some of hp's answers

I've been thinking a lot about the solipsism problem that might result from a belief in interpretative indeterminacy. Meaning, if all is interpretation -- and that too is an interpretation, as Nietzsche says -- how do I ever hear another(/an Other)'s voice? Or, more exactly, how do I ever KNOW I'm hearing another's voice?

I find theories of misunderstanding to hold some compromise between radical solipsism and a too-easy relationship with the Other. Meaning, if I can have my expectations foiled (or "pulled up short" in Gadamer's terms), then (presumably) I'm not alone in a self-projected universe. However, I could know I've misunderstood someone without knowing whether I have now understood them correctly. Meaning, all experiences of misunderstanding might be (MIGHT be) preludes to further misunderstandings/experiences of being pulled up short. I find that position somewhat "comforting" -- even if it's not ideal for some.

As for, why study, create interpretations, etc.? -- B/c it's delightful! I like other people's creations, so I also like my own. I find having new thoughts/perspectives really enjoyable. Moreimportantly, I find the discovery of really new pointsof view to be (at least, temporarily) liberating. I feel less intellectually claustrophobic/trapped if I realize I can think about the world in a radically different way today than I did yesterday. My hunger for academic research is largely an addiction to this experience, and I prefer books published by Oxford University Press to internet sites on theology largely (and maybe even exclusively!) b/c those books (said "responsible academic scholarship") give me more ideas, more clearly articulated, more fully couched in larger, relevant academic debates. They hold forth greater promise of giving me new ideas that don't seem like mere self affirming self-projections or cultural projections. (In other words, I find really "outlandish" non-scholarly claims {e.g., about art history or theology} to be not very surprising/outlandish -- instead, they seem to unconsciously re-articulate the cultural assumptions that I'm trying to "transcend" {or, at least, "relativize"} through my studies of different times and places. Put simply, if a 21st cent. person tries to think about God in a new way, that person tends to reproduce, in an only slightly altered form, common ways of thinking about God today. But if I look at the way a 14th cent. Italian thought about God in a rigorous

theological argument, I often find assumptions there that I don't presently hold. Ergo, bingo! A new outlook!)

Does that make sense?