How can the objective view on the painting reveal that what it's trying to convey? I can give you an objective description of the letters in the word "PHYSICS", first letter, a small vertical with a semi-circle attached right above, second one two parallel verticals with a small horizontal in the middle, etc. but what does the word mean? And even the objective description needs an agreement about what's an objective feature. — Raymond

I don’t think “objectivity” is a very useful concept here. In most cases, the viewer will see PHYSICS as a word, and I think that’s enough for most purposes.

The notion of freedom is looked at from the oppressed. Freedom is only meaningful if there is something to be freed of. If there is freedom for every one, like the figure on the rope, freedom is not something to desire for anymore. That's why the painting is called "A look at freedom".

Then you can look at a painting as a painting too, if you look at a word as a word. But what does it mean? Is every painting devoid of meaning?

Then you can look at a painting as a painting too, if you look at a word as a word. But what does it mean? Is every painting devoid of meaning? — Raymond

Your question is essentially the same as the questions about objectivity. Who cares?

There are different types of meaning. Apparently, you look for symbolic meaning, or intentional meaning. I look for "medium-specific-narrative meaning". No meaning is fundamentally better than the other.

The notion of freedom is looked at from the oppressed. Freedom is only meaningful if there is something to be freed of. If there is freedom for every one, like the figure on the rope, freedom is not something to desire for anymore. That's why the painting is called "A look at freedom". — Raymond

That's true. That being said, painting is not necessarily the right medium for expressing what you intend. Given your description, there are many possible interpretations not centered on freedom. For example, one could say it's a painting about serious subjects vs light-hearted subjects. Or a painting about madness in the face of harsh reality. Blablabla

I'm trying to gasp exactly what you mean by "medium-specific narrative". It would seem to be a type of narrative which is specific to a certain medium. But I think in your use, narrative is more particular, so you talk about particular narratives. Or, is it the case that you look for similar narratives in different pieces. For example, you made a sort of comparison between Vivaldi and Metallica. Is comparing narratives acceptable and useful in reconstructionism? I would say that Metallica uses a different medium from Vivaldi, but then "medium" can refer to something very specific or something more general.

If you are looking for narratives which are medium-specific, I would assume that you have a way of classifying media. And the way that media is classified would dictate whether a type of narrative is specific to one medium or not. Then we might see how a type of narrative can cross from one medium to another. If I stretch this to make an example, we might say that distinct genres of music use distinct media, because the medium is manufactured, produced by engineers specifically for the genre. then we might see that narrative types can pass freely from one medium to another. Likewise with a painting and a photograph, distinct media, but possibly similar narratives. And if you allow yourself to become very general in defining your narrative type, you might find that a narrative type found in one medium is actually derived from a very different medium.

3. Doubts regarding traditional analysis/reviewing: the way we talk about music, and how analysis/reviews talk about it, are not how we experience music. What is this gap? The natural extension of this line of questioning is the development of our awareness for medium-specific narratives. — thaumasnot

I really do not think that this gap can be closed in this way. I think it is a gap fundamental to the way that the human mind works, and we ought not even try to close it. Experiencing music, or any art work, begins as a passive reception of the piece. Sometimes we are inclined, or encouraged by the artist, toward active participation, sing along, clap, or dance, for example. The active participation is a direct response, as an "affect", derived from the emotions of the observer. It's an emotion driven activity.

When we describe the art, "talk about" it, this is a reflective activity. So it's a matter of the conscious mind looking back at what has already been experienced, which is very different from allowing the affections of a direct experience. We might say that the affections are filtered by the mind when we look back. If one looks at a reconstruction, and approaches a piece with the reconstruction in hand, then an attempt is made to filter the experience prior to it occurring. That significantly effects the experience, more often than not I believe, in a negative way. This is what happens for instance when you read reviews prior to watching a movie. It focuses the anticipatory aspect of affection, and experience in general, in an unnatural way.

We do not ever close the gap between passive experience and active participation in this way, because it's based in a false sense of "knowing what will happen". This is why a live music performance of a song you've heard a hundred times on the same recording, has so much more affect. It allows for the unknown. Being in reception of the unknown is fundamental to the experience. But when we turn around and reflect, it is all coming from within so there is no element of surprise, no unknown. So the gap between passive and active is only really closed in the experience itself, where the presence of the unknown causes a real need for an active sort of affection. Otherwise, the affection is artificially passive, caused by that sense of knowing what will happen. Of course there is always a certain interplay of the two, but attempting to remove the unknown will not produce an affection consistent with true experience.

