'via Blog this'
This is a good example of what I am coming to think of as the demon of interpretation. My rule for this is hopefully the following. When referring to someone else's creation, I assume that what is relevant is what it means to me irrespective of what it says about the source. I have no right to say what Highlands means to Dylan.Or what it should mean to you. I have every right to take it as a text that can mean anything I want ... to me. So, for example, the comment that certain lines are weak violates my rule. It is in the eye of the beholder. I can say what something means to me period. At least if I wish to move past interpretation (futile) to self-revelation (what we are and do and say). There is a pass-it-on function which is neither interpretation or self-revelation. This is perhaps one of the best ways to deal with a great mind. I do this all the time with Peirce. Pass those nuggets with no comment at all. I shall continue to comment on Dylan but there will be no interpretation. Increasingly I view interpretation as a presumption I am unwilling to make.
Charles Sanders Peirce - Thinking in Threes
