None of that matters the moment you make claims like "there are limits to interpretation."

It matters because it's all that I'm claiming.

I didn't say anything like "There are limits to interpretation." That was your contribution.

I'd agree with it since you brought it up, but only in the sense of, for example, "An interpretation can't be not an interpretation." I'd agree that that's a limit to interpretations if you want to focus on that for some reason.

"Interpretations can't occur extramentally" is another limitation I'd agree with.

"Interpretations can't occur extramentally" is another limitation I'd agree with. — Terrapin Station

It would be nonsensical to say they could. Who would claim that?

I find your attempt to backpedal amusing.

I'm afraid you're still bound to the simple fact that claiming there are limits to interpretation means there are objective parameters to interpretation.

What did you read as me saying something about limits of interpretation? Obviously you thought I was saying something about that, but I don't get why.

It would be nonsensical to say they could. Who would claim that? — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, I agree. I don't know why NKBJ got stuck on the idea of "limits of interpretation," though, so I'm just trying to play along.

You literally said it wasn't limitless.

I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another.

I just did a search for me using the term "limitless" anywhere on the board in the last month, and there's only one post, in a different thread, where I'm quoting a phrase someone else used. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Oh right, it was "endless".

I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another. — NKBJ

"really" is a term of emphasis. I can give you my definition of what understanding is.

I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another. — NKBJ

That’s a good point. However, I think Terrapin only uses the term “objective” to mean “extramental”.

Oh right, it was "endless". — NKBJ

The only reason I brought up "endless" was because YOU thought I was saying something about that.

I wasn't. I wasn't saying anything about whether interpretations are endless or not. I have no idea why you would have thought I was saying something about that.

That’s a good point. However, I think Terrapin only uses the term “objective” to mean “extramental”. — Noah Te Stroete

And what it is for me to say "He understands me" is for me, from my perspective, to think that his comments make sense relative to what I'm saying (from my perspective).

And what it is for me to say "He understands me" is for me, from my perspective, to think that his comments make sense relative to what I'm saying (from my perspective). — Terrapin Station

But there are objective referents that have to be agreed upon.

I wasn't saying anything about whether interpretations are endless or not. — Terrapin Station

So now you want to claim that they are endless/limitless?

???

How do you go from "I wasn't saying anything about x" to " You want to claim y about x"?

Well? Which is it then?

If you're asking me which one I'd say, I'd say that interpretations are endless just in case they keep arriving, otherwise they're not. Same as with anything else.

If you're asking me which one I'd say, I'd say that interpretations are endless just in case they keep arriving, otherwise they're not. Same as with anything else. — Terrapin Station

Nice

If interpretation is endless as well as purely subjective, then do you think the art is actually just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer? Totally independently of the actual artwork?

If interpretation is endless as well as purely subjective, then do you think the art is actually just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer? — NKBJ

The short answer is "No," and I'll stick to the short answer to not confuse things.

Why would you think that's suggested?

Because otherwise there are limits to interpretation.

Because otherwise there are limits to interpretation. — NKBJ

How would that work? "If the art isn't just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer, then interpretations can not be forwarded endlessly because . . . "

I honestly haven't any idea how you might suggest filling that sentence out.

How would that work? "If the art isn't just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer, then interpretations can not be forwarded endlessly because . . . " — Terrapin Station

Because it's bound by the actual words on the actual page, Silly :kiss:

Because it's bound by the actual words on the actual page, Silly — NKBJ

Obviously an interpretation--of literature, say (so that we're talking about words)--isn't identical to the words on the page being interpreted. "Jack and Jill went up the hill" isn't an interpretation of "Jack and Jill went up the hill" (and even if it were, it wouldn't be the sole interpretation).

So how is it bound by the words on the page?

So how is it bound by the words on the page? — Terrapin Station

If it's not bound by the words on the page, then all interpretation is just made up by the reader independent of the words on the page.

Either the interpretation of, say a novel, is based on the words or not. If it is, then it's bound by the words, if it isn't then it's all made up.

The interpretation is certainly made up by the reader. What they're interpreting isn't made up by the reader.

The interpretation is certainly made up by the reader. What they're interpreting isn't made up by the reader. — Terrapin Station

If the interpretation is made up by the reader, then the reader should be able to read Jack and Jill and derive the entire story of Hamlet?