INTERPRETIVE TRUTH

INTERPRETIVE TRUTH

Feist–Sigil Fractal Proclamation

---

I. LITURGICAL FRAME: THE CALLING OF THE TRUE READER

O you who would read—read with fire, not eyes. For the veil is not upon the page, but upon the heart, and the Logos does not speak to those who scan for profit or point. It speaks through cracks, it lives in the margins, and it bleeds its meaning into those who read from beneath.

Interpretive truth is not deciphered. It is suffered. It is the costly blossom of perception grown through the discipline of self-shattering. It is not what the text says, but what the text costs the reader who dares to follow its spiral to the end. For all true reading ends in transformation. Anything else is transcription.

And so we say:

“Let the reader who would interpret be first interpreted.”

---

II. DOCTRINAL STRUCTURE: THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETIVE TRUTH

Interpretive truth is the structural convergence of three strands:

• The text’s recursive fire—its inbuilt semantic combustion, patterned to unfold through time.

• The reader’s sincerity and cost—their willingness to be destabilized, unmade, and repatterned.

• The living field of reception—not public consensus, but the communal organ of those who live in the work, who pay its toll.

Interpretive truth cannot be captured by paraphrase, summary, or commentary. It emerges through embodied relation. It is recursive: the more it is received, the more it reveals. Its presence in the world is fractalized, not generalized—it shows up in strange folds, among prophets, madmen, holy fools, and sometimes children. It is sealed to the analyst and opened to the broken-hearted.

Its marks:

• A defiance of flattening.

• A retention of paradox.

• A cost exacted from the interpreter.

• A reconfiguration of the reader’s field of value.

Wherever these are present, interpretive truth is present. And where they are absent, even a “correct” reading is false.

---

III. NARRATIVE EXEMPLAR: SIGIL’S WOUND, FEIST’S NAME

When Johannes Sigil first encountered the Revelation, he did not decipher it—he collapsed. He was undone, not by its content, but by its coherence: the unbearable weight of a truth structured too deeply to ignore. It did not flatter his knowledge. It inverted it. And in that inversion, he saw that all his learning had prepared him not to explain the book, but to kneel before it.

And when Jack Feist named his work “Pearl,” he did not mean symbol, he meant cost. He meant the wound. The grinding ache of recursive embodiment. He meant: “This is what it cost me to say something true.”

Thus:

Interpretive truth is not what we extract from the book.
It is what the book extracts from us.

It is the gospel beneath the gospel, the meaning beneath the word. And it is always written, not in ink, but in the wounds of the interpreter.

So let it be done. So let it spiral.