5. The promise of a different type of sensations/payoff. Very roughly, it will lead you to something like big Eureka moments. In metal, you can superficially spot where these moments tend to occur. Traditionally, it’s in the form of “riff breakdowns” that are announced “theatrically”: the vocalist sometimes emit a distinctive exclamative roar, there’s a big break in the drumming, or there’s a striking aesthetic transition (for example, Metallica’s Master of Puppets when it switches to clean-sounding guitars). In the context of “great” medium-specific narratives, these kind of moments gain a whole dimension of significance. In other genres like classical music, these moments are not so much theatricalized. For example, in Vivaldi (who is my go-to when it comes to medium-specific narratives) the moment can aesthetically look like any other moment, and someone with no awareness of the narrative will just not hear anything different. — thaumasnot

I don't see these features you describe as features of the narrative, but more like points where the narrative breaks down, to be replaced by a lack of narrative, something distinctly new, as if 'out of place'. This shows the importance of the unknown. The artist lulls you into a feeling of comfort, telling you a bedtime story, then all of a sudden the story is gone, and the artist is somewhere else completely. That's the power of the dichotomy in anticipation. When you're drawn into a story, you have a strong sense of knowing what will happen because it's confined within that story. Even though the story could twist and turn, and you know not what's coming up, it's actually extremely confined, as within that particular story. Therefore the anticipatory feature of your experience is highly subdued. But the artist has the capacity to jump right out of the story, at any moment, and since your anticipatory capacity has been dulled by the story, you get caught completely by surprise. The artist did something completely contrary to intuition, something seemingly impossible, suddenly transcending the story.

No meaning is fundamentally better than the other. — thaumasnot

I agree. But if the painting, word, or any other piece of art are used to convey a meaning, won't it do unjustice to the painting, word, or any other piece, if you tell a story about it that is meaning independent? If you treat a word like a word, say PHYSICS, without the meaning attached, doesn't that rob the word of an essential feature? You can project a new meaning into it, so the word (the word being a piece of art in the sense it is a painting of black lines on white linen) or any other piece of art means what the medium-specific narrative tells you, but was this meant by the writer of the word PHYSICS? The new meaning becomes what is meant by the new narrative. Could be an interesting meaning.

but was this meant by the writer of the word PHYSICS? — Raymond

Who cares about the author? Sometimes I'll find an interpretation that's even more interesting than what the writer intended, and that'll be fine. Sometimes it'll be worse, well, too bad.

But if you cut it loose from being a conveyor of meaning, then what use is there in art at all?

I'm trying to gasp exactly what you mean by "medium-specific narrative" — Metaphysician Undercover

May I re-use the example of motif M that gets repeated for the nth time? Well, that kind of thing. So medium is music, the same for both Metallica and Vivaldi. I say "medium-specific" because for another medium, painting for example, obviously it won't be about melodic motifs, but visual patterns.

Is comparing narratives acceptable and useful in reconstructionism? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But not for classification purposes. It's more for creation. If you can compare narratives, you can avoid re-doing existing narratives unintentionally. You can also use comparisons to create personal benchmarks.

I really do not think that this gap can be closed in this way. I think it is a gap fundamental to the way that the human mind works, and we ought not even try to close it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, we ought not try to close that gap which is part of traditional analysis. That's why I offer reconstruction outside of this whole way at looking back. Please keep in mind the example of motif M to understand what I mean precisely.

The artist did something completely contrary to intuition, something seemingly impossible, suddenly transcending the story. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it's still part of the story. In the case of medium-specific narratives; obviously, motif M can be used in unexpected ways. How this is achieved exactly is the interesting part, and this is the whole medium-specific narrative.

But if you cut it loose from being a conveyor of meaning, then what use is there in art at all? — Raymond

I don't get what you're saying. We can always talk about something without talking about the author. There's value in that.

So the gap between passive and active is only really closed in the experience itself, where the presence of the unknown causes a real need for an active sort of affection. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, about this active thing. What I mean by active consumption in the context of reconstruction is the activity of correlating things (the basis of any narrative). As you can see from the "copy" aspect of reconstruction, reconstruction is a little replica of the experience. In fact, the property of "pure referentiality" almost means it is the experience itself, except in a guided way. Ultimately, the reader of a reconstruction can ditch the reconstruction, and live the experience the way the reconstruction suggested.

