without interpretaton, what are we?

[jn56uytrx]

A quote about what art is absent interpretation, got me translating that question out further, "without interpretation, what are we?"

...art is so widely (and often thinly) spread, that anything can be it. A lot of it is nothing but a gesture, not an object, not a thing unto itself, and it literally does not exist without interpretation.

How does this apply to other things--like us? Nothing we think about ourselves or others really exists outside of interpretation within the context of our experience, does it?

So I think I am something, but I think that because this is what I have been led to think by the whole of input I have received throughout my life. If I had received different input, would I be something different?

Are we something stable and unwavering underneath the perceptual shifts? Is all we are defined by the perceptions (interpretations) of our environment and time?

 

[Gaze]

Who I interpret myself to be is rarely what others see. This means I'm not seeing the entirety of who I am, or that everyone interprets what they see through differing and conflicting lens, or that who we are is just a complex of varied interpretations - not one thing or another, just a myriad of experiences, thoughts, and perceptions. We are 4D, not 3D. We are real. Perceptions and varied interpretations are not enough to define us.

 

[jn56uytrx]

Perceptions and varied interpretations are not enough to define us.

Do we have access to any other way to understand and define ourselves, than through the interpretive process?

If we are limited to that interpretive process, fed by shifting and varied perceptions, then what value is there in resting in (or being held in bondage to) any of those interpretations of self?

If we eliminate a foundational sense of self, what then do we stand on?

 

[TinyBubbles]

REALLY great question and one i've thought about a lot. imo nothing is 'anything' before it is defined as something, before it is quantified as separate from everything else. people are not people before they are interpreted as people - before they meet the criteria for being people - likewise with individuals and personalities. a person is not "nice" until the are acknowledged as nice - prior to that they are _____ (blank), nothing, or something indefinable. it's like having a piece of clay that you can shape to become something definite - before it takes on a form, it's an amorphous blob of potential - beyond that point, if you don't continue molding it in a certain way (the "nice" way), it will RETURN to an amorphous blob. so one's sense of self would be very much dependent on continual consistent definition, either from your own mind or that of others'. if you don't have that, imo you are nobody. but nobody's really "nobody", because even the most disconnected of us are influenced by the opinions and judgments of others as to who we are.
(i hope that made some kind of sense!)

 

[TurtleTrooper]

Of course us as humans exist as a stable and unwavering entity. We each are our own little set of DNA and experiences compiled into a heap of gray matter entitled the brain.

However, to anyone else we are just an interpreted being.

So each and every one of us would have had been interpreted in an infinite amount of ways. Maybe to our lover we are thoughtful, considerate, spontaneous and "nice." But to that guy we just cut in line at the video store, we're ignorant and rude. Not to mention attractive to those who just witnessed our A game presentation of whatever and less attractive to those who just saw us haggling some clerk at the video game store. Do you get what I'm saying?

Of course we each have our own internally stable sense of "self." But just because we are our "self" doesn't mean others will interpret it that way. In fact in many ways people could interpret just the opposite.

That's my opinion on it. I could have misunderstood the question, I'm tired.

 

[Faye]

Without interpretation, we are nothing. To interpret is to develop a bias in taste that only comes from the acceptance of something things at the expense of rejecting other things. If we accept ourselves as we are, which means not rejecting even the worst parts of who we are, then we are nothing. Of course we still physically exist and all that good stuff, but we are nothing insofar as we are concerned.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

A quote about what art is absent interpretation, got me translating that question out further, "without interpretation, what are we?"



How does this apply to other things--like us? Nothing we think about ourselves or others really exists outside of interpretation within the context of our experience, does it?

So I think I am something, but I think that because this is what I have been led to think by the whole of input I have received throughout my life. If I had received different input, would I be something different?

Are we something stable and unwavering underneath the perceptual shifts? Is all we are defined by the perceptions (interpretations) of our environment and time?

Perhaps something of what we are is both networked and interconnected with other existing things, including perceptions.

 

[That Girl]

I believe things cannot be defined until they are considered not something else. A person cannot be considered "nice" until they have been labeled as not "not nice." It is by removal of all other possibilities that something is given definition.

 

[Gaze]

Without interpretation, we are nothing. To interpret is to develop a bias in taste that only comes from the acceptance of something things at the expense of rejecting other things. If we accept ourselves as we are, which means not rejecting even the worst parts of who we are, then we are nothing. Of course we still physically exist and all that good stuff, but we are nothing insofar as we are concerned.

 

[jn56uytrx]

Perhaps something of what we are is both networked and interconnected with other existing things, including perceptions.

I read this about three times trying to incorporate the thought. I don't know if I ended up getting what you were getting at, but it certainly sparked a lot of thought in me.

The indefiniteness involved in definition of individual things comes from their shifting and varied relationship with other individual things. However if you broaden out the view, then perhaps that variability lessens or even disappears. If you incorporate all those perceptions into a single entity and consider that entity as a whole, then perhaps the interpretive dimension falls away and there just "is".

 

[randomsomeone]

I think there is a reality to "us" that is beyond our ability (or other's ability) to interpret fully, but we can do so in part. This becomes part of the discovery process of our lifetime, that of connecting to the actual reality of what/who we are. The reality of us is innate, so it exists beyond most of our initial perceptions. In fact, there is much to this world that is thus. Our interpretations matter little in that we are generally do not start out all that connected to reality in the first place. We have to let go of a lot of assumptions to find out who we really are.

 

[Faye]

Blame Buddhism and Heidegger, not me.