Analysis

I'm unsure what that has to do with Interpretation Jack. I'm not intending disrespect. Interpretation recognizes that all language and all communication are sets symbols with societally agreed upon meanings. However, since every individual has different experiences, the way those symbols connotate, rather than their literal meaning, can and will be different. Also, each individual didn't agree to these symbols, they were taught their meaning, and if that teaching left misunderstandings or confusion, the difference in meaning exaggerates.

From what you're saying, it almost sounds like you're talking about "triggers" words or symbols that have gained such an emotional connotation, due to trauma, that they can bring on severe emotional distress. These aren't part of interpretation theory at all. They're a separate category to themselves under anxiety disorders. My personal experience with triggers is that they aren't a choice, though once you're aware of them you can work to inure yourself against their impact and eventually be free of them but it takes willful effort and the desire to change and the knowledge of what needs to change. Any missing component of those three and the trigger will remain and remain traumatic when perceived.

The thesaurus doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation either. Each synonym we see in the thesaurus has a similar meaning to the root word but not identical. The only one with identical meaning is the word itself. 'Slash' and 'Rend' are synonyms, and yet have a difference in meaning, largely in severity in this case.

So someone who has suffered an emotional distress isn't allowed to talk in terms of interpretation?

Red Lila wrote: Each synonym we see in the thesaurus has a similar meaning to the root word but not identical. The only one with identical meaning is the word itself. 'Slash' and 'Rend' are synonyms, and yet have a difference in meaning, largely in severity in this case.

So does that mean that if there are alot of meanings to a word in the thesaurus, it means that there are too many so the word acctually means none of them?

Origionaly, the word interpretation meant "Knowing." It didn't mean an automatically false apprehension of the subject. Neither did it mean an automatically true, personal version of the subject, on the basis that everyone is entiteled to their own opinion.

When the buddhist scriptures were translated from sandscrit into tibetan, a long time ago, the person who interpreted it was considered a very highly. He was held in high esteem and back then there wasn't a whole pop-psychology brigade saying that there is no such thing as truth/good only one that is consentual. Good, truth and interpretation aren't just points of view...

I'm saying that the emotional distress involved with triggers causes traditional interpretation theory to lose its usefulness from a psychological perspective. Expressing what that trigger means to them is part of the healing process for some people, but there's a difference between "Interpretation" referring to our decoding of symbols such as language "interpretation theory" which discusses what emotional context we bring to a situation.

The thesaurus isn't concerned with interpretation, its concerned with diversity of language. If you're looking for the interpretive meaning of a word you need a dictionary. Even then there are multiple definitions for many words. It doesn't mean that word means nothing just because it has multiple meanings. It means that word's meaning is defined by context. The words around it, the circumstances in which its spoken, and who is speaking are all factors we use to recognize which definition applies in this case. Language isn't and has never been a perfect representation of our thoughts and feelings, rather it is a tool to allow us to cooperate with each other, and, if our own personal context is similar enough, potentially communicate emotion.

The purpose of a Thesaurus is infact to see words that are similar to the word looked up. So if you look up the word "couch" you will find the word that is similar, like "sofa"

If you look at this example, both these words refer to the same thing. Meaning that if you look at the word "Interpretation" in the thesaurus it has an entry for "Analisis" and "knowing" meaning that these two words refer to the same thing. While conversley alot of people will say that the word "Interpretation" means "not really knowing, just saying it how the hell I like based on my own emotional problems"

I see no contractiction bettween the thesaurus and the dictionary either. I use both. Also I wasn't talking about the usefullness of the Thesaurus' ability to interpret, but the Thesaurus' particular entry for the word "Interpretation"

Apologies for the misunderstanding, however, I must disagree that these words have the same meaning. They all have similar meanings but differences do exist which is why they are not interchangeable in language. There is also a difference between interpretation in the linguistic sense and interpretation in the psychological sense. Neither meaning is wrong, its up to context to know the difference. There is no baseline meaning for any word, they are all based off experience and previous exposure to the word. The reason they are useful for communication is that there are accepted literal meanings that aren't subject to interpretation due to their obvious meanings for some words. There are other words which no such literal exists.

Red Lila wrote: Like saying "family" to someone from a caring household and one from an abusive. Both will recognize the literal meaning because its not open to interpretation, however the emotional and experiential meaning will be vastly different for the two.

I know that I don't have a mind that can understand the emotional/experiential meaning, and the literal meaning at the same time. And I don't want such a mind. If I have any sort of emotional content atached to a word, I would like to talk about it to a friend that would not have some kind of predisposition to that subject, or even the subject of psychology itself.

There is no emotion, there is peace.

Well, in my expreience it is usually the people the are intending to commit a crime that really isn't my idea of something forgivable, that choose to define a word in a particular way that involves others, others that would just rather not be involved, and usually they are the type of person that is capable of manipulating the situation so that they are in charge. The trouble is, that the people who have allready done something that is forgivable, to me atleast; they would probably recive retaliation from the afore mentioned people that are capable of malicious acts and would arbitarilly call what the forgivable has done as a reason to be labeled an inherent perpetrator.

Infact me myself writing this now will probably atract the attention of such people...

This depends on whether or not you believe in relativism. Some people believe that there is no "good" and no "evil" because everything that we do is good or evil depending on the perspective of the person or entity judging our actions.

While it is true that we perceive events, people, even science differently through our unique "lenses" of culture, gender, life experiences etc, I do believe that there exists an absolute truth, beyond interpretation. However, I believe this absolute truth is hard if not impossible for humans to understand, because we can never know "everything" although we can continuously improve our understanding of both our individual prejudices and the world around us.

The way I see it, since there is so much we don't know, it is best not to hold onto judgments (interpretations) too tightly, or to consciously "judge" unless necessary. I say consciously because everyone is at least a little bit racist, a little bit bigoted. That's just part of the condition of being human, since it is not possible to know everyone personally, but it is necessary to make decisions.