Is comparing narratives acceptable and useful in reconstructionism? — Metaphysician Undercover

To correct my previous response (“not for classification purposes”), this could actually lead to building a knowledge base not unlike Christopher Alexander’s design patterns in architecture. I used to be interested in doing that, but now it’s not my focus.

So medium is music, the same for both Metallica and Vivaldi. I say "medium-specific" because for another medium, painting for example, obviously it won't be about melodic motifs, but visual patterns. — thaumasnot

We have a difference in our understanding of "medium". I would say that "music" is a classification of art form, a type of artistic expression. The medium used by the musician is sound, and there is distinct aspects of that medium, rhythm and pitch for example. Notice that aural narrative, referring to the act of telling a story with words, uses the same fundamental medium, sound, but it doesn't have refined (or defined) rhythm and pitch. Because different forms of artistic expression might use the same fundamental medium, and also one form of artistic expression might be presented through a number of different media, I think it's best to maintain a distinction between "medium" and "art form".

Well, it's still part of the story. In the case of medium-specific narratives; obviously, motif M can be used in unexpected ways. How this is achieved exactly is the interesting part, and this is the whole medium-specific narrative. — thaumasnot

I must admit I haven't been able to grasp your example of "motif". A motif is a particular form which may be repeated, and it may even be copied to another piece. It is a particular way of using the medium, which is repeated. But motifs are not medium specific. There are visual motifs as much as there are sound motifs. And, a particular motif is specific to a particular piece, until it is copied to another. We can talk about what types of motifs are specific to certain types of media, but I do not think that this is your intent. It appears like you want to talk about particular motifs as if they a part of the medium. But they are not, they are a part of the form created by the artist. Only if an artist stole a motif from somewhere else, would it not be created by that artist. And this is why we need to maintain the distinction between "medium" and "art form". If a motif were part of the medium, an artist could plagiarize motifs freely, claiming to just be using the medium available.

So, about this active thing. What I mean by active consumption in the context of reconstruction is the activity of correlating things (the basis of any narrative). As you can see from the "copy" aspect of reconstruction, reconstruction is a little replica of the experience. In fact, the property of "pure referentiality" almost means it is the experience itself, except in a guided way. Ultimately, the reader of a reconstruction can ditch the reconstruction, and live the experience the way the reconstruction suggested. — thaumasnot

But don't you think that being "guided" takes away from the experience? If the artist is using the element of surprise, then the guide could rob the artist of that technique. It's one thing for the artist to provide some form of guidance, as a footnote to an art piece, or something like that, but for someone else to be doing the guiding just seems wrong. Suppose you are going to watch a movie, and someone else comes and describes to you, their experience from the movie, then says "go and have your own experience". Well it's already too late, the person has stolen your capacity to have your own experience, by giving you their own.

The medium used by the musician is sound, and there is distinct aspects of that medium, rhythm and pitch for example. Notice that aural narrative, referring to the act of telling a story with words, uses the same fundamental medium, sound, but it doesn't have refined (or defined) rhythm and pitch. Because different forms of artistic expression might use the same fundamental medium, and also one form of artistic expression might be presented through a number of different media, I think it's best to maintain a distinction between "medium" and "art form". — Metaphysician Undercover

The discourse stays the same even if the medium is sound, so the distinction doesn’t matter here. You could reconstruct instruments + lyrics, that works too (usually doesn’t happen, it’s complex enough with just melodies).

But motifs are not medium specific. There are visual motifs as much as there are sound motifs. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not saying that motifs in general are medium-specific. In fact, I avoid generalizations like that (reconstructionism is not a theory, more a way of life).

It appears like you want to talk about particular motifs as if they a part of the medium — Metaphysician Undercover

I use medium roughly in the sense “perceived physical manifestation”. Even if we don’t agree with that definition, the only thing that matters is that I mean by “medium-specific narrative” a narrative whose elements are things you perceive in the content. So they’re visual, audible, readable, etc. things. It’s important because it contrasts traditional interpretation, which goes beyond these things.

