There is no such thing as being able to understand our side. To uderstand, I believe, is to take something as meant. Given my beliefs, I think you ought to go look at this article I did last year:

I recall that there was one entry I did a while back when I mentioned that "there is nothing beyond the text." I would like to further expound that. 

   "There is nothing beyond the text."

   I interpret this as anything beyond the text is beyond the text – not an extension of it. Nothing is beyond the text for anything that may be said about it would be outside of the line of thought of the writer.

   Okay, so I know that I won't be able to sound as philosophical or Derrida-ish as I would want to because I know that wouldn't be possible, but c'mon.

   Given this kind of phrase, I would then assume that whenever I write something, I do not give my reader anything that I want them to get. I could try, but then there are variables that would prevent me from doing such.

   In this case, I would use the word "understand" as something that means "to take something as meant." If I would use this meaning of understand in the context of the phrase nothing is beyond the text, it would be evident that there really would be nothing beyond the text, since anyone reading a given text would not take everything in the text as meant. Given that meaning is arbitrary and that signs and symbols can actually mean something different to anyone – these are dependent on one's beliefs, upbringing, culture, etc. – I find it relevant to state that people do not understand the text but only interpret the text; by interpret, I would mean "to ascribe a particular meaning or significance to something."

   At this point, I would have to explain fully why we do not understand texts but only interpret them (one instructor of mine pronounces this as "innerpret," you know, innernet, innerest – I do believe that he is trying to sound foreign, but I think he just sounds plain funny, that's all).

   To understand, as I have stated a few lines back, would be to take something as meant. An author writes to bring his or her ideas forth, but these ideas – whether he or she likes it or not, will be subjected to different forms of interpretation for there are many possible meanings that the reader may extract from the text other than what the author is trying to say. The author does not have any control over what the reader may extract from his text. The author is not actually present (and would never be, unless in some instance fate allows that the reader comes face-to-face with the author and the reader will be able to have the author tell him what he actually meant in the text) in front of the reader as to guide him or her into the way of thinking that the author had when he or she was writing the text. Therefore, the reader is free to interpret the text dependent on many variables – maybe in any way he or she wants to. Any form of interpretation that the reader formulates, then, would not be directly connected to the text. Some would consider them extensions, but I do not. Anything beyond the text is beyond the text. I may even say that once the text is made public, the text is not considered to be the author's anymore – in a certain odd way, of course; since a given text is always subjected to interpretations, the text ceases to be the author's, for to be interpreted would be the real purpose of the text and once it is interpreted, it loses its original meaning that only the author properly knows. Put this way, then, there really is nothing beyond the text. We merely interpret it and nothing else, which is why we do not go beyond it. We cannot remove the fact that the text is something we cannot fully know. The real meaning of the text does not become manifested before our eyes, it doesn't go beyond the whatever-how-many-corners wherever it was written or printed or carved. It stays within the text.

   We are the audience and how we see things are not the way that the actors see them. Authors often subject themselves to this form of – I cannot say cruelty, for this is how things seem to be in reality as we know it – interpretation. Writers can always try to be understood, but the human mind's capacity is limited only to what it can relate to, what it has known, and what it will know will always be under the scrutiny of what it already knows.

   I am not saying that we do not have the capacity to understand. Maybe we do, maybe we transcend mere interpretation, I do not know. What I am trying to say is that everything has different meanings and that the meaning of a given text as the author meant it to be is beyond our grasp – we do not understand what he or she is trying to say, we interpret what he or she trying to say. There is, after all, nothing beyond the text.

   You are not us - a basic knowledge that will tell you that you will not undertand our side. The least you can do is to interpret as well as you can our current actions; but interpretation may still be inaccurate.

   It would do no good for us people to argue with you, but on the other hand, I may start ranting one of these days. And if it looks like the article I used to clarify my point doesn't make sense, you probably can't interpret anything.