Truthiness and consequences
– Which, when you’ve accepted that all truths are contingent and man-made, a product ultimately of some cocktail of historical consensus and the motivations of a particular interpretive community to defend that constructed narrative, you can argue with a straight face.
And that’s exactly what we’ve done at the linguistic level — “textualism” leads to nothing but and is a result of the foundational assumptions I’ve noted in the ouctome of their deployment — which leads me to believe that maybe all my talk about the importance of understanding language function and the incoherent assumptions we’ve internalized and institutionalized regarding what comes to count as legitimate interpretation, isn’t so “fundamentally unserious” after all.
But then, what do I know. I’m to be ignored. Because, really, polls!