25 Mar 2016

Priest (ED) An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, entry directory


by Corry Shores

[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Logic and Semantics, entry directory]
[Graham Priest, entry directory]

[A directory with the brief summaries included can be found here:
http://piratesandrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/2018/08/priest-cbs-introduction-to-non.html
]



Entry Directory for
 
Graham Priest
 
An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic:
From If to Is



Propositional Logic
 

 
Mathematical Prolegomenon
 
Set-theoretic Notation
 
 

 
 
Classical Logic and the Material Conditional
 
Introduction
 
The Syntax of the Object Language
 
Semantic Validity
 
Tableaux

Conditionals

The Material Conditional

Subjunctive and Counterfactual Conditionals
 
More Counter-Examples
 
Arguments for ⊃
 
 
 

 
Basic Modal Logic
 
Introduction
 
Necessity and Possibility
 
Modal Semantics 

Modal Tableaux
 
Possible Worlds: Representation

Modal Realism

Modal Actualism

Meinongianism
 
 
 

 
Normal Modal Logics
 
Introduction
 
Semantics for Normal Modal Logics

Tableaux for Normal Modal Logics

S5

The Tense Logic Kt

Extensions of Kt
 




Non-Normal Modal Logics; Strict Conditionals
 
Introduction

Non-Normal Worlds

Tableaux for Non-Normal Modal Logics

The Properties of Non-Normal Logics

S0.5

Strict Conditionals

The Paradoxes of Strict Implication

The Explosion of Contradictions

Lewis’ Argument for Explosion





Conditional Logics
 
Introduction

Some More Problematic Inferences
 
 
 

 
Intuitionistic Logic
 
Introduction

Intuitionism: The Rationale
 
Possible Worlds Semantics for Intuitionism
 

6.4

Tableaux for Intuitionistic Logic

 
 
 

 
Many-valued Logics
 
Introduction
 
Many-valued Logic: The General Structure
 
The 3-valued Logics of Kleene and Łukasiewicz
 
LP and RM3 

Many-valued Logics and Conditionals

7.6
Truth-value Gluts: Inconsistent Laws

Truth-value Gluts: Paradoxes of Self-reference

Truth-value Gaps: Denotation Failure

Truth-value Gaps: Future Contingents
 
Supervaluations, Modality and Many-valued Logic
 
 



 
First Degree Entailment
 
Introduction

The Semantics of FDE

Tableaux for FDE

FDE and Many-valued Logics

The Routley Star

Paraconsistency and the Disjunctive Syllogism





Logics with Gaps, Gluts and Worlds
 
Introduction

Adding →

Tableaux for K4

Non-normal Worlds Again
                                 
Tableaux for N4

Star Again
                                 
Impossible Worlds and Relevant Logic

Logics of Constructible Negation
 

 
 

Relevant Logics
 
Introduction

The Logic B

The Ternary Relation





Fuzzy Logics
 
Introduction

Sorites Paradoxes

. . . and Responses to Them

The Continuum-valued Logic Ł
 
 
 
 

 
Appendix: Many-valued Modal Logics
 
Introduction
 
General Structure
 
Modal FDE


Future Contingents Revisited
 
 
 


Quantification and Identity
 

 
Classical First-order Logic
 
Introduction

Syntax

Semantics
 
Tableaux
 
Identity
 
Some Philosophical Issues
 
 

 
Free Logics
 
Introduction
 
Syntax and Semantics
 
Tableaux
 
Free Logics: Positive, Negative and Neutral
 
Quantification and Existence

Identity in Free Logic




Constant Domain Modal Logics
 
Introduction

Constant Domain K



Variable Domain Modal Logics
 
Introduction

Prolegomenon

Variable Domain K and its Normal Extensions





Necessary Identity in Modal Logic
 
Introduction

Necessary Identity

The Negativity Constraint

Rigid and Non-rigid Designators

Names and Descriptions



Many-valued Logics
 
Introduction

Quantified Many-valued Logics

∀ and ∃

Some 3-valued Logics

Their Free Versions

Existence and Quantification

Neutral Free Logics

Identity

Non-classical Identity





 
Priest, Graham. 2008 [2001]. An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University.



.

19 Mar 2016

Priest, Ch10 of Logic: A Very Short Introduction, “Vagueness: How Do You Stop Sliding Down a Slippery Slope?”, summary


by Corry Shores


[
Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Logic & Semantics, Entry Directory]
[Graham Priest, entry directory]
[Priest’s Logic: A Very Short Introduction, entry directory]


[Bracketed commentary and boldface are my own. Please forgive my typos, as proofreading is incomplete. I am not trained in logic, so at times my summaries may be unhelpful or misleading. Please consult and trust the original text, which is absolutely wonderful.]




Summary of


Graham Priest


Logic: A Very Short Introduction


Ch.10
Vagueness: How Do You Stop Sliding Down a Slippery Slope? 



 

 


Brief Summary: 
A thing can change gradually over time. A true statement about that thing’s status at the beginning can later be false at the end of the development. But in many cases, it is not clear when exactly during that development the status changes without ambiguity. “Jack is a child” is true when Jack is very young and not true when Jack is old; but, when precisely in his young adult years does it cease being entirely true and instead “Jack is an adult” becomes entirely true? This issue is related to sorites paradoxes. Consider that “Jack is a child” is true at the beginning, and “If Jack is a child at the beginning, then he is still a child one second later” also is probably also true. That means by modus ponens, “Jack is a child one second later” is true. Using this same sort of reasoning, we can then conclude that Jack is a child two seconds later, and so on, meaning that he never ceases being a child. (We reiterate the structure, taking the affirmed prior conclusion that Jack is still a child in the  succeeding second, and use it as a premise in an argument of the same structure, allowing us to conclude he is a child in yet the next succeeding second, and so on infinitely).  One solution to these issues is to use fuzzy truth values. We can say for example that when he is 3 years old, the statement “Jack is a child” has a full truth value of 1. At 9 years “Jack is  child” has a truth value of 0.75. At 14 years, 0.5. At 19 years, 0.25. And at 24 years, 0. And when we apply truth functional operators to statements with  values between 1 and 0, we can determine the different resulting fuzzy values. Also, we can say that an inference is valid when both the conclusion and the premises meet a certain minimum level of truth value, which is determined by the actual context to which the statements apply. What we find then is that the sorites paradox does not hold when we use this fuzzy system. [For, in order for the modus ponens inference to work in all steps, we will need the minimum value to be 0 (in order to accommodate the final transitional step), which is too low to be meaningful.] Also, fuzzy values do not clear up the situation entirely, because we have the same problem when we need to determine precisely at what point the values change from 1 to something less than 1.

