Likewise, it is quite common and ordinary for several judges or religionists to interpret the exact same text differently.
It has always been clear that we interpret things according to our own experience, our own culture, our own world view, our own weaknesses, and our own bias.
The American Behavioral Scientist Journal is doing a volume, which deals with what I consider to be a disease, State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD), and subject matter relating to that theme:
The ellipses of due diligence riddling the official account of the 9/11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration. This article introduces intellectual context for examining the policy heuristic "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) (deHaven-Smith, 2006) and its usefulness for better understanding patterns of state criminality of which no extant policy analytic model gives adequate account.This article then introduces papers included in this symposium examining the chimerical presence and perfidious legacy of state criminality against democracy.(American Behavioral Scientist). The fact that "no extant policy analytic model gives adequate account" means that we do not know how to deal with the relevant inkblot scenario when the government commits criminally insane or lesser wrongs against the interests of democracy.
The Toxins of Power Blog has been musing over this subject for awhile, so it is good to see the load shared with experts in that field.
We have long maintained that the MSM has dementia when it comes to "the official account of the 9/11 incidents".
As long as the symptoms & problems "continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration" we will have no healing.
The American Behavioral Scientist Journal now gives hope that we can take a look at this denial as a form of social dementia, hoping that some treatment will be coming along to help others out of their state of denial.