A few days ago, I promised my supervisor M. N. that I am going to give him a re-mapped structure of my thesis. Even if it is for for sake, such a re-mapping is really going to benefit myself.
Having gone through another tornado blowing over the whole landscape of my thesis, and of course, its inseparable partner, my brain, a restructuring effort for the whole draft seems an urgent need.
With a thesis of this nature, I can’t just do the exegetical and analytical work on my two texts: Yizhuan and Romans. If Gadamer’s hermeneutics is what I am applying, it is legitimate and even more so demand for treating my cultural linguistic context and my personal background as texts. P. Ricouer once writes an essay, “What is a Text?" For a fusion of horizons to happen, the concomitance of tradition and classics in one’s experience in life world and readings and experiencings of them as Gadamer has tried to explicate, to treat one’s cultural linguistic as seriously as one would a classic is a demand.
What then shall I open up my whole argument? How shall I deploy every single point to prevent misreading of my readers out of their own preconception? What actually is my focus? How shall I rationale that I am not discussing and arguing issues that are conventionally treated in pastoral theology, virtue ethics, sinology, linguistic studies, biblical studies, when I am treating jushi局勢 and a pastor, or a pastor in jushi?
The problems to be dealt with are jushi and the self of pastors. The context is a dual traditional. The methodology is back and forth hermeneutics between text and experience and historical situation. My theoretical models or test models for dealing with my problems are Yizhuan and Romans, prognostic as well as remedial.
What do you think?