Page 126 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 126
four critical essays on argumentation
In M, on the other hand, p still represents the same poster in ques-
tion (hence the long dotted arrow connecting the two spaces), but F’(p), the
observer’s premise, and q’, the observer’ s conclusion, may be quite differ-
ent from speaker’s premise and speaker’s conclusion (depending on the ob-
server’s experience, social and cultural background, education, gender, and
many other demographic, even bio-neurological and cognitive factors).
On top of that, M spaces may be multiplied in relation to R space—de-
pending on the number of people, taking part in the conversation/event—,
precisely because of observers’ different (social, cultural, etc.) background,
education, gender, and many other factors we have already mentioned, ad-
dressee’s imminent intentions (based on the addressee’s processing of the
concrete situation) being one of the strongest factors.
This could be a (simple and simplified) model of a filtering grid, in-
volved in a possible reconstruction of a diachronic, objective perspective on
interpretation and meaning construction. But from the synchronic, subjec-
tive perspective things may look somehow different.
Subjective (synchronic) view
Of course there is still a generic, undefined ‘reality’ in the deep background.
But in the immediate foreground, there are always just mental spaces, the
elements that trigger the imminent construction of meaning interpretation
of the problem at hand. And this construction (and re-construction) of re-
spective ephemeral mental spaces in the subjective perspective, always al-
ready implies the framed chunks of ‘reality’ in the background (which again
depend on the hermeneutical horizon of the social ‘reality’ the framed ‘re-
ality’ relies upon). The synchronic view could be schematically represented
in perspective, something like this:
126
In M, on the other hand, p still represents the same poster in ques-
tion (hence the long dotted arrow connecting the two spaces), but F’(p), the
observer’s premise, and q’, the observer’ s conclusion, may be quite differ-
ent from speaker’s premise and speaker’s conclusion (depending on the ob-
server’s experience, social and cultural background, education, gender, and
many other demographic, even bio-neurological and cognitive factors).
On top of that, M spaces may be multiplied in relation to R space—de-
pending on the number of people, taking part in the conversation/event—,
precisely because of observers’ different (social, cultural, etc.) background,
education, gender, and many other factors we have already mentioned, ad-
dressee’s imminent intentions (based on the addressee’s processing of the
concrete situation) being one of the strongest factors.
This could be a (simple and simplified) model of a filtering grid, in-
volved in a possible reconstruction of a diachronic, objective perspective on
interpretation and meaning construction. But from the synchronic, subjec-
tive perspective things may look somehow different.
Subjective (synchronic) view
Of course there is still a generic, undefined ‘reality’ in the deep background.
But in the immediate foreground, there are always just mental spaces, the
elements that trigger the imminent construction of meaning interpretation
of the problem at hand. And this construction (and re-construction) of re-
spective ephemeral mental spaces in the subjective perspective, always al-
ready implies the framed chunks of ‘reality’ in the background (which again
depend on the hermeneutical horizon of the social ‘reality’ the framed ‘re-
ality’ relies upon). The synchronic view could be schematically represented
in perspective, something like this:
126