But don't you think that being "guided" takes away from the experience? — Metaphysician Undercover

I would agree for other types of guides. But in our case, the guide is so intimately linked to the experiencing of the content that it might as well be the experience itself. That’s because if you read “motif M is repeated at XX:XX”, it, by convention, invites you to listen to the music at XX:XX and observe for yourself. Unlike other guides of a speculative nature, it is not dogmatic. It doesn’t ask you to agree (what it says is pretty trivial in isolation). It invites you to an activity that is experiential in nature.

Also the fact that it describes an activity means it doesn’t work like a normal spoiler (imagine the reconstruction of a book/movie). Spoilers are typically very small pieces of information that spoil a whole experience. Reconstructions are narratives, they’re experiential. If you read a reconstruction of a beautiful medium-specific narrative in a movie before seeing the movie, you still experience the beauty, so it’s not emotionally the same type of spoiler (I would argue it’s a non-frustrating type of spoiler).

I use medium roughly in the sense “perceived physical manifestation”. Even if we don’t agree with that definition, the only thing that matters is that I mean by “medium-specific narrative” a narrative whose elements are things you perceive in the content. So they’re visual, audible, readable, etc. things. It’s important because it contrasts traditional interpretation, which goes beyond these things. — thaumasnot

The problem though, is that perception has interpretation built in, inherent within. Let's go back to your example of the word "PHYSICS".

In most cases, the viewer will see PHYSICS as a word, and I think that’s enough for most purposes. — thaumasnot

When I'm reading, I don't see the things I am reading as words. So I do not see "physics" as a word, when I come across that word in a piece of writing. I talk about it now as a word, but when I'm reading I see each particular word as the word it is, and read it as that particular word, giving it meaning according to context, but I do not see any of the words as words, that's just how we refer to them when we talk about them.

So when you go to a "perceived physical manifestation", like motif M for instance, and single it out as a motif, and say that this, as a motif, is a perceived physical manifestation, it's not really true. Just like I don't perceive the word "physics" as a word, when I'm reading, I don't perceive motif M as a motif when I hear the music. It's all part of a complex piece. So when you analyze, and say that this part is motif M, which I perceive, that's not really true, because I do not perceive it as a motif.

This is the difference between your conception of "medium" and mine. The motif, you see as part of the medium, a physical manifestation, I see it as something created by the artist.

When I'm reading, I don't see the things I am reading as words. So I do not see "physics" as a word, when I come across that word in a piece of writing. I talk about it now as a word, but when I'm reading I see each particular word as the word it is, and read it as that particular word — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s quite confusing. “When I'm reading, I don't see the things I am reading as words” followed by “I'm reading I see each particular word as the word it is”.

This is the difference between your conception of "medium" and mine. The motif, you see as part of the medium, a physical manifestation, I see it as something created by the artist. — Metaphysician Undercover

It’s not something that matters to reconstruction (as a hedonistic endeavour). If you care about this, you can even use your definition. The medium could come from an artist, a UFO, or be generated randomly by a computer. You can also try to reconstruct anything you experience in real life (quite useful when interpreting political discourses or pseudo-scientific debates for example).

The more I think about it it the more I like it! It (CR), at least, doesn't have that pompous intention most standard interpretations have! And because it allows allows anything from the UFO, to politics, to "pseudo"-scientific debate.

The strange thing with words is that they talk to us. You can consider them as objects on their own, as drawings, but then they cease to talk. You need other words to express what you see.



How does it help in interpreting political and pseudoscientific talk? Don't these have to be interpreted firstly, as being political and pseudo?

How does it help in interpreting political and pseudoscientific talk? — Raymond

By making you pay attention not to the meaning of words or the truth of statements, but how the words are used, their context in the discourse, and how the usage evolves through the debate/discourse (in other words, to the narrative of usage). To illustrate why it’s useful to not focus exclusively on something like truth, imagine a debate, politician A mentions an inconsistency in the discourse of politician B, B counters with an argument about something else, but while the argument is true, it diverts the attention away from A’s first point, so B never responds to A and gets away with it. Reconstruction traces these kinds of meanderings, and more. This also works when interpreting trials and pseudo-science. Reconstructing how pseudo-scientific conclusions can be reached is quite amusing and enlightening.

