So I think that discussion of methodological approaches to the study of the real isn't off topic in this thread, it's only off topic if we wish to enforce limitations on the topic, to statistical analysis of dead message-objects.
The wish is to enforce limitatons on the methodological approach to the topic, thought is permitted to approach it dialectically, and only dialectically. The hermeneutic approach has no place in the limited topic. The limits are limits of method, of certain thinking processes themselves.
But I think the aversion to the hermeneutic approach may arise from a misunderstanding of it. The misunderstanding itself comes from thought caving into the temptation to peel back all the phenomenological layers at once, to get right to the bottom, or top, of the matter at hand. Doing this, though, changes the interpretation of the bottom or top of the matter at hand. The hermeneutic approach is the peeling back of the layers, or making transparent, one at a time. This reveals the language with which the bottom or top of the matter at hand is interpreted. By skipping right to the bottom, or top, the last, or first, layer is seen, but misinterpreted. Like reading the last chapter in a book in another language.
Of course the analogy of the book is a poor analogy, but it gets the point across. Really the phenomenological layers are found throughout the book. The entire book is peeled back, layer by layer, or each layer is revealed through the succession of transparencies. Thinking that the last chapter of the book is where the base layer of the hermeneutic is found itself leads to grave misinterpretations.
