Wow, you are such a parody of what this article is about, Even finished with a biblical verse, which doesn't actually have many
objective interpretations, so you conveniently use the interpretation that best suits your point.
Both the LymphoTrack MiSeq ® and MRD software programs facilitate international standardization and
objective interpretation for clonality and MRD testing.
The statistics for to be remained sex in the line fall in disuse that in line dating, he can function like any way of
objective interpretation of all the numerous relations, that begins in the Internet.
The Times Square Show Revisited's main contributions, however, are those of the original Colab members, who have been keeping alive the history of those years and working in a similar independent way: the Ahearn brothers, Dickson, Fitzgibbon, Howland, Moore, Otterness, Rupp, and dozens of others for whom, sadly, there is never enough space in articles and reviews, which are published in magazines and journals still structured around an individualistic model and more interested in representative phenomena and their most distinctive features than they are in providing data or offering
objective interpretations that also acknowledge artists who never became famous.
The work transcends
objective interpretation, instead inviting the viewer to participate through the work in an exploration of the artist's relationship with time and space.
And although I do go there, clearly, more than some people would like, or perhaps more often than is justified by
an objective interpretation of your analysis (I never claimed to be perfect), a relative minority of my posts focus on that topic.
I'm impressed by the organization's
objective interpretation of the news.
Not exact matches
Those traits were wholly subjective to a fund managers»
interpretation rather than given the
objective data - driven solutions they deserve.
well, considering that most of»em don't agree with their
interpretation of the bible, it is understandable that they can't argue about an
objective understanding of it hey... I get it, this is a very difficult topic.
Maybe I am working on a thesis, maybe I am starting a website... WHO CARES... it is all secondary to the fact that my primary
objective is to seek the truth... I have posted quite alot of historical information and my
interpretation of what happened... please focus on that and stop wasting time on analyzing my motives.
And even when there is substantial
objective evidence to go with the subjective observations and
interpretations of myself and others, I refrain from talking about it unless there is a * need * for me to say something specific.
In my
interpretation of becoming, «the many become one» (PR 21 / 32) in that the many «initial data» to be felt become the one
objective datum felt in the final satisfaction (PR 221 / 337f).
Objective evidence is evidence that doesn't rely on subjective
interpretation to be evidence.
Our
interpretation of the self - image becomes theological when we speak from within the faith of the Church and say that the
objective reality which stands between persons is God made personal and available to us in Jesus Christ.
The Protestant objection is that we can in fact gain a more
objective view of the Bible by direct study and can criticize the traditional
interpretation from this point of view.
Many others, who did grasp my meaning, were dismayed because, while I asserted the
objective reality of God's act at Easter, I did not take the stories of the empty tomb as the basis of my
interpretation of that act of God, but, on the contrary, suggested that these stories may be unhelpful to our understanding of the Easter message.
In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned
interpretations; the idea that our
interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely
objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).
What a thought provoking formula — no matter how gracious,
objective, orthodox, open - minded, fairminded you think you are — it still is always «my
interpretation».
With regard to the meaning of the last sentence, I do agree with David Boucher's
interpretation of reducing its meaning to being a reference to the following term's lectures.36 In my view, however, it is the last but one sentence which is of utmost importance here, referring as it does to Collingwood's concept of
objective idealism, as elaborated in «Realism and Idealism» and adumbrated in «The Function of Metaphysics in Civilization.
Far from merely explicating the «
objective» meanings inherent in the autonomous text,
interpretation is, in the words of Ricoeur, «the process by which disclosure of new modes of being, of new forms of life, gives to the subject a new capacity for knowing himself.»
In consequence, with such models as their
objective, physicists frequently formulate the content of quantum mechanics in the language of classically conceived particles and waves, because of certain analogies between the formal structures of classical and quantum mechanics... Accordingly, although a satisfactory uniformly complete
interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a single model can not be given, the theory can be satisfactorily interpreted for each concrete experimental situation to which the theory is applied.2
This debate was crucial in distinguishing and relating scientifically
objective history and the mythical
interpretations of it expressing the divine and subjective meaning of the same for the community of faith.
In one sense this criticism is indeed valid, for in this
interpretation of his resurrection it is not Jesus but God who is the subject, God having raised the concrete experiences of Jesus into «
objective immortality» in himself.
The physical sciences and the life sciences also yield their full harvest of knowledge about man only when the understanding gained through direct self - consciousness is used in the
interpretation of the methods and results of
objective scientific investigation and of technical invention.