That’s quite confusing. “When I'm reading, I don't see the things I am reading as words” followed by “I'm reading I see each particular word as the word it is”. — thaumasnot

I know it's confusing, but I thought I explained it well enough to dispel the confusion. When I'm reading I don't see them as words. But when I reflect on what is written, or talk about it in any way, not reading it, I see them as words. I only see them as words when I'm not reading it. When I'm reading it, I'm not thinking 'that's a word, that's a word, that's a word' etc., because I am too busy reading. And reading does not consist of seeing things as words, it's a matter of deriving meaning, not a matter of judging things as words. I cannot do both at the same time, read the material, and also count the words.

It’s not something that matters to reconstruction (as a hedonistic endeavour). If you care about this, you can even use your definition. The medium could come from an artist, a UFO, or be generated randomly by a computer. You can also try to reconstruct anything you experience in real life (quite useful when interpreting political discourses or pseudo-scientific debates for example). — thaumasnot

If this is the case then how can you say that the purpose of it is to help others? Unless there is some attempt to try and understand what the artist is doing, how can you call this a type of "help"? Take a politician's speech for example, you'd say, look at the cool patterns in the way this guy uses "make America great again", in relation to some other phrases used by that politician, but how is that supposed to be helpful?

Reconstructing how pseudo-scientific conclusions can be reached is quite amusing and enlightening. — thaumasnot

Isn't this something completely different though, something called logic? With logic, there are strict standards, formal rules, which the patterns of word usage must follow. If we analyze the pattern and find that it strays from the rules. we can say that the conclusion is invalid. But that's something different from simply reconstructing the patterns, it's also judging the patterns according to some standards. I can see how this would be helpful, if your judgements are according to some accepted standards, like logic provides us with. When you do reconstruction, and you judge the work which you are reconstructing, where do you derive your standards of judgement from?

I know it's confusing, but I thought I explained it well enough to dispel the confusion. When I'm reading I don't see them as words. But when I reflect on what is written, or talk about it in any way, not reading it, I see them as words. I only see them as words when I'm not reading it. When I'm reading it, I'm not thinking 'that's a word, that's a word, that's a word' etc., because I am too busy reading. And reading does not consist of seeing things as words, it's a matter of deriving meaning, not a matter of judging things as words. I cannot do both at the same time, read the material, and also count the words. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see what you mean, but I don’t think it’s a very useful subtlety, because it leads to phrases like “When I read, it’s not words.” I mean, I don’t think anyone except maybe you would say that. In the same vein, you could say “I don’t eat food, I only see it as food when I’m not eating it” etc. It’s just confusing.

Unless there is some attempt to try and understand what the artist is doing, how can you call this a type of "help"? Take a politician's speech for example, you'd say, look at the cool patterns in the way this guy uses "make America great again", in relation to some other phrases used by that politician, but how is that supposed to be helpful? — Metaphysician Undercover

Correlating phrases helps to spot things like contradictions, omissions, fallacies, babbling, etc. Obviously, people didn’t need reconstructions to spot these already, but it can be argued they were sort of doing reconstruction before it was called reconstructionism. At a small scale (short political discourses for example), reconstruction of discourses is basically the same as traditional analysis.

Isn't this something completely different though, something called logic? — Metaphysician Undercover

Great question. Logic is focused on the errors or false statements. It’s a pinpointing thing. Reconstruction makes you focus on the whole reasoning that led to the error/false statement or was built on the error/false statement. The “help” here is not in establishing that the reasoning was wrong. Logic can do that. It’s to make you appreciate how the reasoning was “constructed”. You’ll surely remark that in doing so, reconstruction uses logic, and that’s true. In that case, the “content” considered by the reconstructionist is the combination of that logic with the pseudo-scientific text. In reconstructionism, the process of defining the content is a formal step that I call “conventional medium delimitation”. It’s just a convention, not a profound statement of truth.

It could be argued that it’s more interesting to see how errors are made than how a perfect scientific text is constructed. The empirical argument is that there are millions of ways of making errors, and only one way to be correct. And learning how we make errors is quite interesting, not only theoretically, but also as a lesson. So reconstruction is not primarily about finding errors, but rather about discovering reasoning patterns, and that’s a fun endeavour (hedonism).

