worst an exercise in dilletante wanking---so argue that intent exhausts meaning in almost ANY textual format.
think about the problems that arise here on the board because statement after statement that's intended as ironic or sarcastic is read straight or the opposite.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|