 



Summary



[We previously discussed identity, and we noted that something’s properties can change, which then raises the difficulty of determining whether or not we can say that the thing’s identity has changed.] Priest will discuss another problem with identity; in this case it is the problem of vagueness. He poses a very interesting thought experiment to illustrate the issue. What if we replace something’s parts one by one until it has all new parts. For certain things like machines, we would seem to still have the same identical machine even after all its parts were gradually replaced. [Or at least, it would be very hard to determine at which point its identity changed. If we say it changed with the first replacement, what if that replacement were negligible? And on the atomic level, are there  not such changes happening always anyway? Or, consider if we say it happened with the most final replacement. But also, could not that final replacement be negligible as well? Yet, if we choose some replacement happening between, what would be our criteria for saying it was one middle replacement and not the one coming right before or after it? Priest’s motorcycle example is especially effective, and it makes the issue even more complicated. What if, along with the gradual replacements, we kept the parts and reconstructed the original machine? We would on the  one hand have the replacement machine, which we said could be the same as the original, and we then have the machine made of all the replaced parts, which would also seem to be the original. But how can both be identical to the original machine?]

While we are on the subject of identity, here is another problem about it. Everything wears out in time. Sometimes, parts get replaced. Motor bikes and cars get new clutches; houses get new roofs; and even the individual cells in people’s bodies are replaced over time. Changes like this do not affect the identity of the object in question. When I replace the clutch on my bike, it remains the same bike. Now suppose that over a period of a few years, I replace every part of the bike, Black Thunder. Being a careful fellow, I keep all the old parts. When everything has been replaced, I put all the old parts back together to recreate the original bike. But I started off with Black Thunder; and changing one part on a bike does not affect its identity: it is still the same bike. So at each replacement, the machine is still Black Thunder; until, at the end, it is – Black Thunder. But we know that that can't be right. Black Thunder now stands next to it in the garage.
(70)

 

Priest gives another example. If a minute incremental change does  not change a basic state of something, then how do we know when there are enough such tiny changes to constitute the change in state? His example of seconds added to childhood illustrates this very well.

Here is another example of the same problem. A person who is 5 years old is a (biological) child. If someone is a child, they are still a child one second later. In which case, they are still a child one second after that, and one second after that, and one second after that, ... So after 630,72o,ooo seconds, they are still a child. But then they are 25 years old!
(70)

 

[Note: page 71 is a full page figure of the motor cycle situation.]

 

[Recall from chapter 5 that Eubulides is credited for inventing the liar paradox.] Such arguments as these are now called sorites paradoxes, and they are thought to have been invented by Eubulides. Priest explains where the name comes from: “A standard form of the argument is to the effect that by adding one grain of sand at a time, one can never form a heap; ‘sorites’ comes from ‘soros’, the Greek for heap” (72). He explains that we encounter sorites paradoxes “when the predicate employed (‘is Black Thunder’, ‘is a child’) is vague, in a certain sense; that is, when its applicability is tolerant with respect to very small changes: if it applies to an object, then a very small change in the object will not alter this fact” (72). He notes that in fact, very many of the predicates in our everyday usage are vague. For example, ‘is red’ is vague [because something’s redness can vary slightly to the point of no longer being red], as is ‘is awake’ [perhaps because we “drift-off” to sleep and at times awaken gradually]. He even says that ‘is dead’ is a vague predicate, because it takes time to die [I am not entirely sure I understand this one. It seems the idea is that because we taper-off into death, there is no way to know exactly at what point in that passing-away is the point of death. So imagine the instant before all life is gone. There would seem to be too little life left to really say the person is alive. But I am not sure.] Thus such “slippery slope” sorties arguments “are potentially endemic in our reasoning” (72).

 

Priest will now present a symbolic formulation of the paradox with the childhood example illustrating it. We have a five year old child whom we will call ‘Jack’, and we will consider Jack after certain  numbers of seconds have passed. We will write ‘Jack is a child after 0 seconds’ as a0. And thus, a1 will mean ‘Jack is a child after 1 second,” and so on for each subscript numeral. We can then think more generally of the formulation using the variable n, and say that an means “Jack is a child after n seconds,” when n stands for some number value. We will pick an unspecified very large number that is “at least as great as 630,720,000,” and we will just call it k. [So in the diagram below, ak-1 would mean, the second right before this very large number.] We will then  make a series of inferences using modus ponens. [He discusses modus ponens in chapter 6 and chapter 7.] We first note that Jack is still a child at five years old, that is, after zero seconds have passed. So we first assert a0, which states this fact. We then formulate a conditional, “If Jack is a child after 0 seconds, then he is a child after 1 second”, or: a0 a1. Now, since we already asserted a0 , then by modus ponens, we can infer a1. We then take as a premise in the next inference, where we, following the same reasoning, say that if Jack is a child after 1 seconds, then he is a child after 2 seconds.

ch10 sorties p.72

 

As we noted, ak means 630,720,000 seconds later Jack is still a child, which we know to be false. “Something has gone wrong, and there doesn’t seem much scope to manoeuvre” (72).

 

Priest then notes one solution using fuzzy logic. The idea seems to be that since in reality one gradually changes from childhood to adult through a series of degrees of variation, then there are degrees of truthfulness to the claim that “Jack is a child” at different point along his growth.

So what are we to say? Here is one answer, which is sometimes called fuzzy logic. Being a child seems to fade out, gradually, just as being a (biological) adult seems to fade in gradually. It seems natural to suppose that the truth value of ‘jack is a child’ also fades from true to false. Truth, then, comes by degrees. Suppose we measure these degrees by numbers between 1 and o, 1 being complete truth, o complete falsity. Every situation, then, assigns each basic sentence such a number.
(73)

 

[The next idea seems to be that we will want to incorporate operators to sentences with fuzzy truth values, and the way to do that for negation is to give the negated term the value that the non-negated term lacks in comparison to the full 1 value.]

What about sentences containing operators like negation and conjunction? As Jack gets older, the truth value of  ‘Jack is a child’ goes down. The truth value of ‘Jack is not a child’ would seem to go up correspondingly. This suggests that the truth value of ¬a is 1 minus the truth value of a. Suppose we write the truth value of a as |a|; then we have:

a | = 1 – |a|

Here is a table of some sample values:

Priest.short into.p73 fuzzy negation

(73)

[Priest then will show how we calculate the truth value for a conjunction of sentences with fuzzy values. The reasoning here is less obvious I think. One element of the thinking seems to be that by conjoining such sentences, we are not adding all their truth values together nor are we finding the average. So let us suppose that in addition to “Jack is a child” we also assume that Jack is training to become a cook, and so we also have “Jack is a cook”. Suppose also that Jack is halfway to becoming an adult and halfway to becoming a cook. When we conjoin those statements, “Jack is a child and Jack is a cook”, the value should still be 0.5, because that represents his situation on both accounts. However, suppose that Jack is halfway to becoming an adult and only a quarter of the way to becoming a cook. For some reason, in this case, the conjunction “Jack is a child and Jack is a cook” takes the value of 0.25. I am not sure why. For instance, why not the average of the two values? One possible thing to consider is that the normal truth evaluation for conjunction seems to have a similar sort of pattern. If even one conjunct is false, then the whole thing is false. So the value of the whole can be no “greater” than the value of the “lowest” term. But I am not sure if that helps us understand why in the fuzzy value assessment of conjunction, we always take the lowest value as being the value for the whole conjunction.]

