“The Danger of Interpretation”
An interpretation holds a single meaning.
To interpret is to fragment what has always been a whole, for it to then become an incomplete form. In comparison, a whole could be a mirror. In contrast, the whole of the mirror, when “interpreted”, is now a fragmented mirror. To see something as a wholeness, is to understand that what has been witnessed is not wounded. Currently wounded, that is, for what was once wounded, would not matter for this description.
The person who carries over wounds, not mended, or has been wounded just a few moments ago, is the “interpreted” individual. A wholeness to a person is interpreted, after they had once been assimilated into another incomplete form, to make a union. What is union, in this scenario, besides a complete understanding in the making of that unity? Meaning, one interprets the individual by their place once in a union, whether that be marriage, or their own nation, or anywhere else they found belonging.
Interpretation is perception, making perception to be defined as never seeing the whole, the past, and only the present, of the individual. Though, if an individual holds purpose in freedom outside the union, believing themselves free, then they are not wounded, and feel no signs of betrayal. In that case, they had wanted out.
It is why an individual will always question the obedient collective, being the herd, on their purpose. Once the individual can make a perception, their place in such unity is detached or displaced. They become just one fragment to that whole.
Love teaches a human belonging. Though, it cannot be taught for individuals who do not know each other, between themselves. They are individuals as sheep gathered into a collective by the shepherd. Each of them who chooses to follow does not know the feeling of freedom in detaching themselves from the collection. Loves unites, though it does not unite people who do not know each other. Such a forced unity only ever breeds fear, among such individuals whose distrust of each other enforces the prejudice of distance.
Forced unity, enforces fear. It is because a collection is a wholeness, that when interpreted by an individual, they become detached from the collective. To silence a thought, means to silence an individual, and to believe the voice is one of union from the entirety.
We fear what we are distant towards. We are distant, because we are fearful. We are fearful, because no spark of curiosity has brought us the motivation in seeing something up-close, for its truth.
The dangers of interpretation, only ever reside in external perception upon a thing that requires no insight into it, other than for what it is. Of anything innately defined as what it is, then to interpret it would refer it towards its opposite. In the name of Justice, would such a concept be interpreted, it would become division. That is because the word “Justice” refers to order, and never disorder. To interpret a thing like Justice, inevitably makes Injustice or Vengeance. That is when a person’s anger enables them to makes a choice, being one of many to the interpretations. For when one can shatter a whole, one is in the choosing, in the freedom, outside the collective. It is that Justice, by its definition, relating to order, makes such a word a resemblance of a collective that should not be shattered into “interpretations”. If individuals hold their own interpretation, hold their own freedom, then their desire to freely perceive the objective definition of Justice, creates the danger.
To interpret Justice, makes such a perception become Vengeance, inevitably so. In the rebellion against objective Justice, an individual wishes for a choice. For to have a choice, would be outside of that objective Justice. We can only ever define Justice to be something representing no freedom. It is the same when a convict has no freedom, when they are incarcerated. The reason for the sentencing is to not allow the convict to do more harm upon the world. Their freedom has been forfeited.
Any person who disagrees with Justice pertaining to a lack of freedom, will automatically believe in responsibility to be with choice, to be with excuse, to be with escape. Who escapes Justice, besides those who’d never believe in freedom as earned? Freedom is no gift, like love is given. It is deserved, like trust and respect.
Therefore, to interpret Justice would mean to involve freedom in the individualized perception of it. From this, makes Vengeance, in the choice resonating with freedom. For to be free, would mean to reason oneself out of the objective defining of a thing, such as responsibility. We interpret what we believe cannot be objective, in its defining. Such means, that the interpretation to a thing would make choice, or freedom, involved only in the personal desire to what one wants. It is always outside the objective definition to what was interpreted.
Since to be “outside” the realm of Justice, is in relation to a convict being outside the realm of incarceration. The believe, that in being outside of it, they are free. They are only voided of being responsible for their crime. Any human who currently possesses true freedom, had earned it. They were not given it. In the name of personal responsibility, a person understands that what they are giving through their earned freedom, is themselves, no longer a threat to another’s freedom, another’s life.
All of this means that an interpretation on Justice is an adherence to personal desire. There is freedom, and there is choice, in the interpretation. Though, when it comes to interpreting what should never be fragmented by that interpretation, the only freedom there is, belongs in the one who wishes to hold an individual voice. By this, nothing of objective meaning is adhered to, when we can interpret the definition of a word to soon become something fragmented or divided.