I'm going to come back and read this in more detail when I've had more caffeine than whisky. You of course are using a very precise vocabulary with the necessarily fine shades of meaning. Theologically, I have never been a big fan of words. I guess I mean spiritually, since theology is all about words. I have never favored the religions of "the book", they always seemed like dead religions to me. Which is not to say that many people adopt religions and throw out the book.
Today's two paragraphs on hermeneutics cut loose against an interpretive model that [calmly] makes me very impatient. Because I don’t believe in link-baiting, I'll come right out and say it's the old "world behind/of/in front of the text". Bleah.
Today’s two paragraphs begin to turn the quantum ocean liner of my exposition (cumbersome, with a lot of forward momentum, but subject to capricious shifts in location and trajectory) toward how we go about sound interpretation without recourse to subsistent meaning:
OK, two more paragraphs, turning a bit of a corner and trying to drive toward several specific cases and clarifications. I have the feeling that I’ve said some of this before, but I won’t look back yet, and even if I’m repeating myself, it’s useful for people who missed it the first time or who find repetition comforting.
“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”
My wife and I started going to Paperino's for its provision of gluten-free pasta. We soon came to love the relaxed atmosphere, the friendly and thoughtful staff, and the delicious entrees. Our flat is very tiny — Paperino's is the dining room to which we invite our friends and family.