What about the truth value of conjunctions? A conjunction can only be as good as its worst bit. So it’s natural to suppose that the truth value of a & b is the minimum (lesser) of |a| and |b|:

|a & b| = Min(|a|, |b|)

|

Here is a table of some values. Values of a are down the left hand column; values of b are along the top row. The corresponding values of a & b are where the appropriate row and column met. For example, if we want to find |a & b|, where |a| = 0.25 and |b| = 0.5, we see where the italicized row and column meet. The result is in boldface.

priest.short logic.fuzzy conjunction p.73

(73-74)

[For disjunction, we go with the value of the greater disjunct. I am not sure why, again. But using the reasoning we had before, it could be because normally a disjunction is true so long as at least one disjunct is true. And it is false only if both terms are false. So perhaps the idea is that we always go with the highest value in the two-value system, so we likewise go with the highest value in the fuzzy value system.]

Similarly, the value of a disjunction is the maximum (greater) of the values of the disjuncts:

|a b| = Max(|a|, |b|)

I leave it to you to construct a table of some sample values.

(p.74)

[I am not sure I have it right, but below is possibly an option.]

fuzzy disjunction

Priest  notes that ¬, &, ∨ are truth functional in fuzzy logic, because the truth value when these operators are applied is determined on the basis of the truth values of the original terms. [We discussed truth functions in chapter 2. What makes operators truth functional is if the output values are computable on the basis of the input values. The only difference now is that the values that we input and receive as output are between 0 and 1 rather than being T or F.] This is apparent when we compare the truth tables for the two systems. (74). [Below we see that clearly with negation (just ignore the fuzzy values in the middle).

Priest.ShortIntro.9bPriest.short into.p73 fuzzy negation

With conjunction, look just at the places where 1 and 0 intersect in the fuzzy table. You see that it is only where 1 and 1 intersect that the output value is 1, just like how the time the output value is T is where both conjuncts are T.

Priest.ShortIntro.12apriest.short logic.fuzzy conjunction p.73

And look again at the fuzzy disjunction for where 1 and 0 intersect, and you will see it corresponds with the T and F of the other table.

Priest.ShortIntro.10afuzzy disjunction

]

Priest now addresses the question of the conditional, →, which we will consider here as truth functional. It is not obvious how we compute fuzzy values for the conditional. But he gives a standard solution, “which at least seems to give the right sorts of results”.

If |a| ≤ |b|: |a→b| = 1
If |b| < |a|: |a→b| = 1 – (|a| – |b|)

(< means ‘is less than’; ≤ means ‘is less than or equal to’.) Thus, if the antecedent is less true than the consequent, the conditional is completely true. If the antecedent is more true than the consequent, then the conditional is less than the maximal truth by the difference between their values. Here is a table of some sample values. (Recall that the values of a are down the left-hand column and those of b are along the top row.)
(75)

fuzzy conditional

[I do not understand why the values are the way they are.  Let us take an example of a conditional from chapter 6: “If she works out regularly then she is fit.” If the truth value of a is 1 (she indeed works out regularly) and b is 0.25 (she is only a little fit) then the whole conditional’s value is 0.25 (it is only a little true that if she works out regularly she will be fit). This makes sense, because she worked out so she should be very fit, but in fact it is only a little so. Now, if a is 0.25 (she only works out a little), and b  is 1 (she is fit), then the whole conjunction is completely true, 1. I am not sure why. Perhaps the idea is that this situation demonstrates that even a little bit of exercise is already enough to result in fitness. This holds even if she is only 0.25 fit. But if it is 0.25 true that she exercised but she is not fit at all, then the whole conditional is 0.75. So she exercised a little, but she is not fit, and for some reason the whole value of “if she works out she will be fit” is 0.75. This perhaps makes sense because she did not really fulfill the conditions enough to qualify entirely. But it is hard to make a general statement about how it all works. It seems one thing we can say is that the conditional on a whole cannot be less true than the consequent, but it can be less true than the antecedent. And any time that the antecedent is at least as true as the consequent, the whole conditional is completely true (this is perhaps the result of the condition: If |a| ≤ |b|: |a→b| = 1). Yet, I cannot really grasp why all this is like this. If we compare it with the two-valued table for the conditional, we see also here that it favors truth, which we see as well in the fuzzy table.

implication truth tablefuzzy conditional

Perhaps the idea with the distribution of values in the fuzzy table is that the degree to which we have a being true (1) with respect to b being false (0) determines the degree to which the whole conditional is false (0). Probably not, but I am not sure how else to generalize it.]


Priest next discusses what validity would be in this fuzzy context. Normally we say that “An inference is valid if the conclusion holds in every situation where the premisses hold” (75). But now the difference is that we have premises and conclusions which “hold” to different degrees. Priest says now in a fuzzy system a proposition holds when it is “true enough,” and that is determined by the context. He gives an example for a vague predicate: “is a new bike”. If a bike dealer tells us this, it is reasonable for us to expect that the bike has never been used before. In other words, we expect the proposition, “This is a new bike” to have the value of 1. But, “Suppose, on the other hand, that you go to a bike rally, and are asked to pick out the new bikes. You will pick out the bikes that are less than a year or so old. In other words, your criterion for what is acceptable as a new bike is more lax. ‘This is a new bike’ need have value, say, 0.9 or greater” (75).


Priest then formulates the notion validity more precisely for a fuzzy system. We determine some value which is what is acceptable in this context for a proposition to hold. Then an inference is valid if the conclusion is at least as much as that chosen value, whenever the premises also have at least that value.

So we suppose that there is some level of acceptability, fixed by the context. This will be a number somewhere between 0 and 1 – maybe 1 itself in extreme cases. Let us write this number as ε. Then an inference is valid for that context just if the conclusion has a value at least as great as ε in every situation where the premisses all have values at least as great as ε.
(76)

 

We return now to the problem of the sorites paradoxes that we began with. First we suppose that we have a sorites sequence a0 to a4 for an, meaning, “Jack is a child after n seconds” (76). Before we noted that it takes many many seconds for Jack to grow from child to adult. But to make things easier here, we just assume it takes only four seconds. In that case, the truth values could be:

fuzzy sorites table

Now recall the chart for evaluating conditionals.

fuzzy conditional

Priest will note that to have a conditional where the antecedent is an and the consequent is an+1, the overall value of the conditional will always be 0.75. We can see this in chart [see the diagonal where all the values are 0.75]. [The idea might be that to say, ‘Jack is a child from any moment to the next’, where there are just 4 moments, is 0.75 true no matter which transition we consider. I am not sure, but I suppose the idea is that with each change some more of that truth value in comparison with the first state is lost, until the last status, when all of it is gone.]

aahas value 0.75 (=(1(1-0.75)); so does aa2 ; in fact, every conditional of the form an an+1 has the value 0.75.
(76)

 

[Priest then will show that no matter what level of acceptability we assign such situations leading to sorites paradoxes, the final inference in the sequence will be invalid. I do not grasp the reasoning here, so I will quote it below, and you can skip to it now. The idea seems to be the following. Recall the schema for how the sorites paradoxes work.

