As I've continued my discussions on a few Christian blogs, one thing I'm struck with time and again is this idea that there is only one correct interpretation of any specific biblical passage. Of course, how ever any particular person interprets such things is always defended as this one correct version! If someone or several someones understand any portion of the tract in a different way, then hey, said people are OBVIOUSLY misinterpreting it.
This got me to thinking about the process of writing (other forms of communication too). While there is no question that a person who writes something most always has a specific point in mind, none of us know about the experience, knowledge, insights and wisdom of any person who reads what is written. Because these aspects of self are different for each and every individual, we have no way of knowing how any other person will understand or react to the words we present.
Besides, communication takes, at least, two to tango. If I post my thoughts on this blog and no one else ever read a single word or syllable, would it still represent a form of communication? Me thinks the answer is no because, in my mind's eye, the whole point of communication is to share information and I can't share something with myself that I already know I know.
So, if we posit that communication must involve, at minimum, two entities, then it begs the question: Who controls the interpretation of what is expressed? And here's where I think a problem develops.
Most people would say that the originator (writer, speaker, singer, etc.) controls the correctness of interpretation. But how can this be if the originator MUST HAVE a recipient to receive the communication? If there must be at least two participants involved, then the recipient should factor into the equation as well. Consequently, it would appear to me that what a person means to convey and how another person receives it both play a key role in the interpretation of any expression.
If you accept this line of rationale, then it becomes patently obvious that it is next too impossible to guarantee that there will be solely one correct interpretation of anything.
I think human history bears out this supposition. I can't think of ANY document, speech, poem, song, etc. in which everybody agrees as to what it means. Even legal documents like the US Constitution or Supreme Court decisions are argued about incessantly as to what this word or that phrase means in an ultimate sense.
And so, I've come to the conclusion that there is no one absolute interpretation or meaning for anything. Every solitary word, thought, or other stimuli we encounter in life must pass through our own subjective sieve. This makes communication and relationships a definite challenge, but, that's what life is all about.
What do you think?
This got me to thinking about the process of writing (other forms of communication too). While there is no question that a person who writes something most always has a specific point in mind, none of us know about the experience, knowledge, insights and wisdom of any person who reads what is written. Because these aspects of self are different for each and every individual, we have no way of knowing how any other person will understand or react to the words we present.
Besides, communication takes, at least, two to tango. If I post my thoughts on this blog and no one else ever read a single word or syllable, would it still represent a form of communication? Me thinks the answer is no because, in my mind's eye, the whole point of communication is to share information and I can't share something with myself that I already know I know.
So, if we posit that communication must involve, at minimum, two entities, then it begs the question: Who controls the interpretation of what is expressed? And here's where I think a problem develops.
Most people would say that the originator (writer, speaker, singer, etc.) controls the correctness of interpretation. But how can this be if the originator MUST HAVE a recipient to receive the communication? If there must be at least two participants involved, then the recipient should factor into the equation as well. Consequently, it would appear to me that what a person means to convey and how another person receives it both play a key role in the interpretation of any expression.
If you accept this line of rationale, then it becomes patently obvious that it is next too impossible to guarantee that there will be solely one correct interpretation of anything.
I think human history bears out this supposition. I can't think of ANY document, speech, poem, song, etc. in which everybody agrees as to what it means. Even legal documents like the US Constitution or Supreme Court decisions are argued about incessantly as to what this word or that phrase means in an ultimate sense.
And so, I've come to the conclusion that there is no one absolute interpretation or meaning for anything. Every solitary word, thought, or other stimuli we encounter in life must pass through our own subjective sieve. This makes communication and relationships a definite challenge, but, that's what life is all about.
What do you think?
I definitely agree. A word, or a group of words, can mean entirely different things to different people. After all, words are but crude symbols of what our minds are thinking. We are not that evolved from the primitive sketchings on caves just a few hundred thousand years ago. Our communication is still evolving, hopefully for the better.
ReplyDeleteAs for the bible, it all depends on who you think wrote it. If a person believes God wrote it, then it can have a myriad of meanings because God is magical. Therefore His words are magical, and can mean a million different things to a million different people. If a man wrote it, then it can only have one meaning, or at most a couple. Most people write with singular meanings, although sometimes we're intentionally diabolical as well.
Me thinks, you hit the nail on the head when you wrote, "words are but crude symbols of what our minds are thinking."
ReplyDelete