“The point is, the brain talks to itself, and by talking to itself changes its perceptions. To make a new version of the not-entirely-false model, imagine the first interpreter as a foreign correspondent, reporting from the world. The world in this case means everything out- or inside our bodies, including serotonin levels in the brain. The second interpreter is a news analyst, who writes op-ed pieces. They read each other's work. One needs data, the other needs an overview; they influence each other. They get dialogues going.INTERPRETER ONE: Pain in the left foot, back of heel.INTERPRETER TWO: I believe that's because the shoe is too tight.INTERPRETER ONE: Checked that. Took off the shoe. Foot still hurts.INTERPRETER TWO: Did you look at it?INTERPRETER ONE: Looking. It's red.INTERPRETER TWO: No blood?INTERPRETER ONE: Nope.INTERPRETER TWO: Forget about it.INTERPRETER ONE: Okay.Mental illness seems to be a communication problem between interpreters one and two.An exemplary piece of confusion.INTERPRETER ONE: There's a tiger in the corner.INTERPRETER TWO: No, that's not a tiger- that's a bureau.INTERPRETER ONE: It's a tiger, it's a tiger!INTERPRETER TWO: Don't be ridiculous. Let's go look at it.Then all the dendrites and neurons and serotonin levels and interpreters collect themselves and trot over to the corner.If you are not crazy, the second interpreter's assertion, that this is a bureau, will be acceptable to the first interpreter. If you are crazy, the first interpreter's viewpoint, the tiger theory, will prevail. The trouble here is that the first interpreter actually sees a tiger. The messages sent between neurons are incorrect somehow. The chemicals triggered are the wrong chemicals, or the impulses are going to the wrong connections. Apparently, this happens often, but the second interpreter jumps in to straighten things out.”

“There have been so many interpretations of the story that I'm not going to choose between them. Make your own choice. They contradict each other, the various choices. The only choice that really matters, the only interpretation of the story, if you want one, is your own. Not your teacher's, not your professor's, not mine, not a critic's, not some authority's. The only thing that matters is, first, the experience of being in the story, moving through it. Then any interpretation you like. If it's yours, then that's the right one, because what's in a book is not what an author thought he put into it, it's what the reader gets out of it.”

“One cannot use the life to interpret the work. But One can use the work to interpret the life.”

“There was an abyss between myself and my love. I could not interpret the voiding distance. I supposed later that my attempts at interpretation of the abyss between myself and my love, or otherwise put, my love and my love, were themselves partially successful interpretive gestures.I also realized that the abyss came about on account of the very account that I was loving. I assumed that interpretation would inscribe a course for the two things, my love and my love, to seek out and find each other.”

“We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things.”

“… that architecture’s dependency, far from being its weakness, becomes its opportunity, with the architect acting as open-minded listener and feet-footed interpreter, collaborating in the realization of other people’s unpolished visions…. this model of the architect as interpretive agent…”.”