This
interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus rests upon a general concept of resurrection as «
objective immortality» that I believe to be no mere metaphor.
The
interpretation I have proposed sees the resurrection of Jesus as the supreme instance, the «chief exemplification,» of its general concept of resurrection as «
objective immortality.»
If the
interpretation is left to the minds and consciences of men, then the mind of Man is the final arbiter, and the final result, across four hundred years of research, argument, criticism and corrosive human doubt, is going to be Humanism in religion, the loss of all
objective certainty and truth.
But Whitehead's concept of
objective immortality renders this
interpretation invalid.
The ultimate
objective of his hermeneutics, like that of E.D. Hirsch, Jr., is the attainment of validity in
interpretation.
Insofar as this authorization of freedom towards absolute being is experienced as absolute nearness to this goal permitted by grace, the character of creaturely freedom becomes clearer when this goal opens itself, even though this experience can become
objective only through its
interpretation in supernatural revelation and in faith.
In the humanities, postmodern philosophers and literary theorists tend to deny that decisions about meaning are guided by a trans - historical reason or by any
objective truth and assert that our
interpretations of the world partially re-constitute the world they interpret.
The right
interpretation, he maintains, is one which raises the historical event to cosmic dimensions (one would have thought that this is just what the
objective mythological presentation is trying to do!).
Furthermore, since the act of judgement - love transcends
objective concepts and involves the knowing subject's active synthesis to perceive the meaning of objects — there is no objectivity apart from subjectivity — external facts need an
interpretation under grace's elevating influence to produce the act of faith.
On the contrary, it makes possible a genuine objectivity, wherein an
interpretation is only able to grasp its object and penetrate it in a relation in which the interpreter reflects on the object and himself at the same time as moments of an
objective structure that likewise encompasses both and makes them possible.
If our
interpretation of the spirit of the Protestant theological schools is in any way correct then it is Church defined somewhat in the foregoing manner that constitutes the society in which they function and whose
objectives they serve directly and indirectly, consciously or unconsciously.
The Scripture is
objective, and the truth they contain is unchanging, regardless of our differing
interpretations.
But although there can be no question that in the last analysis fact is more important than explanation, actually they can not be separated, for some measure of explanation and
interpretation — adequate or inadequate, accurate or inaccurate — is part and parcel of any knowledge of
objective reality it is given us to have.
In
interpretation, the reader entertains propositions whose logical subjects include entities in the reader's (and author's) past world; only as such do they become components of the interpreter's «forms of subjectivity»; so there is always an element of
objective reference.
For this reason he understood the term hypostasis / substance not in the
objective sense (of a reality present within us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude -LSB-...] In the twentieth century this
interpretation became prevalent -LSB-...] but -LSB-...] Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent -LSB-...] It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a «proof of the things that are still unseen.
But above all else, good historical writing must be credible; that is, it must have
objective, factual accuracy as well as the historian's
interpretation.
For the text to be taken as testimony, as relevatory, judgment must be made about
objective characteristics, above all what Ricoeur calls in
Interpretation Theory its «self reference,» its claims to represent an «I» or a «we» engaged in a certain past «event of discourse.
Whereas in Schleiermacher and Dilthey «
interpretation» means Verstehen understood as a kind of empathy with the writer, Ricoeur is in search of a theory of
interpretation in which «understanding» seeks help in
objective «explanation» and returns deepened and enlarged.
The putatively solid and
objective display of «outward appearances,» in which hard - headed empiricists place so much trust, is only a partly reliable compendium of more or less standardized
interpretations of «natural» signs.
First of all, from an
objective or coordinate point of view, everything has a pattern or structure; one
interpretation of the Chinese term for principle (li) is «pattern.»
Good theological teaching will therefore engage in «
objective analysis, discovery, and
interpretation», but always in the context of the Christian faith, so that the students discover that their own personal commitments are bound up with what they are studying.
Rather, good teaching helps students to become self - educating by the traditional methods of Wissenschaft: «
objective analysis, discovery, and
interpretation» of various topics.
It is difficult to say precisely how it is that our relationship to God can be the central theme of theological teaching while the process remains that of
objective analysis, discovery, and
interpretation.
Barthes also added that
interpretations claiming to be the most historical are not necessarily the most
objective, but may rather be the more timid or banal.
Throughout the course of this paper I shall argue that the proper
interpretation of «relative» as it is used in this text bears not on the subjective notion of an object's relation to a knower but on the
objective factor of the object's own relations.
Such an
interpretation would suggest that each individual act of targeting needs to be justified as an act that is essential for achieving the broader
objective.