interpretation

Sometimes in my writing I like to play with the communication mechanism and medium. This is likely why it is a good thing that my readers usually are not relatives. Often my topics are spin-offs of topics that have entered my sphere through conversations with friends, acquaintances and incidents I run into. I’ve done my best to make this blog a smattering of random thoughts not directed by any one influence. The most well-organized thoughts make the cut. The one’s I find most intriguing make the cut. And then sometimes I try to experiment with medium and method. For instance, my latest parable I entitle love and marriage. The theme is really loose. I leave it up to the reader to determine the moral of the parable. The complete opposite of what I used to do. Although I say it, I am very detached from what it means. I know there is meaning somewhere but I don’t own it or want to find it and nail it in place with strong direct words. The topic itself is a line of thoughts removed from some conversations I’ve had with numerous people recently on marriage and who one should marry. I’m thinking of doing another “parable” where I just describe an object. I'm not sure how it will work but it will be intresting.

This is all a long way from where I used to be, laying things out in black and white, chronologically, rationally everything only having one meaning and one interpretation. I almost die of boredom thinking about how not interesting that was. I was trying to make the artist in me into a scientist. Maybe this new sort of expresion works. Maybe it doesn’t. It’s an experiment.

An aquaintance Dorcus Schmucker touches on the same topic.
http://dorcassmucker.blogspot.com/2006/04/misunderstood.html
(I especially like Arlene's comment,
Du aums ding!!!! Ich bin bat en brilla fa dich)

http://dorcassmucker.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_dorcassmucker_archive.html