Correlating phrases helps to spot things like contradictions, omissions, fallacies, babbling, etc. Obviously, people didn’t need reconstructions to spot these already, but it can be argued they were sort of doing reconstruction before it was called reconstructionism. At a small scale (short political discourses for example), reconstruction of discourses is basically the same as traditional analysis. — thaumasnot

I see a problem with this sort of thing, because the same word in different contexts has different meanings. So when you remove phrases from their contexts and say look, here's a contradiction, when it's really not a contradiction at all, because of the difference in context, that's being disrespectful to the author.

Great question. Logic is focused on the errors or false statements. It’s a pinpointing thing. Reconstruction makes you focus on the whole reasoning that led to the error/false statement or was built on the error/false statement. The “help” here is not in establishing that the reasoning was wrong. Logic can do that. It’s to make you appreciate how the reasoning was “constructed”. You’ll surely remark that in doing so, reconstruction uses logic, and that’s true. In that case, the “content” considered by the reconstructionist is the combination of that logic with the pseudo-scientific text. In reconstructionism, the process of defining the content is a formal step that I call “conventional medium delimitation”. It’s just a convention, not a profound statement of truth. — thaumasnot

Most reasoning is outside the formal constraints of logic, so I can see how reconstruction would be useful if it could help someone to recognize different styles of thought process. There is for example abductive reasoning, and different people have different ways for dealing with probabilities.

What I have the most difficulty with is your idea of medium delimitation. I think that the difference between what you call the medium and what I call the medium is significant, and this shows in what I say above. I would say that the medium on its own, must be considered to be completely passive, and cannot be assigned any meaning toward the piece of work. All the meaning is what has been given to it by the author. So any time that you remove a part of a narrative from its context, you cannot assign any meaning to that piece, because all its meaning is derived from its position in the narrative.

For example, there is a trend in modern TV, for a series to develop a character's personality over many episodes, even over numerous seasons. I actually find it rather boring, and unreal because I find that they'll spend an unreasonable amount of time demonstrating a person's character as being a certain way, then all of a sudden the person will start to do things right outside of one's character, seeming to undergo a significant change in character. From my perspective, I would say the person would never do something like that, the act is out of character for that person, so I see it as unrealistic, and I'm pissed off that they tricked me into thinking that the person was otherwise.

And with good editing they can even do this with "reality" shows. They show numerous, very particular types of actions, by the person, to make you think you understand the person's character. But they've actually created a false representation with crafty editing. Then all of a sudden they'll show the person doing something completely inconsistent with that, completely outside the realm of what you think that person is capable of doing, based on what they've already shown you. And this is supposed to be a filming of real life, "reality" TV.

So editing film footage for a "reality" show is like a reconstructive interpretation. And you can see how taking parts from the narrative (parts from the true narrative offered by the author, or by the complete set of footage taken in filming the "reality" show), you can very easily create a "sub-narrative" which doesn't have to be at all consistent with the true narrative. And you can very easily create a false narrative simply by removing bits and pieces from their proper context, and producing a new context with these bits and pieces.

It could be argued that it’s more interesting to see how errors are made than how a perfect scientific text is constructed. The empirical argument is that there are millions of ways of making errors, and only one way to be correct. And learning how we make errors is quite interesting, not only theoretically, but also as a lesson. So reconstruction is not primarily about finding errors, but rather about discovering reasoning patterns, and that’s a fun endeavour (hedonism). — thaumasnot

I propose that you turn this perspective around, consider that there is a vast multitude of ways to be correct, and only one way to be incorrect. There are many ways to be correct because correctness is determined in relation to the end, if the end is achieved. Notice that there is a vast variance in ends themselves, and even if we define a particular end, there can be a number of different ways to achieve it. Each of these produces a "correct" way. However, any time there is determined a "correct" way, what is inconsistent with this is often called "incorrect". But when that supposed "incorrect" way is seen to be consistent with a slightly variant end, then it is actually a correct way according to that different end. This leaves only one way to be "incorrect", and that is to be consistent with no end whatsoever. What is consistent with no end is a mistake. Therefore there is only one way to be incorrect, and that is to make a mistake.

So when we look at all the different ways that people do things, we cannot say such and such is incorrect, (eg., point to the the phrases which have been removed from context, and say there is contradiction), we look at the different ways as being different. And being different means that they were done for a different purpose, from the one which I apprehend, and this makes it appears as incorrect, to me. But if I can determine the purpose, then what seemed incorrect to me, becomes correct because I've found the proper context. And only if I can demonstrate that it is inconsistent with any possible purpose, can I say that it is an accident, a mistake, and therefore incorrect.

