Dunja Seselja wrote:
> --- Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with that. As a matter of fact, I don't think
> we can speak of reading a poem without at the same
> time interpreting it. Every time we read it, we
> interpret it over and over again. Once again, seeing
> is "seeing as", and just like there are no pure sense
> data, there is no pure reading of a poem. But it
> remains a question whether experience (Peter speaks
> about) is also a sort of interpreting.
"X is an experience." As long as X is sentient that proposition can't be
false, nor can it tell us anything. And of course a poem is an
experiencem, but that's also trivial. If saying so is equivalent to
saying we can't talk about it, we're still in the area of the trivial.
We are talking about the poem. People all over are talking about all
sorts of poems. And if it means we can't communicate _everything_ in our
experience of the poem but only some aspects of it, we _still_ haven't
escaped the domain of the trivial, and we can go on very comfortably
discussing the aspects of our experience that are communicable. I
suspect there is some kind of category error involved in fussing about
the relationship of experience and interpretation.