I have done quite a few alterations and additions on these two earlier entries that I decided that perhaps, it is worth posting them again -- this time as a single post. I also believe that the subject of free interpretation is of fundamental importance, because it is at the heart of the theme of vengeance, violence, and not to forget, nonviolence.
Free interpretation, freedom of choice, intentionality, comprehension, tolerance, reconciliation, humanize, etc. on the one hand; imposition, human nature, intolerance, fanaticism, censure, vengeance, punishment, objectification, dehumanize, etc. on the other. Terms we plan to elaborate on future blogs. In the meantime, let's try to deal with the first term, free interpretation.
Free interpretation, now that is one great and unique concept. It is the antithesis of imposition. It is the grandaddy of the freedom of choice. Free interpretation, is it as simple as it sounds? Like, so "okay, interpret it as you want". Or is this concept at the root of all freedoms? Is it just about the freedom to interpret a particular phrase, a particular passage, a book or even an event? Or is it an encompassing doctrine -- a doctrine about interpreting a written piece, an event, an action, a gesture, a feeling, a look, a world, a life, a meaning?
It seems to me, free interpretation are all these and much more.
It basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's history, one's level of understanding, one's comprehension. Even my own "truth" is an interpretation. In this sense, from the point of view of this concept of free interpretation, either I comprehend the other's action, or at the very least, I am tolerant of the other's action. In short, no interpretation is wrong, only different. Because, my opinion that a particular interpretation is wrong is just that, an opinion – it is also just an interpretation.
And what does free interpretation have to do with violence or vengeance?
It's clear. How can there be violence or even vengeance when I understand the other -- or at least, tolerant of the other? It seems to me, that it is even possible that this concept of free interpretation could be one of the ingredients for experiencing the human in the other.
With free interpretation, we begin to learn how to tolerate the other, understand the other, comprehend the other, feel the human in the other, and perhaps, even experience love and compassion for the other, and finally, feel one with the other.
•••
Free Interpretation
Isn't this a bit stretching it? This interpretation of free interpretation?
In a later blog, we said, "Violence then, is the appropriation of the other's choice or intentionality. Put in another way, violence is the imposition of one's intentionality on the intentionality of the other". In another post, we said, "Free interpretation, now that is one great and unique concept. It is the antithesis of imposition." Further on, we continued, "It basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's history, one's level of understanding, one's comprehension. In this sense, from the point of view of this concept of free interpretation, either I comprehend the other's action, or at the very least, I am tolerant of the other's action. In this sense, no interpretation is wrong or bad -- only different."
Imposition, it seems to me, then, is always present at the outset of violence. And if the opposite of imposition is free interpretation, I believe then, that free interpretation is the seed of nonviolence.
"If the human being is intentionality, then, nonviolence is contributing to the enhancement of that intentionality. To put it simply, if his transformation is hindered by suffering and his basic project is the overcoming of pain and suffering -- then, helping him to alleviate his pain, his suffering, is nonviolence." --from the post, "Violence and Nonviolence"
In other words, letting the other express his intentionality is the basis of that enhancement -- by giving him his freedom of interpretation and the understanding of the action that is the consequence of that interpretation.
Still, isn't this stretching it?
I do not think so. And if you feel you are up to it, try this little experiment and find out for yourself.
The next time you have an argument, especially with someone whose opinion directly opposes your own -- try giving the other the benefit of his free interpretation, try accepting his position as it is, just another position; not wrong, not necessarily right either. Just a position. Try understanding his opinion. Try comprehending where he is coming from. To make this easier, try to see that your position is, also, on the other hand, just another position -- even if it is exactly the opposite of his. This is the only way you can reconcile two opposing views.
It is the same when someone is angry at you. Try to understand that they are only acting according to how they interpret the situation. I am not saying that you tolerate or accept their violence; I am saying that it is better for you to understand and comprehend their action, because by doing so, you lessen your suffering.
This is a very important issue to clarify here, right now, regarding what I have been discussing up to this point; that when I said "with free interpretation, no interpretation is wrong or bad", I am not saying this from the philosophical point of view of Amorality, which is understood as saying that "nothing is good or bad; therefore, one is free to do as one wants." Remember, that we also said in an earlier post that "Tolerance of violence is violence". In short, what I am trying to say is to understand the other's interpretation and to respect the other's interpretation of things; but on the other hand, that does not necessarily mean tolerating or accepting the other's acts of violence.
Remember, this is also just my interpretation of free interpretation. It may coincide with your own interpretation, or it may not. Either way, it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong either.
We know that others proclaimed the free interpretation, but then in the practice, they imposed their own interpretation. We want to make it seriously. --Silo•••
