The Normal Method
Letting language be language
It is annoying to have someone else take something you have said out of context and pass it along.
If you want to understand what somebody meant you can't just wing it. The normal method is an approach for reading other's writings and it means that you try to find the author's original intent. You do it by letting language be language. You let speech be speech. American jurisprudence, especially contract law, is supposed to rest on this principle. The same applies to reading road signs, menus and other documents. How do you know what to do at the next street corner? Do you slam on the brakes the very moment you see the word "stop" on a sign? Of course not. You take the sign normally and react to the instructions, normally.
If we're going to take the time to read someone else's stuff we should at least try to find out what they meant. So we have to learn to dethrone ourselves on our way to finding the author's original intent. First we have to understand the historical context of the writing first. And once you've had your thinking debunked [1] by understanding a new fact about the historical context you get a taste for it. This is one reason why history is important to me, personally. Next, we have to read things inside their textual context. And there can be varying levels of context within the textual context. Context is a lot like a bulleted list with varying levels of depth. There is nothing quite like seeing the greater context for unlocking an author's original intent.
We're going to have to take some time to understand the author's definitions for the words he has chosen. Sometimes the author's definitions are found within the text itself. This method of reading we need to follow the normally accepted grammar rules for the language or dialect of the author was writing in.
Historical Context
What was going on at the time the document was written? The message or text was given in a fixed historical context and is permanently bound to that context.
Textual Context
- What are the facts in the text?
Language
Grammar
Our Response
When reading we must learn to dethrone ourselves and find the author's original intent. This means we have to understand the historical context first. Once you've had your thinking debunked by understanding historical context you get a taste for it. This is one reason why history is important to me, personally. Next, we have to read things inside their textual context. And there can be varying levels of context within the textual context. There is nothing quite like seeing the more of the context for unlocking an author's original intent.
We're going to have to take some time to understand the author's definitions for the words he has chosen. Sometimes the author's definitions are found within the text itself. This method of reading we need to follow the normally accepted grammar rules for the language or dialect of the author was writing in.
Not Rigid Letterism
The normal method is not so called rigid letterism. You do not take every word and letter on the page rigidly and literally. You take it normally. The normal method embraces all parts of speech including symbolism, word pictures, figures of speech and hyperboles, for example. But the normal method of reading simply looks for the author's intent under it all. What did the author mean, when he employed that literary device?
This is going to be about how to read someone else's stuff consistently and normally. I think we can train our brains to leave our preconceived ideas at the door.
[1] I once saw a video on paradigms or filters in our brains that don't allow us to perceive new things for whatever reason. The examples were shocking. First you think "now I get it." Then you think "wow, I missed that one, wonder what else I'm missing."
last updated 2 years ago #