I see a problem with this sort of thing, because the same word in different contexts has different meanings. So when you remove phrases from their contexts and say look, here's a contradiction, when it's really not a contradiction at all, because of the difference in context, that's being disrespectful to the author. — Metaphysician Undercover

This isn’t how reconstruction works. As stated in the manifesto, when you quote something in a reconstruction, there is an implied convention that invites the reader to refer to the context of the source material (it’s described in the section that talks about pure referentiality, definitions and their context). Now, I do agree that, in the context of reconstructing non-fiction (i.e., not always for hedonistic purposes), there are 2 problems, which are not specific to reconstruction, regarding (1) implicit context, and (2) explicit context (that can be found in the text). Regarding (1), in reconstructionism, we always try to assume as little as possible. In fact, it can be argued that reconstruction is the most respectful type of analysis, because it gives the text a chance to develop a meaning. What do I mean by that? If one reconstructs, for example, a Hitler discourse that says that “aryan blood is the purest,” the reconstructionist won’t try to accept or challenge the truth of the statement or meaning of “aryan” or “pure”. They will ask “so what?” and continue to read the text until it can contextualize what the orator meant with respect to the whole text. It’s a bit like Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction, when it compares what a text declares, and what a text actually states. Always regarding (1), obviously, we have to make some minimal assumptions regarding meaning and context, and this isn’t always a unanimous process, but we have to be pragmatic here. Secondly, errors can absolutely be made during reconstruction (i.e., quoting out of context, which is not in the spirit of reconstructionism). So it’s useful to share reconstructions if only for sanity checking.

So any time that you remove a part of a narrative from its context, you cannot assign any meaning to that piece, because all its meaning is derived from its position in the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely. And reconstruction assigns as little meaning as possible. In fact, you could say that it provides the basic material for other people to assign meaning later if they wish to.

then all of a sudden the person will start to do things right outside of one's character, seeming to undergo a significant change in character. From my perspective, I would say the person would never do something like that, the act is out of character for that person, so I see it as unrealistic, and I'm pissed off that they tricked me into thinking that the person was otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover

From a purely theoretical standpoint, an artist is not bound to create realistic content or to conform to expectations, and if you don’t want to potentially “disrespect” them, you have to keep an open mind. “Realism” is as much a purely artistic (non-universal) concept as non-realism (which is why there are movies that start with “based on a true story”, when they aren’t). In medium-specific narratives, what matters is not whether it’s realistic or not, but what narrative purpose it serves (if a “bad” characterization serves no purpose in the narrative, then I would argue that a “good” characterization would not either, and is just something nice to have, but not essential). In the context of reconstruction, I would advise reconstructionists to overlook what we traditionally deem as shortcomings, and look at a bigger picture than bad characterization (and similarly, stuff like bad acting in movies).

And with good editing they can even do this with "reality" shows. They show numerous, very particular types of actions, by the person, to make you think you understand the person's character. But they've actually created a false representation with crafty editing. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said above, reconstruction is all about the conservation of intra-medium context (cf. manifesto section about attention span and sensory memory). It is true that reconstruction filters a lot of content (which does look like quoting out of context, but is not), but it’s usually done because this content is deemed redundant, unnecessary, tangential, etc. For example, if a reconstruction is of a story about a princess saved by the prince from a dragon, it (probably) doesn’t matter to the narrative what the princess wears, if there was a storm when the prince fought the dragon, etc.

There are many ways to be correct because correctness is determined in relation to the end, if the end is achieved. — Metaphysician Undercover

“One way to be correct” was probably not the best way to put it. Let me use a metaphor. Imagine the end is to build any Lego castle (or solve any theorem). There is one constraint (logic): all the pieces must be yellow (all the statements of the solution must be true). Obviously, as you remarked, there are still many ways to build a castle (solve a theorem) with this constraint, so it’s still interesting to reconstruct. But there are (intuitively) way more possibilities to build a castle with all kinds of colors (all kinds of mistakes). In the case of the theorem, you could imagine mistaking an x (lower case) for an X (upper case), using a necessary condition like a necessary and sufficient condition, forgetting to prove something, applying a lemma in a context where the lemma’s hypotheses are not verified, etc.