#dre.doc

Understanding is essentially linguistic, but this statement does not mean —as every form of relativism assumes— that understanding is frozen into one static language in such fashion that translation from one language to another is impossible. The constantly self-transcending character of language in its concrete use in conversation is the foundation of the fluid horizons of understanding. Understanding is essentially linguistic, but in such fashion that it transcends the limits of any particular language, thus mediating between the familiar and the alien. The particular language with which we live is not closed off monadically against what is foreign to it. Instead it is porous and open to expansion and absorption of ever new mediated content. "The task of understanding and interpreting," Gadamer says, "always remains meaningful."

No one can say where a book comes from, least of all the person who writes it. Books are born out of ignorance, and if they go on living after they are written, it's only to the degree that they cannot be understood.

In the Chinese language, objects exist or do not exist, and this is called li [order in nature, things as they are, or the law of nature]. The prohibitions and decrees that a country has are called fa [human-made laws]. However, Western people call both of these ‘law’. Westerners accordingly see order in nature and human-made laws as if they were the same. But, by definition, human affairs are not a matter of natural order in terms of existence or non-existence, so the use of the word ‘law’ for what is permitted and what is prohibited as a matter of law of nature is a case in which several ideas are conveyed by one word. The Chinese language has the most instances in which several ideas are expressed by one word, but in this particular case the Chinese language has an advantage over Western languages. The word ‘law’ in Western languages has four different interpretations in Chinese as in li [order], li [rites, rules of propriety], fa [human-made laws] and zhi [control].

Language is inherently indeterminate. This linguistic nature is not often realised or appreciated. People are often guided by an ideal conception of language as precise, determinate, literal and univocal. (...) [They] tend to think that anything that can be said can be said clearly, and anything that can be thought can be thought clearly. Perhaps not! (...) The universe and human behaviour are inherently uncertain and indeterminate.