ch10 sorties p.72

We see that they use modus ponens throughout, since for each line we affirm the antecedent, then in the next line we begin with the inferred consequent, which now becomes the affirmed antecedent in the next conditional. Recall also our example, that since Jack is a child after just one second, he is therefore a child after no matter how many seconds. To see how Priest’s explanation works, it seems we need to note a couple things first. First recall the idea of validity. For an inference to be valid when values are fuzzy, we first assign an acceptable minimum value for a proposition to hold; then, for the inference to be valid, the conclusion must be at least that value, when the premises also meet at least that value. Now, suppose that we set the minimum value at 0.75. In our examples, we have for instance aa1. Here the values of the parts and the whole inference would be, 1 → 0.75, 0.75. Here everything is fine so far. Everything meets the minimum value. However, at some point, we need to get to a4, whose value is 0. Perhaps the idea here is that its conditional aa4 cannot be valid, because here one of the terms has the value 0, which means the minimum value would need to be 0, but that is too low for its validity to have any meaning. So on the one hand, in order for the modus ponens operation to work throughout the series of inferences, we need to set the minimum too low. If however on the other hand we set it at 1, none of the inferences will fulfill that minimum. This does not seem to be Priest’s reasoning exactly, so I probably have it wrong. Just go with what he says:]

What this tells us about the sorites paradox depends on the level of acceptability, ε, that is in force here. Suppose the context is one that imposes the highest level of acceptability; ε is 1. In this case, modus ponens is valid. For suppose that |a| = 1 and |a → b| = 1. Since |a → b| = 1, we must have |a| ≤|b|. It follows that |b| = 1. Thus the sorites argument is valid. In this case, though, each conditional premiss, having value 0.75, is unacceptable.

If, on the other hand, we set the level of acceptability lower than 1, then modus ponens turns out to be invalid. Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that ε is 0.75. As we have already seen, a, and aa1 both have value 0.75, but a2 has value 0.5, which is less than 0.75.

Either way you look at it, the argument fails. Either some of the | premisses aren’t acceptable; or, if they are, the conclusions don’t follow validly. Why are we taken in by sorites arguments so easily? Maybe because we confuse complete truth with near-complete truth. A failure to draw the distinction doesn’t make much difference normally. But if you do it again, and again, and again, ... it does.
(76-77)

 

Priest’s next point seems to be that even with fuzzy values, we still have not clarified the situation. [It seems the problem is the following. Consider the example of Jack growing up. In our fuzzy system, we know that at some point near the beginning he is not entirely a child (that is, the truth value of “Jack is a child” is not 1). But probably one millisecond after the first designation he is still fully a child. So we will need still to make an arbitrary division to know how long it takes before he becomes slightly less than a child. Now, the original motivation for using fuzzy values was that there was no clear-cut point along the development where Jack goes from simply being a child to simply not being one. But now, in order to go from a value of 1 to less than 1, we have the same problem. There does not seem to be an obvious place where this transition happens. Thus we have not solved the problem; we have merely relocated it to a place very near the beginning.]

That's one diagnosis of the problem. But with vagueness, nothing is straightforward. What was the problem about saying that ‘Jack is a child’ is simply true, until a particular point in time, when it becomes simply false? Just that there seems to be no such point. Any place one chooses to draw the line is completely arbitrary; it can be, at best, a matter of convention. But now, at what point in Jack’s growing up does he cease to be 100% a child; that is, at what point does ‘Jack is a child’ change from having the value of exactly 1, to a value below 1? Any place one chooses to draw this line would seem to be just as arbitrary as before. (This is sometimes called the problem of higher-order vagueness. ) If that is right, we haven’t really solved the most fundamental problem about vagueness: we have just relocated it.
(77)

 

 

[The following is quotation.]


Main Ideas of the Chapter

● Truth values are numbers between o and 1 (inclusive).
● |¬a | = 1 – |a|
● |a b| = Max(|a|, |b|)
● |a & b| = Min(|a|, |b|)
● If |a| ≤ |b|: |a→b| = 1
    If |b| < |a|: |a→b| = 1 – (|a| – |b|) otherwise.
● A sentence is true in a situation just if its truth value is at least as great as the (contextually determined) level of acceptability.


(quoted from Priest, 77)




From:

Priest, Graham. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University, 2000.




2 Feb 2016

Iser (§2) “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach,” part II, summary

 

by Corry Shores

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Director]
[Literature, Drama, and Poetry, Entry Directory]
[Literary Criticism, Entry Directory]
[Wolfgang Iser, Entry Directory]
[Iser, “The Reading Process,” Entry Directory]

 

[The following is summary. All boldface and parenthetical commentary are my own.]

 

 

Wolfgang Iser

 

“The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach”

 

II

 

 

Brief summary:
Phenomenologically speaking, to each sentence we read in a literary text there is a mental experience providing conscious content corresponding to that sentence. This content we may call the intentional correlates of the sentence. Each correlate gives us a part of the story’s world. But these parts in sum do not make up that world, because they are not inherently inter-connected within a fully coherent and complete system of facts. Rather, our minds creatively generate that coherence by filling in gaps in the story-world and in its series of events. The way we construct that series of events can be understood in terms of Husserl’s analyses of time consciousness, in which he identified three inter-penetrating layers of our awareness: {a} awareness of current mental contents, or intentions, {b} awareness of passed contents, or retentions, and {c} awareness of future contents, or protentions. In Iser’s terminology, these three are perspectives, recollections, and preintentions, respectively. Just as in our everyday time-constituting consciousness that provides the temporal coherence to our world, this process of story-world realization is under continual modification across all three temporal dimensions as we proceed through the text. For, new events cause us to modify our understanding of past ones and to anticipate certain other ones to come. When we reread a text, we know the outcomes. However, we still constitute the text using the same process, only this second time we see the events under a new light, which alters again with each subsequent rereading.

 

 

Summary

 

[Previously Iser ended the section by describing the interactive process between reader and text, by which certain unstated implications (imagined, interpreted, evaluated, and so on) are woven into the text by means of the reader’s creative contribution to the literary work’s realization: “Thus begins a whole dynamic process: the written text imposes certain limits on its unwritten implications in order to prevent these from becoming too blurred and hazy, but at the same time these implications, worked out by the reader’s imagination, set the given situation against a background which endows it with far greater significance than it might have seemed to possess on its own. In this way, trivial scenes suddenly take on the shape of an ‘enduring form of life.’ What constitutes this form is never named, let alone explained, in the text, although in fact it is the end product of the interaction between text and reader” (281).] Iser now wonders to what extent we may describe the process of reader-text interaction that realizes the literary work. There is a psychological element that needs to be described. But attempts at examining this psychological element so far have largely been psychoanalytic, [which is problematic, because it begins first with theoretical assumptions regarding the unconscious that it then seeks to find exhibited in the psychological elements in the reader-text interaction. Phenomenological analyses, however, do not begin with theoretical assumptions but rather only with methodological tools enabling raw descriptions of consciousness made from inside the conscious experience. Any structures to be found are presumably ones that are inherent to and discoverable in consciousness, rather than being structures posited in advance of the analysis. Let me quote since I may be interpreting incorrectly.]

