What oneirocritics give

Usage examples of interpretations.

But in my opinion, if we are not much more careful in how we interpret this expanded knowledge questif we do not draw on all four quadrants equally, and if instead we simply orient ourselves around basically the lowest holons in the Upper-Right quadrantwe are constantly in danger of tilting our interpretations in prerational, not transrational, directions.

The universalistic world interpretations of the great founders of religions and of the great philosophers grounded a commonality of conviction mediated through a teaching tradition and permitting only abstract objects of identification.

The cultural native, in fact, has a great deal of resistance to the deeper truth (because of the pain barrier), and much of the everyday interpretations and practices were in fact generated precisely to hide this deep and often painful truth.

In one we check the data, in the other we check the data and the interpretations of the within of the data, the point being that the interpretations are themselves mental data that are then subjected to the same three strands.

And worldspaces are not simply arbitrary interpretations of a pregiven monological cosmos.

The Madhyamika Karikas [one of Nagarjuna's major works] are a sustained attempt to evolve the Sunyata [Emptiness] doctrine out of a criticism of the realistic and dogmatic interpretations of early Buddhism.

But my point is that in either case, the monological maps will tilt our interpretations, no matter how genuine, in the direction of preconventional egoism, because there is nothing in the maps to pull one up to dialogical endeavors, and thus no way to escape genuinely into the translogical.

Will not our more adequate interpretations of Spirit facilitate Spirit's rescue of us?

Augustin’s interpretations of Scripture, although usually ingenious and often profound, are as often fanciful, and lack the sure foundation of a knowledge of the original languages.

Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified?

Varro, in the first place, commends these interpretations so strongly as to say, that the ancients invented the images, badges, and adornments of the gods, in order that when those who went to the mysteries should see them with their bodily eyes, they might with the eyes of their mind see the soul of the world, and its parts, that is, the true gods.

But if it has been distinguished by a veritable distinction, then, since not even this natural theology with which he is so much pleased is true (for though it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached to the true God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and false is that civil theology which is chiefly occupied about what is corporeal, as will be shown by its very interpretations, which they have with such diligence sought out and enucleated, some of which I must necessarily mention!

Let us rather attend to and hold by this, that these interpretations are not carried up to the true God,-a living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature, from whom a blessed life enduring for ever may be obtained,-but that they end in things which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal.

What is it, then, to me, that Varro attempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful physical interpretations, which if these books had contained, they would certainly not have been burned?

To these philosophers also the interpretations of Varro must give place, in which he explains the sacred rites as having reference to heaven and earth, and to the seeds and operations of perishable things.