On interpretation of texts – and why I think it’s dependent on decisions

I try to return to the initial issue, as I got it: (1) Any text needs interpretation since interpretation is the basis of communication. (2) Any interpretation has to be done by the person who perceives the text. First I try to explain how I understand these thesis. Then my antithesis will be: (1) The basis of communication is some kind of metabolism. (2) This metabolism is bi-directional, i.e. the author of a text is part of its interpretation. While trying to explain my antithesis I will have to show my pre-assumptions which lead back to the understanding of the world *secondo me*. This means the epistemological state of reality and the ethic decision for my topmost values. (ad 1) Thesis: Any text needs interpretation since interpretation is the basis of communication. (a) If I would find a Chinese newspaper I were not able to understand any phrase nor word, because I cannot read Chinese signs. Maybe I am even not sure it is Chinese language what I see. Thus I am not able to start any interpretation of the text. It is out of my mental reach as long as I am not trained on and familar with Chinese scripture signs. (b) If I read a phrase or paragraph or essay in a language I can understand, written with letters I can recognise, then I can start trying to understand what is said. While I try to understand I do 3 main steps: (i) I let the first words and phrases of the text pass my mind. (ii) I do some investigation on the author, if (i) awakened my interest. (iii) I do some more investigation on the context of the author’s text, if (ii) not stopped my interest. Let’s imagine an example: Someone writes to me the message: „Hi!“. This is the short-most text, and I will use it to show my approach. (ad i) I recognise some form of greeting me. (ad ii) I check out if this is the person whom I used to know as XY. Let’s say, XY be a former friend whom I have not seen nor spoken for a long time: (ad iii.a) I wonder if XY tries to start a new communication or friendship with me. Let’s say, XY be a well known neighbour or person from my colleages: (ad iii.b) I expect to get more text from XY and give him/her a feedback. At this point there has been no interpretation but only some suggestions or presumptions. The interpretation begins when I classify this simple „Hi!“ as a speech act of a distinct type, e.g. as an offerte or as an offending or as a mere greeting whith no deeper nor further meaning. I try to summarize and re-formulate my thought up to this: Interpretation of text *secondo me* means that I classify an utterance as a speech act (and not as a noise) of a distinct type. If I cannot associate such a speech act type then I have not understood what happened although I recognised some utterance. It is therefore not the utterance itself which I have to interprete and my interpretation has nearby nothing to do with some ‚libraries‘ of words or some classes of speech acts I can list. The classifying interpretation that I do is not a mathematical operation or recognition (e.g. an assignment to a set as it were in set theory) since I have learned to act as a speaker and I have learned to take part in the linguistic game. The rules I follow do not need to be consciously to me while following them. Following a rule is independent of knowing this rule. (Obeying an order is dependent on knowing the order.) (ad 2) Thesis: Any interpretation has to be done by the person who perceives the text. (a) Speaking is taking part in the language game and the ability to produce speech acts. Excursus: An AI is NOT able to both although it seems to interact in producing utterances. An AI is a thing which mathematically interpretes words and utterances and mathematically reacts. There is no such thing as interaction nor such thing as understanding for an AI. An AI seems to follow speech act rules in so far as I insinuate the given utterance by an AI to be such an act how I know it from my taking part in the language game. What AI „does“ is a technical way of „interpretation“ which is very far from any interpretations language gamers really do. Therefore the technical model of „communication“ – emitting => receiving (with filtering) – is appropriate to technical aspects of data supplying and of AI-output. Building a short cut between two or more AIs would be the ideal of such „communication“. (I read about such an experiment whilst the AIs switched off to a non-human „language“ i.e. to an obvious data exchange instead of „chatting“.) End of excursus. The language game as part of interactioning as part of coordinating actions is of completely other quality. Therefore the speaker is involved in interpreting (with the meaning as sketched above) because he/she knows the accompanying signs to give the hearer hints on interpreting. These signs are not to be mixed up with such signs as are used in traffic nor in deaf-mute language. The latter signs are no more part of the semiotic process since they are arranged within the language game (thus requiring so called natural speech) and then fixed. The signs given in and around an utterance of a concious speaker are part of a semiotic process and in exchange with symbols and indexes and signals. Such accompanying signs within a language game are not to be interpreted themselves since they serve to interprete the main utterance. (The describing of the language game is more difficult than taking part in the game. This shall not mislead to the point the language game itself be over-complicated and thus non-realistic.) (b) In this way the speaker gains influence on the interpretation of his/her utterance and thus remains co-responsible for the interpretation of his/her message. This gets obviously in any longer to and fro of utterances, known as dialogues. Besides the mentioned accompanying signs there are other means as e.g. synonyms and metaphors to influence the interpretational frame of the hearer. That the speaker cannot force the interpretation, that he/she cannot fully determine what the hearer has to understand and to interprete and to think and so on – this lack of power over the communication process should not be misinterpreted as a null-ability. (Technically spoken, redundance is the way to improve getting the correct message. But even this strategy is not able to force a receiver to get all the data sent by the emitter correctly. I mention this only to show that even in technical data supply not only the receiver is responsible on the interpretation and the sender is not able in mastering all difficulties.) Here I want to conclude in pointing out that (*secondo me*) the modelling of communication by some concepts used for technical devices is or can be misleading while trying to understand the specific qualities of communication and interpretation as it occurs within human interaction. If one goes into the view the human brain would be a bits-and-byte-device one is chained to non-mindlike perspectives and loses contact to the Sciences of Mind. The so called ‚Natural‘ Sciences have the abilities to explain very much, but not to humanly interprete and understand. The sciences of that type are non-empathic by definition and program. This is a very good part but not the whole thing. [t.b.c.] ![grafik.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmapNmpLdqwmoYLnZcKjrh5WX26BTZLzkKu35DNmpVAQhT/grafik.png) photo: ty-ty