Salam ya Muhsin Muhsin
I find it easier to express myself in English, especially in a debate of this kind, hope that is OK, and even if its not, I am afraid I cannot help it, at least for now
I would like to focus on one point in this discussion
Is there a correct way of reading/interpreting a text?c
which also implies that there is an ideal way of “writing” a text! In my view, the short answer is no
The question of a correct or ‘best’ interpretation of a text tends to lead to distinctions between different kinds of readings of texts and, thereby, different kinds of writers who imagine such readings as they write. For example, when you wrote your letter, you had your friend in mind, hence you took certain things for granted and did not bother add context or avoid using certain words, which I guess is why you have created this misunderstanding, not my understanding that led us here
At the heart of this question lies the relationship between the writer
(you, and the different versions of this writer) that different audiences
(Esam, myself, Sudaneseonline at large, women, ..etc) might imagine
(Muhsin the nice guy, Muhsin who swears a lot, Muhsin who is gender sensitive, ..etc) and various imagined audiences, contemporary and in the future.
At the most simple, one could say that a correct reading is a correct "decoding" of the words used in the text and that a literal message is understood by the reader
(which did not happen in the case of reading your text, because its not that simple). One can then add unlimited levels of complexity if one, bit by bit, considers the context and history of the author and various audiences. So, a reader who knows more about the author’s history may be said to be in a better position to give a "correct" reading of the text. But this does not stop with adding more complexity to the audience’s knowledge of the author’s context and history because knowing what sorts of audiences the author imagined when writing the text, quite apart from the author’s factual history, can help in decoding what it was that the author wanted to say. Therefore, because one can add endless layers of knowledge and speculation about the relationship(s) of the author with the imagined contemporary and future audiences, the question of the correct reading that may be achieved by the most sophisticated reader really becomes a “Spiegelfechterei”, which could be translated in English to mean “smoke and mirrors”.
Indeed, who says that even the author’s intention with a text must remain constant, or, that this intention was fully articulated at the time of writing? What of poetry? And why should not a text be granted autonomy once it has been written and begun to circulate among different audiences thereby picking up additional connotations, new meanings, secondary, tertiary, etc commentaries…
In summary, the notion that there is an “ideal/correct” way to read a text could exist theoretically (I give you that), but practically that is a fictional notion! And that includes religious texts by the way. That is why we have "different interpretations", my "failure" to understand what you meant and your "failure" to make it understandable to all of us, is a good example to illustrate my point
PSFirst: thanks for your response, which albeit being personal at times, gave me something to chew mentally. I
chose to continue with this exercise, without being disturbed by your personal amateurish remarks about me being a critic or not
.
Second: I think following the advice that you seem to be dishing out to people, you are not in a place to judge who is a critic and who is not, because as has been simply pointed out to you before by Dr Bayan, this is a profession, it has rules, principles, you go through intensive training and you might by the end of it get a qualification (or maybe not). You are entitled to your opinions of course, but they remain opinions
Quote:
!؟ ما قالوك في علم اسمو (السيميولوجيا؟). ما قالوك في نظريات نقدية في القراءة "المُثلى" للنصوص اسمها (التفكيكية) و(البنيوية).. إلخ؟ وألا في الحقيقة هو إنت ما بتعرفي الكلام دا لأنَّك ما ناقدة زي نجاة محمود الناقدة!
كدي أكتبي في قوقل theories of reading texts وح تجي تلقي دنيا، وعوالم بلا حدود من النظريات في كيفية القراءة المُثلى للنصوص، من الهيروغليفية وأساطير ما قبل التاريخ وهيردوت وأسترابو وصحف موسى والعهد القديم والجديد والقرآن والحديث.. وليوم الليلة، عوالم في ضنب عوالم من النظريات، وجملتك الكاتباها دي تشهد بأنَّك لم تسمعي عن تلك العوالم "الراء".
|
قالو لي يا استاذ محسن، ولا علي كيفي,
To get a PhD in the social sciences from a British University, that focuses on sociology and discourse analysis (which is what I did/have, no bragging, and to your misfortune), what you referred to is part of the basic knowledge that you are expected to have from year one. Then you spend the coming three/four/maybe ten years of your PhD time trying to add to that knowledge, else you won’t pass your viva. BTW, it’s a very rigorous examination by leading Professors in the field.
الفرق البيعملو التدريب ده كبير، انه الناس الزي رحاب ديل الاتمرنو عليها وبياكلو منها عيش، بيقدور يستخدمو النظريات دي عشان يفهمو بيها النصوص، لانه ده بيوري فهمهم للنظريات دي من عدمه، لكن تنزل لسته زي حقتك دي، و تقول انا بعرفهم، ده ما بيدل علي معرفه او عدمها
النسمع ليك
Third: “Semiology/semeotics/Semiosis” are a collection of theories about symbolism and how one could assemble/glean meaning from objects, sounds, words, pictures, …etc. By the way, this point defeats your argument that there is a “correct/ideal” way of reading a text. Emphasis is on “assemble/glean”, so I am not sure why you are using it.
To be more precise, modern debate made distinctions between Semiology and Semiotics, as they stem from diff traditions (Saussurean Vs Peircean )m but lets not get into that now.
Anyway, If I were you, I would have referred someone like me (ignorant me) to Hermeneutics, as it gives one a better idea of how theories of interpretation and understanding of text, has been developed, and show me how people moved on from this Saussurean structuralist notion.
(e.g. Torah exegesis, History of Western hermeneutics, Ancient Greece and Rome, Early Christian hermeneutics, Apostolic and Sub-apostolic hermeneutics, Schools of Alexandria and Antioch, Medieval hermeneutics, Renaissance and Enlightenment, Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, Contemporary hermeneutics, Critical theory)
بالمناسبه، اللسته دي من ويكبيديا، اي زول ممكن يجيبها، هل معناهو عارفين معناها شنو؟ اكيد لا، هل يا ربي رحاب دي عارفاها ولا bluffing?
عشان ما كتبت ليك اللسته دي من الاول طوااالي تقوم تنط انه رحاب دي متشعلقه؟
غلطه استنتاجيه تانيه زي حقت نجاه الشالت كلام رحاب
you have a very strange and not convincing deductive logic at times
Rihab Khalifa
او بننتمي لمجموعه سياسيه او عندنا هتيفه, الكلام ده بينطبق علي ناس كتار قاعدين و صامين خشمهم ده عليهم وبيسوو في البيسوو فيهو, و تجو تطلعونا رجرجه و لمن نقول ليكم محتجين تدونا اعتذار غريب، و انه ما قاصدننا لانه احنا مساكين و ما بنشاكل? لكن قاصد الناس البيشاكلو? وتطلع القصه اساسا ما ليها علاقه بالرجه او الفهم، لكن بالشكل، كان القصه شكل و ما شكل، معظم البورد ده ما بيشاكل
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست