From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:40:59 GMT


I didn't intend to continue with this argument...  but I couldn't resist
replying.

In article <graham.712279028@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Graham:
>>Sure I am. The term *one true Islam" cleary refers to interpretations
>>as otherwise it is pretty meaningless.
>(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>>That's right.  So we're talking about interpretation, not definition.
>
>I had assumed from the start that we were talking about interpretations
>and I called these definitions as I presumed no-one would be talking
>about the "stand-alone" meaning of a bunch of syntax.

No comment.


>Graham:
>
>You miss the point somewhat - the sentences in the Quran are arbitrary
>sentences. I do not feel that you criterion for judging the validity of an 
>interpretation is much us because it relies on having a standard by which
>you judge, and how do you know what this standard is? My example of the
>"dog and the park" was an attempt to illustrate this problem by analogy.

The standard is based on the premise that the Qur'an is the word of God.
As you say later in your article, communication is possible.  Indeed, 
much of the Holy Qur'an is very easy to understand.  These easily understood
passages give us the criterion for interpreting Qu'anic passages.  The 
criterion I mentioned formerly was based on these easily understood passages.

>Graham:
>>>Sure this is indeed the true Islam, but the problem is that no-one
>>>actually knows what the intention of God and his prophet is. They have
>>>some words in a back which purport to define that intention but as
>>>you admit above everyone has a different interpretation of those
>>>words.
>
> [my objection deleted for brevity.  See below.  -Behnam]
>
>About this time I begin to wonder if you are reading my posts. Lets get
>this clear I am not attacking Islam in any way shape or form. All I am
>doing is noting that a human *CANNOT* read the written word without
>*INTERPRETING* it - do you dispute this fact? If so please tell me
>why?

I don't dispute at all the fact that "a human cannot read the written
word without interpreting it."  However, this premise does not imply
in any way your claim that "no one actually knows what the intention
of God and his prophet is."   [You can only arrive at this conclusion
if you assume every "interpretation" is necessarily false.  But we have
no reason to believe this to be the case.  So, there may indeed be
many people who know exactly what the intention of God and his prophet
is.].

(Note:  I didn't take your comments as attacking Islam.)

>Graham:

>Sorry Behnam, but if you think about this your last sentence does
>not make any sense at all. Definitions do not have any meaning, so
>we cannot chose a method to best satisfy a definition. We could
>chose a method to best satisfy an interpretation of a definition but
>this then leaves the problem of how do we know which interpretation
>is correct.

O.K., I agree with your correction, i.e. that "we could choose a 
method to best satisfy AN INTERPRETATION OF A DEFINITION but this
then leaves the problem of how do we know which interpretation is 
correct."   Well, as you said, communication is possible.  And the
basic ideas of Islam have been communicated to people with such
clarity that Muslims, i.e. about a billion people, are unanimous about
what the "INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION" of Islam is.  

>>I won't be able to continue with this discussion for two reasons:
>>1)  How in the world do I know my interpretation of your words is the
>>correct one?  How do I know my standard is correct?   Even if I ask
>>you to clarify all that you say, again I'd have the same problem:  How
>>do I know my interpretation of your clarification is correct?  If you
>>bother to answer these very questions that you're now reading,
>>how do I know I understand your answers correctly?  
>
>Yawn - I did not say that communication was impossible, I said that
>*perfect* communication was impossible

I disagree.  Perfect communication is possible.  Perhaps this example
will demonstrate what I mean:

X communicates text T, with correct interpretation TX.  A hundred people
receive T, but they interprete it differently, so that there are about
20 different interpretations of text T current among them.  It may very
well be that a number of the people happen to have interpretation TX,
i.e. the correction interpretation.  Let's say seventy of them have this
correct interpretation.   Then text T has been communicated perfectly
to these seventy people.  So, perfect communication is possible, though
not always guaranteed.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism