Everybody says “Oh, well.. that’s YOUR
interpretation of the books..” and “I’ve interpreted that differently.”
That’s fine. I agree with allowing
people to interpret how they perceive things.
But only up to a point, of course.
Interpretation can only go so far, until
that ‘interpretation’ is just plain wrong. ‘Interpreting’ a quote and taking a
quote out of context are completely different things. Changing the meaning of
words to suit ones own agenda is NOT ‘interpretation’.
There is a Gorean quote about a weak
man, taken out of context it could be used to defend the idea that ‘slaves’ are
more in control than their owners.. It doesn’t make it any more true, but it is
very easy to defend any ideal or agenda with misquoted quotes.
Interpretation doesn’t mean you’re able
to make things up, or use that word as a ‘guise’ under which you can hide.
Interpretation can only go as far as the words allow.
Let me explain.
> “The flower in the grass was white”
It can be interpreted in thousands of
different ways.
The grass – How long is it? Is it fresh,
green, dying, yellow? Patchy? Covered in shadow?
Some might picture a garden, with
uniform blades. Another might picture a forest floor. Others will picture
different things. This is one of the ‘interpretable’ parts of the sentence.
The flower – is it a rose? A daisy? A
weed? How many petals does it have? Are they sharp, or tatty? Is it newly
bloomed or dying?
Again, many people will see it
differently.. another ‘interpretable’ part of the statement.
The WORDS themselves, however, cannot
change their meaning. Anyone can interpret that sentence ‘correctly’ as long as
they retain the meaning of the words.
It would be wrong, obviously, to think
that the ‘flower’ was able to be interpreted as a ‘tree’ or a ‘bush’ – it states
a flower, so only ‘flowers’ can be interpreted from that word.
The word ‘white’ indicates that anyone ‘interpreting’ that flower as anything other than ‘white’ – is wrong. Plain and simple. The flower cannot be blue, red, purple, or any other colour other than ‘white’. Because the word ‘white’ can hae no other meaning than ‘white’!
So while there ARE areas where people can vary in their interpretation (I think “white daisy on a grassy, wild hill”, someone else might think “white tulip in a garden”) – there are ways that it can be interpreted wrongly. Anyone trying to interpret that sentence as “yellow buttercup on a window ledge” regardless of anything else, is wrong! Because the meaning of the words cannot substantiate their interpretation.
To bring it back to a Gorean
perspective... “Slave” means “owned or controlled by someone else” this is not
an ‘interchangable’ or interpretable’ meaning. (So ‘slave’ cannot have the
meaning ‘not owned or controlled... but I have this FEELING that I’m a slave..
in my HEART.... so I must be one’) Much like ‘slave vs. Free’ and ‘flower vs. Tree’
– the words have definitive meanings – which cannot be changed, especially not
because someone who doesn’t fit the mould tries to put the square peg in the
round hole by wearing down the edges.
So anyone telling me that they have ‘interpreted’
white as black, or flowers as trees, or ‘slave’ as ‘free’... or anything else
that doesn’t work with the meaning of the individual words – I won’t be apologising
when I ‘interpret’ their words and excuses as stupidity in its highest form.
Everybody says “Oh, well.. that’s YOUR
interpretation of the books..” and “I’ve interpreted that differently.”
That’s fine. I agree with allowing
people to interpret how they perceive things.
But only up to a point, of course.
Interpretation can only go so far, until
that ‘interpretation’ is just plain wrong. ‘Interpreting’ a quote and taking a
quote out of context are completely different things. Changing the meaning of
words to suit ones own agenda is NOT ‘interpretation’.
There is a Gorean quote about a weak
man, taken out of context it could be used to defend the idea that ‘slaves’ are
more in control than their owners.. It doesn’t make it any more true, but it is
very easy to defend any ideal or agenda with misquoted quotes.
Interpretation doesn’t mean you’re able
to make things up, or use that word as a ‘guise’ under which you can hide.
Interpretation can only go as far as the words allow.
Let me explain.
> “The flower in the grass was white”
It can be interpreted in thousands of
different ways.
The grass – How long is it? Is it fresh,
green, dying, yellow? Patchy? Covered in shadow?
Some might picture a garden, with
uniform blades. Another might picture a forest floor. Others will picture
different things. This is one of the ‘interpretable’ parts of the sentence.
The flower – is it a rose? A daisy? A
weed? How many petals does it have? Are they sharp, or tatty? Is it newly
bloomed or dying?
Again, many people will see it
differently.. another ‘interpretable’ part of the statement.
The WORDS themselves, however, cannot
change their meaning. Anyone can interpret that sentence ‘correctly’ as long as
they retain the meaning of the words.
It would be wrong, obviously, to think
that the ‘flower’ was able to be interpreted as a ‘tree’ or a ‘bush’ – it states
a flower, so only ‘flowers’ can be interpreted from that word.
The word ‘white’ indicates that anyone ‘interpreting’ that flower as anything other than ‘white’ – is wrong. Plain and simple. The flower cannot be blue, red, purple, or any other colour other than ‘white’. Because the word ‘white’ can hae no other meaning than ‘white’!
So while there ARE areas where people can vary in their interpretation (I think “white daisy on a grassy, wild hill”, someone else might think “white tulip in a garden”) – there are ways that it can be interpreted wrongly. Anyone trying to interpret that sentence as “yellow buttercup on a window ledge” regardless of anything else, is wrong! Because the meaning of the words cannot substantiate their interpretation.
To bring it back to a Gorean
perspective... “Slave” means “owned or controlled by someone else” this is not
an ‘interchangable’ or interpretable’ meaning. (So ‘slave’ cannot have the
meaning ‘not owned or controlled... but I have this FEELING that I’m a slave..
in my HEART.... so I must be one’) Much like ‘slave vs. Free’ and ‘flower vs. Tree’
– the words have definitive meanings – which cannot be changed, especially not
because someone who doesn’t fit the mould tries to put the square peg in the
round hole by wearing down the edges.
So anyone telling me that they have ‘interpreted’
white as black, or flowers as trees, or ‘slave’ as ‘free’... or anything else
that doesn’t work with the meaning of the individual words – I won’t be apologising
when I ‘interpret’ their words and excuses as stupidity in its highest form.