The question now arises as to how far such a process can be adequately described. For this purpose a phenomenological analysis recommends itself, especially since the somewhat sparse observations hitherto made of the psychology of reading tend mainly to be psychoanalytical, and so are restricted to the illustration of predetermined ideas concerning the unconscious. We shall, however, take a closer look later at some worthwhile psychological observations.
(281)

 

[I do not quite grasp the next concepts. One basic idea is that sentences in literary texts do not correspond to any objective reality outside themselves. I assume the idea is that in fiction, we are not describing parts of the actual world. Instead, what concerns us are the “intentional correlates” of the sentences. On the basis of what is written, which I will quote below, I cannot define this term. But from what I gather about intentionality in phenomenology, I would guess that an intentional correlate to a sentence are the states and acts of consciousness, and more importantly the contents of those states and acts of consciousness, that one has when reading intently those sentences. Take for example the opening sentence of Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”: “As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.” As we read this, we are not just aware of the black squiggles on a white page background. Our consciousness is much richer than that. The squiggles are not seen as such but as taking a particular formation determined by social custom and personal habit. And it is not just a visual experience, but as well an audio and even tactile one, as we might have slight impressions of our speaking apparatus in motion while reading it (this is perhaps more evident when there are elements like alliteration which invite an imagined or actual vocalization). But more important are the images and meanings evoked by these symbols, and the world of imaginable sense-data and also the signifiances in this fictional world. It is not our world, but we build it up with conscious contents, which are perhaps what are called ‘intentional correlates’ here, from our given stock. Iser’s point seems to be that each sentence gives us a fragment of the story world, which is composed of conscious contents from our own given mental stock. And the combination of the contents correlated to each sentence of the story in sum are all the explicitly given parts of the world that the literary work presents to us. Iser then makes another point that I also may be missing. Buy it seems he is saying that even the sentences alone (along with their respective specific intentional correlates) are not enough even in sum to give us this whole fictional world, because still more on the part of the reader needs to be added in order to fill out that world, because much is still left out. For example, the reader never learns what kind of an insect Gregor is. We either need to determine that ourselves, taking a personal liberty not directed by the text, or we must navigate Kafka’s highly imaginative world with the central part left unimaginable to some degree. There is also an interesting point at the end of this paragraph that the intentional contents also have subtle implicit connections that enable the more explicit statements and claims to interconnect and thereby to obtain their meanings. So we can be handed a number of parts of a world. But that is not a world. They only take on a world-like structure by means of their interconnections, and perhaps that work of interconnecting has a lot to do with how the reader creatively uses the subtle connecting implications of each sentence to string the parts together into meaningful coherent ways.]

As a starting point for a phenomenological analysis we might examine the way in which sequent sentences act upon one another. This is of especial importance in literary texts in view of the fact that they do not correspond to any objective reality outside themselves. The world presented by literary texts is constructed out of what Ingarden has called intentionale Satzkorrelate (intentional sentence correlatives):

Sentences link up in different ways to form more complex units of meaning that reveal a very varied structure giving rise to such entities as a short story, a novel, a dialogue, a drama, a scientific theory.... In the final analysis, there arises a particular world, with component parts deter- mined in this way or that, and with all the variations that may occur within these parts – all this as a purely intentional correlative of a complex of sentences. If this complex finally forms a literary work, I call the whole sum of sequent intentional sentence correlatives the ‘world presented’ in the work.5 |

This world, however, does not pass before the reader's eyes like a film. The sentences are “component parts” insofar as they make statements, claims, or observations, or convey information, and so establish various perspectives in the text. But they remain only “component parts”– they are not the sum total of the text itself. For the intentional correlatives disclose subtle connections which individually are less concrete than the statements, claims, and observations, even though these only take on their real meaningfulness through the interaction of their correlatives.
(281-282)
[Ft.5: Ingarden, Vom Erkennen des literarischen Kunstwerks, p. 29.]

 

 

Iser then wonders, how should we understand these connections between the intentional correlates? [I am uncertain about this next idea. It might be that the connections are understood in how they create a network that is continuously building and in that process creates expectations that are more or less fulfilled. I am still not sure what is meant by “perspectives”. It might be the limited views of the much larger world that each sentence gives us. It also might be his term for “intentions” as Husserl uses it. I cannot interpret all the ideas in this paragraph, reproduced below, but it seems there is a certain pregnancy of the sentences in a literary work, and they continually open a horizon of further world-revelation. So let us examine again the sentence: “As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.” We now have open temporal horizons, because we might  wonder for example, who was Gregor before the transformation, and what will he do now? We also might ask ourselves, where is he now, and who else is with him? What kind of a life does he normally live? What kind of a person is he, and how will he deal with this transformation?]

How is one to conceive the connection between the correlatives? It marks those points at which the reader is able to “climb aboard” the text. He has to accept certain given perspectives, but in doing so he inevitably causes them to interact. When Ingarden speaks of intentional sentence correlatives in literature, the statements made, or information conveyed in the sentence are already in a certain sense qualified: for example the sentence does not consist solely of a statement – which, after all, would be absurd, as one can only make statements about things that exist – but aims at something beyond what it actually says. This is true of all sentences in literary works, and it is through the interaction of these sentences that their common aim is fulfilled. This is what gives them their own special quality in literary texts. In their capacity as statements, observations, purveyors of information, etc., they are always indications of something that is to come, the structure of which is foreshadowed by their specific content.
(282)

 

[It seems the core of the next ideas are that the generation of the literary work’s world is a process of gradual unfolding. This process has something like Husserl’s tripartite structure of temporal consciousness, with a focus on the future-ward protentional expectations. With each new sentence, our prior anticipations are more-or-less fulfilled as more of the story world and its events’ development are revealed. But in the same stroke of that revelation, new possibilities, uncertainties, and anticipations are created, with this process continuing constantly.]

They set in motion a process out of which emerges the actual content of the text itself. In describing man’s inner consciousness of time, Husserl once remarked: “Every originally constructive process is inspired by pre-intentions, which construct and collect the seed of what is to come, as such, and bring it to fruition.”6 For this bringing to fruition, the literary text needs the reader’s imagination, which gives shape to the interaction of correlatives foreshadowed in structure by the sequence of the sentences. Husserl’s observation draws our attention to a point that plays a not insignificant part in the process of reading. The individual sentences not only work together to shade in what is to come; they also form an expectation in this regard. Husserl calls this expectation “pre-intentions.” As this structure is characteristic of all sentence correlatives, the interaction of these correlatives will not be a fulfilment of the expectation so much as a continual modification of it.
(282)
[Ft.6: Edmund Husserl, Zur Phiinomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins, Gesammelte Werke 10 (Haag, 1966), 52.]

 

[Because each fulfillment widens the phenomenal horizon and creates newer expectations,] the anticipations created by literary texts are almost never fulfilled. [Sometimes they are fulfilled. I do not gather the idea here, but perhaps he is saying that the degree to which the text fulfills expectations, the less literary it is and the more didactic it is. Perhaps the problem is that we would feel too forced along the line of reasoning of the text. The next idea is interesting. Not only are the expectations continually modified, but with each new revelation or development, we might retroactively modify what has come before. There is more discussion of this retroactive modification in Husserl’s time consciousness here.]

