Ktismatics

27 October 2006

The Creation of Hermeneutics

Filed under: Genesis 1 — ktismatics @ 10:57 am

[This is a continuation of the last few posts, in which I’m walking through the implications of my reading of Genesis 1. Before I talked about how Gen.1 describes the creation of science; here I say that it also describes the creation of hermeneutics.]

If science is the understanding of what nature means, then hermeneutics is the understanding of what communication means. Over the centuries a variety of hermeneutical principles have informed the exegesis of Genesis 1. If our new interpretation of the text is correct, then Genesis 1 describes God’s creation of hermeneutics itself.

Elohim speaks, a language-user from the very beginning. He speaks not to himself, not to the spirit of the stuff being created, not to the demiurges, but to a witness – the original narrator of the creation event. “Let there be light” isn’t a magical incantation to bring the material world into existence, but a kind of hypothetical proposition offered to the witness: “Let this abstract property of the universe be called ‘light.” And there was light, confirms the witness. Elohim is creating a cosmology and teaching it to the witness, a cosmology that makes sense of raw phenomena in a way that makes sense to other intelligent beings. By understanding elohim’s communicative intent, the witness becomes like elohim: a participant in linguistic systems of meaning. Man becomes a hermeneutician, an interpreter of a verbally mediated reality.

In the beginning the witness lived in a raw world, where meaning systems hadn’t been created yet. The world was proto-reality; the witness, proto-man. In making sense of the raw world, God began to transform proto-reality into reality. By showing reality to the witness and describing it in words, God began transforming proto-man into man. “Let there be light;” and there was light: God speaks first, to reveal the creation; the witness, understanding God’s meaning, echoes God’s words. As he offers the responsorial there was, the witness proclaims that God’s revelation has been received.

We’ve been assume that God was speaking to the witness. Then to whom is the witness speaking as he reports the events that transpired on that first day, offering his verbal vouchsafe of the newly-created reality of light? Not to God: there is no dialogue between God and the witness in the Genesis 1 creation narrative. Does the witness speak to himself? Are there multiple witnesses speaking among themselves? We’ve faced this same puzzle before. Perhaps the answer here is the same as before: the witness too has witnesses. The narrator of any story is addressing an audience. The audience may be a group of people gathered at the feet of the storyteller or a solitary reader separated from the writer by five thousand miles and three thousand years. Either way, the narrator utters the words and the audience, in receiving the words, bears witness to the story. This is the first story ever told, the first meaningful narrative conveyed verbally among human beings.

Elohim sees, imagines, thinks, hypothesizes, speaks. The witness looks, hears, imagines, thinks, hypothesizes, interprets. The ability to understand the world is crucial in human learning; the ability to understand one another, perhaps even more so. Realities aren’t just embedded in language; they’re communicated through language. For the speaker to make himself understood; for the hearer to make himself understand; to achieve a shared linguistic orientation toward the world and it means: this is how realities are established.

Lower animals experience the world but have no conception of it, no words or ideas for making sense of it, no reality. Humans have a collective reality: we use the same words to describe the same phenomena. The words and the acceptable ways of assembling them into statements are the collective human creation of language. A complex cultural artifact, language has been assembled incrementally and cumulatively as a means of orienting one another towards the same things. Language is possible only because of the uniquely human capability to take the other’s perspective. It’s a remarkable feat of imagination, to imagine oneself as the other. But no matter how successful you are at taking my perspective, you remain you. You bring your own perspective with you. And because you do that, you never see exactly what I see or understand exactly what I’m trying to say. This mismatch between speaker/writer and interpreter opens up the realm of creation. Partly you’re filling in the gaps in your ability to “be” me; partly you’re going beyond me, filling in the gaps of meaning, creating something else.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. John,
    It is a great task to understand what is Real and be able to seperate that from what is Illusion.

    I have found the text of “A Course in Miracles” to be the best summation of this.

    Have you considered this text? Go here: http://www.acim.org/

    Cheers

    Like

    Comment by Clark Thomas — 2 November 2006 @ 5:51 am

  2. Clark,
    Good to hear from you. You must have found your way here from Anne’s blog. There aren’t a whole lot of people who give much thought to the nature of reality, as I’m sure you’ve experienced.

    I read a few pages of the Course in Miracles:
    “Nothing real can be threatened.
    Nothing unreal exists.
    Herein lies the peace of God.”

    You may have read my observations on Reality, to which you can click over on the right side of this blog. My task was to try to make literal sense of Genesis 1 that was internally consistent and that didn’t rely on presupposions about what the text “really” meant. So my reality discussion flows from the Genesis reading, rather than the other way around.

    That said, I do generally buy into my own spiel here. The raw universe exists but it’s meaningless; only a creative and intelligent mind can impose meaning on it. Can I see a reality defined by someone like Christ, in which forgiveness and love play the central roles? I acknowledged it’s not easy for me. I’d probably be better off if I did — as would those I come in contact with.

    Take care, and come back any time.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 2 November 2006 @ 4:35 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: