Just a quick note on a nagging problem in hermeneutics, a problem that pomo monkeyshines help serve to highlight. To the extent that pomo thinking robs us of an authoritative word, the more it tries to leave us with a series of bad choices, all of them arbitrary and capricious.
Here is the dilemma: As creatures, we have to function under authority. As Dylan put, ya gotta serve somebody. This authority has both individual and corporate manifestations. Now what I am about to say has exceptions, in both directions, but accept it as a generalization.
The ultimate test of whether an individual is serving under authority is the test of what he is willing to die for. What is the line that would make the individual willing for martyrdom? Occasionally in history, we find groups and societies in some kind of Alamo situation that have to choose martyrdom or not, but generally that is not their social test. The real social test is what you are willing to kill for.
Some societies have had to decide whether they would die “for this” or not. All societies have to decide what they will kill for.
Now the decision “to kill or not” is never to be assumed lightly, and in my thinking this is what lies behind my economic libertarianism. Resorting to coercion is a big deal, and should never be taken on the basis of our own arbitrary wisdom. When we resort to coercion, we have to do so as those under authority. And this relates to hermeneutics in this way — I would be willing to die for more than I would be willing to kill for. It’s a Golden Rule thing.