For this reason, expectations are scarcely ever fulfilled in truly literary texts. If they were, then such texts would be confined to the individualization of a given expectation, and one would inevitably ask what such an intention was supposed to achieve. Strangely enough, we feel that any confirmative effect – such as we implicitly demand of expository texts, as we refer to the objects they are meant to present – is a defect in a literary text. For the more a text individualizes or confirms an expectation it has initially aroused, the more aware we become of its didactic purpose, so that at best we can only accept or reject the thesis forced upon us. More often than not, the very clarity of such texts will make us want to free ourselves from their clutches. But generally the sentence correlatives of literary texts do not develop in this rigid way, for the expectations they evoke tend to encroach on one another in such a manner that they are continually modified as one reads. One might simplify by saying that each intentional sentence correlative opens up a particular horizon, which is modified, if not completely changed, by succeeding sentences. While these expecta- tions arouse interest in what is to come, the subsequent modification of them will also have a retrospective effect on what has already been read. This may now take on a different significance from that which it had at the moment of reading.
(283)

 

[I think it is possible that here Iser is discussing two sorts of gaps. {a} One sort is filled somewhat mechanically by using a basic inferential sort of thinking. We draw conclusions based on evidence, and we fill in story gaps with a relatively high degree of certainty about our inferences. But this process can still be engaging, if we as the reader are invited to tell interesting parts of the story this way. {b} The other sort of gap could be ones that have an infinite richness to them, because for one reason or another, any one way of filling them seems somehow to not be definitive or entirely satisfactory. Let me try to illustrate this distinction with some story “gaps” in Don Rosa’s Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. (If you have never heard of this graphic novel, please do not let its title mislead you about its worth. It in fact is a masterpiece of visual story-telling, and there are few graphic novels that I can recommend as highly.) The first illustration, below, will demonstrate the first type inferential gap-filling, which we said was mechanical but potentially interesting. We see in the second panel a character peeking into the women’s backstage dressing room.  (The first panel tells us that he knows he should keep his eyes covered at all times.) The third panel does not give us any information about what he is doing. But the fourth panel shows him knocked out with the woman’s hairbrush broken above his head.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.p130.hari brush.2M_zps0zfwh5ux.jpg

So here is a gap in the action. It causes us to imagine him getting hit on the head, for doing something foolish and improper. Here the author leaves it to our imagination to animate this funny slap-stick part of the scene. And since there are few other ways he could have gotten knocked out along with the hair brush being broken, we can be relatively certain that is what happened, and probably we will not reconsider that inference (unless of course other information later on causes us to retroactively modify that interpretation).

There however is another element of inconsistency or gap in this story-world which gives it immense emotional power. Scrooge is an interesting character:  he values money over not just all other things, he even values money over the things that money can buy. Thus he lives relatively frugally but enjoys swimming in his money. (This frugality of course places a strain on his relations with his close family members.)

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.V2.p58.swim barrels.2_zpsk3kdrv2v.jpg

This is interesting. It is not just greed or a hunger for material goods. It is more idealized. It is a pure love of money itself and of its accumulation. (By the way, Eric Alliez has an interesting discussion of a similar idea, chrematistics.) But even this seemingly straightforward characteristic is not entirely certain, as there are often moments of inconsistency. He at times shows genuine empathy for creatures in need (but he is careful to hide this other side of his personality).

 photo Rosa Don. Magesty McDuck.birds_zpsa1ga8nlv.jpg

Also his greed is mixed with other traits that we might actually admire, like determination and pluck.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.Captain inspiration_zpsaxljdewg.jpg

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.V2.p87_zpsbvj66nlp.jpg

We find also that in his past he had fallen in love with Goldie, who as well fell in love with him. What is interesting and compelling about this relationship is their difficulty in expressing that love directly. And in Scrooge’s case, his feelings might be so strong that for one reason or another he cannot risk learning  how Goldie feels about him. Their love affair is told through flashback, beginning with a question that triggers a flashback deep into his memory. So we know it is a profoundly important element of his past that maintains its inner significance even to the present of his life.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.p81.flashback_zpsdtuaeebx.jpg

At first Goldie and Scrooge rightfully mistrust each other’s intentions, but they also admire one another and secretly each falls in love with the other. Scrooge of course has a reputation of valuing his money and property to a pathological level of obsession. But Goldie finds out that the true object of Scrooge’s cares is in fact she herself.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.p105.hair_zpsnnuopfrd.jpg

In the following gorgeous and powerful scene, Goldie presents herself in a position that would allow Scrooge to overcome his emotional barricades and give into his love for her.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.p134.fire_zps2jgpipms.jpg

However, Scrooge is knocked out accidentally in the next part of this scene, and thus instead of saving Goldie, she must drag him out of the burning building herself. So Goldie later writes a letter that presumably expresses her love to Scrooge, which she then dispatches to him on his journey away from the town.

 photo Rosa Don. Life Times Scrooge McDuck.Companion.p137-8.letter.2_zpsrzpphdbx.jpg

But as you can see, we never learn of the contents of the letter, and Scrooge and Goldie’s love for each other is never fulfilled.

Now, in contrast to the first case we examined, the final scene with the letter in the snow invites us not just to fill in some small plot gap, like how we figured out that the peeper gets knocked down by the hairbrush. Rather, the gap this scene creates is one that challenges us to rearrange many of the other connections in the story. Since much of the story and its significance revolve around Scrooge and his true inner nature, this more profound gap invites us to reconstitute very basic structuring principles in the story itself. A lot of the coherence of the story elements hinges on knowing why Scrooge makes this fateful decision that he never resolves throughout the rest of his life. Yet we as the reader are not able to know why, and thus Rosa creates a profoundly rich openness or “gap” in the story-world. In his own commentaries on this story, Rosa himself writes, “Finally, what do you suppose was in the letter that Goldie sent to Scrooge in the final scene, and which he never read, fearing that it was more hateful comments from the woman he secretly loved? How would his life have been forever changed from that point on? Would he have still become the richest duck in the world? Hm...” (Rosa, The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck: Companion, p.140). So as you can see, the author wanted this gap to remain open, despite its central importance to the character.]

 

[Returning now to the Iser text.... Whatever we read sinks into our memory and might be recalled later. But when it is recalled, it is modified by the current act of consciousness; and mutually so, that current act will be modified by the memory, and both together shape our expectations.]

Whatever we have read sinks into our memory and is foreshortened. It may later be evoked again and set against a different background with the result that the reader is enabled to develop hitherto unforeseeable connections. The memory evoked, however, can never reassume its original shape, for this would mean that memory and perception were identical, which is manifestly not so. The new background brings to light new aspects of what we had committed to memory; conversely these, in turn, shed their light on the new background, thus arousing more complex anticipations. Thus, the reader, in establishing these interrelations between past, present and future, actually causes the text to reveal its potential multiplicity of connections. These connections are the product of the reader’s mind working on the raw material of the text, though they are not the text itself – for this consists just of sentences, statements, information, etc.
(283)

 

[The next point connects the created world of the literary work with reality, and more specifically, with a virtual reality. The first point might be that the events appear real perhaps because they are constituted by means of the same phenomenal constituting processes and structures that we use to constitute the reality of the normal world around us. Or perhaps the idea is that they seem real on account of the strong binding phenomenal coherence of these worlds, which is woven using the intimately inter-connected layers of temporalized consciousness. The next idea is that this reality endowed upon the literary world is generated through the creative activities of the reader’s faculties. And finally, this reality of the literary work exists on a virtual dimension, because it exists neither in the text itself nor in the reader’s imagination but rather at their point of their intersection, which is elusively somewhere else.]

