The Lord of the Bible?

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by SpM

Why So?

Because, for one reason, it's nowhere close to logical. Let’s look at it logically: the law of non-contradiction - "A is not non-A." How could non-A = A? It can't. By the same token a book can not have that many meanings - do you have any idea how many of those meanings would be contradictory? It is not logical to assume what you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by Spm

I am not asking you to.

Good, because I would never try!

Originally Posted by SpM

Indeed it is. So why not embrace it and allow yourself to find your own meaning within the book, rather than limiting yourself purely by reference to what the author intended?

First off - you are making a straw man out of my position Saucepan. You are misrepresenting (intentionally or not) me to be anti-imagination & that is not the case.

Imagination is fine & should be encouraged. You can imagine the size of Aragorn's nose - & many other much more exciting things - because there is no way we can know Tolkien's ideas behind these things. Of course I'm sure he had it in his head what his characters look like - but he purposefully didn't write down every detail so that we could imagine them. When the author's intent can not be discerned imagination is a perfectly acceptable recourse. I cannot accept that Tolkien's intent behind the 'Christian aspects' of his books is not attainable given the amount of verbage out there from him on this subject. And when the author's intention can be discerned, imagination does not trump it.

To say that it does is ridiculous. You can imagine the orcs to be little, furry pink teletubbies if you wish & no one can stop you from that but when you do that you're not reading "The Lord of the Rings" but "The Lord of the Rings - As Imagined by The Saucepan Man." You cannot disregard the author's clear intentions in favor of imagination.

Your imagination does not override the author's meaning behind the book Sauce. And neither does mine or anyone else’s. I've given many examples - you believing the author to mean something doesn't mean he did. You are saying that any human beings intentions are subjective to the interpretations of others and that is not true. If it were, I could simply 'interpret' that you have been agreeing with me all along and I would be right (though you most certainly haven't been ). You would also interpret the opposite to be true and you would be right. Surely you can see that this isn't logical, can't you?

Why would you bother to write a book that will simply be stripped of any meaning whatsoever and have the reader's interpretation (no matter how educated) be substituted? The reason for you writing has now entirely gone by the wayside.

What you are talking about is Deconstructionism - disregarding the author's original intent and making everything relative.

Originally Posted by SpM

Meaning, like truth, is subjective.

Well first - that is highly debatable but that would be getting off topic so we won't go there. Second, that is a very weak analogy because you are attempting to prove that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth - which you are assuming is subjective but you cannot prove that it is. Not to mention that the issue of truth being brought up at all is really a red herring. It's entirely inconclusive to this debate and you brought it up solely to "prove" that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth when you should in fact be proving why meaning is subjective...

At any rate it's getting close to the 'agree to disagree' point. Firstly, I've stated & attempted to prove my position as logical & clearly as I can but it seems that you simply continue to fall back on circular reasoning to prove yours. And secondly (and more importantly), as mark pointed out, it's difficult for her or anyone else to get a word in edgewise & our little debate here (though on-topic as you have pointed out) is probably one of primary reasons for that.