Abstract

Jean-François Lyotard in Discourse, Figure interprets the phenomenon of meaning-formation from the Lacanian standpoint of the unconscious, desire, and jouissance. There is, however, always the danger that the order of discourse be replaced by the order of jouissance, for such an order of interpretation comprehends meaning-formation as a discrete entity, that is, in non-relational terms. Similarly, in The Conflict of Interpretations, Paul Ricœur’s descriptive hermeneutics of negotiation falls short of fully considering the intrinsically relational nature of meaning-formation in so far as his way of bringing different methods of interpretation into relation with each other (structural semiotics, Freudian psychoanalysis, and phenomenology) amounts to a comparison between discrete entities.This chapter unfolds a relational critique of Lyotard’s determinant mode of interpretation and Ricœur’s hermeneutic methodology to pave the way for a configuration whereby each element involved (such as interpreting minds, values, and physical objects) should be understood as “dependently co-arisen”, to use the established Buddhist phrasing. Each method of interpretation therefore contributes to a holistic configuration that makes up the stuff of “reality” through a dynamic of mutual balancing between complementary, differential entities. The issue is therefore not only reflexive and epistemological but also mesological and ethical.