This is why the reader often feels involved in events which, at the time of reading, seem real to him, even though in fact they are very far from his own reality. The fact that completely different readers can be differently affected by the “reality” of a particular text is ample evidence of the degree to which literary texts transform reading into a creative process that is far above mere perception of what is written. | The literary text activates our own faculties, enabling us to recreate the world it presents. The product of this creative activity is what we might call the virtual dimension of the text, which endows it with its reality. This virtual dimension is not the text itself, nor is it the imagination of the reader: it is the coming together of text and imagination.
(283-284)

 

[I am uncertain about the first idea in the next paragraph, but I think it is again that there is the tripartite structure of retention, intention, and protention, each being simultaneously co-modifying in the way we mentioned above. Then the next idea might be that although this process is always at work, that does not mean that it generates the same literary work with each reading, because different dimensions or aspects of the work’s virtual reality can be brought out in each case. The third idea of this paragraph I find the most important and interesting. Iser’s comment is formulated in response to Ingarden’s belief that the phenomenal unfolding of the text should always be continuous such that each expectation is harmoniously fulfilled for the most part with the next sentence to be read. Iser’s point is that actually disappointments to previously established expectations are in fact vital to the literary work rather than being evidence of compositional flaws. This I think may be similar to Deleuze’s (metaphysical) concept of “dramatization”. There is something substantial about discontinuity and inconsistency. If a long story is entirely self-consistent, I imagine you can probably reduce it to a simple summary, to a cliché perhaps. Instead, a story can obtain more substantiality were it to be filled with parts that do not fit so cleanly together for reasons that provoke us to delve deeper into its workings. So inconsistency is substantial in the sense of irreducibility. We can think also of the substantiality in terms of a feeling of dramatic weight that certain specific moments can have. If the story is compressible, then each moment will seem to be channeled to some outcome or to a limited range or types of outcomes. But if the story instead contains discontinuity and uncertainty, then those moments in which we do not know where the story might go obtain a certain weight to them. As far as an event goes, there is something really there to such an event, some real importance or weight, and in that way on account of its discontinuity and inconsistency it gains substantiality. Another thing to consider is openness and productivity. Kafka’s ‘Before the Law’ parable in The Trial is simple but has something inconsistent or uncertain about it that leads us to continually reconsider it anew, just like the series of commentaries the Priest gives after telling the story. As a text, this parable is brief. But as a literary phenomenon constituted in the reader’s consciousness in her continual interaction with the text, it is infinitely rich and extensive. Iser highlights the gaps and blockages that we in a gestalt sort of way fill in, and these contributions we make are our own (the reader’s) artistic creations. Now, let me just briefly summarize my three points about the “substantiality” of “dramatization:” certain inconsistent, discontinuous texts are substantial because {a} they cannot be compressed (and thus cannot have any of their bulk removed), {b} they have ‘weight’ (since many pivotal moments have an  undecidability that gives them dramatic importance), and {c} they are productive of an endless series of significances, interpretations, rereads, and so on (and thus they are substantial because they never stop proving their worth and wealth; they never stop demonstrating that there is more inside them).]

As we have seen, the activity of reading can be characterized as a sort of kaleidoscope of perspectives, preintentions, recollections. Every sentence contains a preview of the next and forms a kind of view-finder for what is to come; and this in turn changes the “preview” and so becomes a “viewfinder” for what has been read. This whole process represents the fulfilment of the potential, unexpressed reality of the text, but it is to be seen only as a framework for a great variety of means by which the virtual dimension may be brought into being. The process of anticipation and retrospection itself does not by any means develop in a smooth flow. Ingarden has already drawn attention to this fact, and ascribes a quite remarkable significance to it:

Once we are immersed in the flow of Satzdenken (sentence-thought), we are ready, after completing the thought of one sentence, to think out the ‘continuation,’ also in the form of a sentence – and that is, in the form of a sentence that connects up with the sentence we have just thought through. In this way the process of reading goes effortlessly forward. But if by chance the following sentence has no tangible connection whatever with the sentence we have just thought through, there then comes a blockage in the stream of thought. This hiatus is linked with a more or less active surprise, or with indignation. This blockage must be overcome if the reading is to flow once more.7

The hiatus that blocks the flow of sentences is, in Ingarden's eyes, the product of chance, and is to be regarded as a flaw; this is typical of his adherence to the classical idea of art. If one regards the sentence sequence as a continual flow, this implies that the anticipation aroused by one sentence will generally be realized by the next, and the frustration of one's expectations will arouse feelings of exasperation. And yet literary texts are full of unexpected twists and turns, and frustration of expectations. Even in the simplest story there is bound to be some kind of blockage, if only for the fact that no tale can ever be told in its entirety. Indeed, it is only through inevitable omissions that a story will gain its dynamism. Thus whenever the flow is interrupted and we are led off in unexpected directions, the opportunity is given to us to | bring into play our own faculty for establishing connections-for filling in the gaps left by the text itself.8
(248-285)

 

The gaps as we said are filled in a gestalt-like way, and since they do not exist in the text itself, they exist on a “virtual dimension”. But, there is no predetermined way for the reader to fill in those gaps. Thus one text can be realized many different ways, on account of there being a variety of ways that the gaps affect the processes anticipation and retroactive re-interpretation. And in fact, no one reading of a text (nor perhaps the sum of all readings) can exhaustively realize it. Modern texts especially make intentional use of the text’s inexhaustibility. For example, they might be more fragmentary to make us more aware of our own active contribution to filling in the gaps. The text always has more potential than any reading can bear out, and with each rereading often more of its wealth can be extracted.

These gaps have a different effect on the process of anticipation and retrospection, and thus on the “gestalt” of the virtual dimension, for they may be filled in different ways. For this reason, one text is potentially capable of several different realizations, and no reading can ever exhaust the full potential, for each individual reader will fill in the gaps in his own way, thereby excluding the various other possibilities; as he reads, he will make his own decision as to how the gap is to be filled. In this very act the dynamics of reading are revealed. By making his decision he implicitly acknowledges the inexhaustibility of the text; at the same time it is this very inexhaustibility that forces him to make his decision. With “traditional” texts this process was more or less unconscious, but modern texts frequently exploit it quite deliberately. They are often so fragmentary that one's attention is almost exclusively occupied with the search for connections between the fragments; the object of this is not to complicate the “spectrum” of connections, so much as to make us aware of the nature of our own capacity for providing links. In such cases, the text refers back directly to our own preconceptions – which are revealed by the act of interpretation that is a basic element of the reading process. With all literary texts, then, we may say that the reading process is selective, and the potential text is infinitely richer than any of its individual realizations. This is borne out by the fact that a second reading of a piece of literature often produces a different impression from the first. The reasons for this may lie in the reader’s own change of circumstances, still, the text must be such as to allow this variation. On a second reading familiar occurrences now tend to appear in a new light and seem to be at times corrected, at times enriched.
(285)


[I am not certain about the next point, but it is possible Iser is referring to two sequences of time: {a} the sequence of story events that we construct in our imagination as we read the specific event descriptions and also infer other events that are implied, and {b} the “real-time” sequence of the reader’s conscious awareness. I mention these two streams, because it seems Iser is saying that no matter how short the text is, in order to constitute a we also need some durational extent of  b. But as we read, the series of anticipations of events that are forthcoming and in fact even tour recollections of hose that already happened are under continuous modification, especially I think with plot-twist mechanisms that get us to entirely reconfigure our assumptions about the past. His next observation is about what happens when we reread a literary text. The second time we already have the “future” moments in the story constituted, and this sheds new light onto what we are reading as we go along in the second reading. This allows for an alternate phenomenal construction of the story’s world. It is not necessarily more accurate or more complete; it is rather just the same thing from a different set of perspectives.]

