Holism without Skepticism… Epistemic Justification

BOHMAN, J.F. (1991) Holism without Skepticism: Contexualism and the Limits of Interpretation. In: D.R. HILEY, J.F. BOHMAN, and R. SHUSTERMAN (Eds.) The Interpretive Turn. Cornell University Press. pp129-154

“The Transcendental Argument for Strong Holism

(1)    Interpretation is circular, indeterminate, and perspectival (the thesis of the ‘hermeneutic circle’)

(2)    Interpretation occurs only against a ‘background,’ a network of unspecifiable beliefs and practices (the thesis of the ‘background’)

(3)    The background is a condition for the possibility of interpretation, which limits its possibilities for epistemic justification (the thesis of contextual limits)

(4)    All cognitive activities take place against a background and are interpretive and hence circular, indeterminate, and perspectival (the thesis of the universality of interpretation). Therefore, the conditions of interpretation are such that no ‘true’ or ‘correct’ interpretations are possible (interpretive scepticism).” (pp135-136)

Annotation:
The argument for a holistic framing for interpretation comes in four stages. First, interpretation is circular and comes from a personal perspective of the interpreter. Therefore the interpretation is indeterminate as ‘correct.’ Secondly, interpretation can only happen within a context of a person’s socio-cultural background, informed by their own previous experiences and tacit knowledge. For such an interpretation to make sense to the individual as far as they perceive it, it is one that will be shared (to varying degrees) within a socio-cultural group. This is an epistemic justification. There is some basis to accept the individual’s interpretation as ‘correct’ as it is supported by existing ideas and concepts that infer an accepted probability that infers that the interpretation is valid. This supporting idea or concept must be accepted as being ‘true’ and not irrational, as otherwise the interpretation will be false. There needs to be justification that the supporting idea or concept that the new interpretation springs from is accepted as correct. 

Holism without Skepticism… Interpretation

BOHMAN, J.F. (1991) Holism without Skepticism: Contexualism and the Limits of Interpretation. In: D.R. HILEY, J.F. BOHMAN, and R. SHUSTERMAN (Eds.) The Interpretive Turn. Cornell University Press. pp129-154

“When called into question, interpretations must be supported by reasons, and it is a philosophical question when such claims are justified and if such issues can be settled rationally.” (p129)

Annotation:
Interpretation is founded on reasoning. In the average person their interpretation is not based on any philosophical high theory, rather on their own tacit knowledge, previous experience and socio-cultural and even religious predilections. 
 

I::MY::YOU

I Experience MY Experience of YOU

We can empathise but we cannot experience directly what another experiences. It is our own. We can reflect on our experience and make it 'storyable' to communicate the essence to another. Within that recounted narrative on another person's experience, I experience through my embodied situation observing and listening to that person, what I experience. I make that person's experience MY own, but it is constructed based upon MY past experiences of similar processual actions and emotions. This construction is a socio-cultural construction, and happens within a familiar and shared socio-cultural context.

References used:
KAPFERRER, B. (1986) Performance and the Structuring of Meaning and Experience. In: V.W. TURNER & E.M. BRUNER, ed(s). The Anthropology of Experience. Chicago: University of Illinois, pp188-203.