*VALID* points

Ralph Henson suggests:

>I don't agree with this method (Retorical Critisim), but doesn't
>this answer your question, David, of finding a methodolgy which denies
>authorial intent and raises valid points.

The example I was looking for was a method *you* think is *valid*, but
deny's authorial intent.  If you disagree with the methodology, why?
Isn't it because it violates some meta-hermenutic which you impose a prior?

My suggestion is that authorial intent ought to be such a meta-hermenutic.

By the way before everyone jumps on me for my use of "a prior" I am *NOT*
suggesting that we know somehow from birth, or logically that authorial
intent determines meaning, but that their is good evidence for this
from human experience.

I am also not suggesting that authorial intent *MUST ALWAYS* determine meaning
simply that the assumption that authorial intent determines meaning is the
most likely unless their is some compelling evidence, or logic which suggests
otherwise.  I have given some thought to these special cases, but I don't
think they are relevant here.  (e.g. what does a text written by a
committee mean when everyone has agreed to the wording, but not the
ideas (meaning) of the text).

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg   BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8