In every text there is a potential time-sequence which the reader must inevitably realize, as it is impossible to absorb even a short text in a single moment. Thus the reading process always involves viewing the text through a perspective that is continually on the move, linking up the different phases, and so constructing what we have called the virtual dimension. This dimension, of course, varies all the time we are reading. However, when we have finished the text, and read it again, clearly our extra knowledge will result in a different time- | sequence; we shall tend to establish connections by referring to our awareness of what is to come, and so certain aspects of the text will assume a significance we did not attach to them on a first reading, while others will recede into the background. It is a common enough experience for a person to say that on a second reading he noticed things he had missed when he read the book for the first time, but this is scarcely surprising in view of the fact that the second time he is looking at the text through a different perspective. The time-sequence that he realized on his first reading cannot possibly be repeated on a second reading and this unrepeatability is bound to result in modifications of his reading experience. This is not to say that the second reading is “truer” than the first – they are, quite simply, different: the reader establishes the virtual dimension of the text by realizing a new time-sequence. Thus even on repeated viewings a text allows and, indeed, induces innovative reading.
(285-286)

 

At every moment of our lives, our consciousness phenomenally constitutes our world by means of these three inter-woven layers of temporal modification, and as well, they are employed when reading a literary text. This means that we can learn about how our normal time-constituting consciousness works by examining it at work when reading literary texts. [It seems the next idea is this: for example, just as the text is an open totality that is continually under “revision” by the reader, so too is the real world of our experience constantly under continual modification as we learn new details about it. To return to a specific example, the ‘Before the Law’ parable, with the Priest’s commentary, raises to our explicit awareness  how this continual modification of our understanding of the world is always at work. Then Iser quotes from Merleau-Ponty. There are two parts to the quote, as much text is elliptically removed. The first part’s meaning is obvious given Iser’s argumentation. The world is an open totality, and our phenomenal synthesis of it is inexhaustible. The second point I am not certain about.  It possibly means that if we take a phenomenological approach to knowledge, this means that we take none of our knowledge as a priori but rather whatever we learn is by means of introspective analysis and thus it is based on our experience. And perhaps the next idea then is, when we take this phenomenological approach, we have removed the basis for any such analysis to produce definitive knowledge, but rather it is always open to further revision, with each subsequent phenomenological analysis of our experience. The quotation will be given below, for your own interpretation. The following point I am also not grasping well, but it might be the following. The way we interpret a literary text has a lot to do with what is going on inside us. So for example, we might project our own beliefs and attitudes into the story’s construction. For instance, if we are cynical people, we might interpret a certain character’s seemingly innocent actions as really being self-serving or even malevolent. Thus, our interpretation of a text can tell us just much about ourselves as about the story world, and so our interpretations can serve as a kind of mirror to our own inner worlds. Iser says this is a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, we are exploring our own true inner world. But we are doing so in our efforts to realize a fictional reality that is entirely different from our own “real” reality. (Note, they are both realities for Iser I think because they are both constituted through the world-creating process of time-constituting consciousness.) Iser’s final point seems to be that the literary work will affect the reader more to the extent that she fills in more of the gaps creatively. And, the more the reader fills in the gaps, the more the reader needs to go outside their own world of experience. (I do not know why that is, however. I would think that to fill in the gaps, one would need to draw from one’s own experiences to provide that material. The basic idea might be that the more you fill in the gaps, the more you must invent an alternate world on your own that is independent from your own, since it is fictional.) ]

In whatever way, and under whatever circumstances, the reader may link the different phases of the text together, it will always be the process of anticipation and retrospection that leads to the formation of the virtual dimension, which in turn transforms the text into an experience for the reader. The way in which this experience comes about through a process of continual modification is closely akin to the way in which we gather experience in life. And thus the “reality” of the reading experience can illuminate basic patterns of real experience:

We have the experience of a world, not understood as a system of relations which wholly determine each event, but as an open totality the synthesis of which is inexhaustible. ... From the moment that experience – that is, the opening on to our de facto world-is recognized as the beginning of knowledge, there is no longer any way of distinguishing a level of a priori truths and one of factual ones, what the world must necessarily be and what it actually is.9

The manner in which the reader experiences the text will reflect his own disposition, and in this respect the literary text acts as a kind of mirror; but at the same time, the reality which this process helps to create is one that will be different from his own (since, normally, we tend to be bored by texts that present us with things we already know perfectly well ourselves). Thus we have the apparently paradoxical situation in which the reader is forced to reveal aspects of himself in | order to experience a reality which is different from his own. The impact this reality makes on him will depend largely on the extent to which he himself actively provides the unwritten part of the text, and yet in supplying all the missing links, he must think in terms of experiences different from his own; indeed, it is only by leaving behind the familiar world of his own experience that the reader can truly participate in the adventure the literary text offers him.
(286-287)

[Ft9: M. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (New York, 1962), pp. 219, 221.]

 

 

 

Main work cited:

Wolfgang Iser. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach.” New Literary History 3 (1972): 279-99.

 

Also cited:

Don Rosa. “The Making of ‘Hearts of the Yukon’ .” In The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck: Companion. Los Angeles, California: BOOM KIDS! / Boom Entertainment, 2010.

 

 

Image credits:

Don Rosa. “His Majesty McDuck.” In Uncle Scrooge Adventures #14. Montezuma, Prescott, Arizona: Gladstone Publishing.

 

Don Rosa (Art & Story), Todd Klein (Lettering & Titles), and Susan Daigle-Leach (Color). The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck: Volume 1. Copyright 2009 Walt Disney Company (some text and commentary of this edition are  copyright Don Rosa). Los Angeles, California: BOOM KIDS! / Boom Entertainment, 2009.

 

 

Don Rosa (Art & Story), Todd Klein (Lettering & Titles), and Susan Daigle-Leach (Color). The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. Volume 2. © 2010 Walt Disney Company (some text commentary of this edition is © Don Rosa). Los Angeles, California: BOOM KIDS! / Boom Entertainment, 2010.

 

Don Rosa (Art & Story), Todd Klein, John Clark, and Bill Pearson (Lettering & Titles), and Susan Daigle-Leach and Scott Rockwell (Color). The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck: Companion. © 2010 Walt Disney Company (some text commentary of this edition is © Don Rosa). Los Angeles, California: BOOM KIDS! / Boom Entertainment, 2010.