Iranian Persian Language and Literature Promotion Society Research on Mystical Literature HTTPS://JP 5 3 2011 11 22 Context, Coded Language and Interpretation of Mystic Poetry Context, Coded Language and Interpretation of Mystic Poetry 1 20 16391 FA Taghi Poornamdarian Professor of Persian language and literature, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies. 0000-0001-8834-5174 Journal Article 2016 06 14 This article tries to explain the quality of meaning understanding and the elements which make problem in the process of such understanding. The author proposes two causes for such problem. First, it may be due to the lack of external reference for discourse which, in turn, is due to not finding an acceptable signified in the field of experience based on perpetual and constant linguistic meaning. Second, there is an external reference for linguistic meaning but the context prevents us from accepting the reference emanated from linguistic meaning. In both cases, for understanding the intended meaning of the author, we use interpretation that is, we release ourselves from the hegemony of predetermined meaning of signs and we impose our own meaning on signs. In other words, we construct a secondary system on the primary system of discourse in which signs become full of our subjectivity. Such a process considers signs as codes and accepts the interpretability of texts. As a result, the monosemy of language is toppled down and polysemy is substituted, and a new manner of reading is created whose main instrument is meaning-creation of the text. By giving a number of examples, this article tries to prove the appropriateness of such reading for these types of texts and also Persian classic poetry. This article tries to explain the quality of meaning understanding and the elements which make problem in the process of such understanding. The author proposes two causes for such problem. First, it may be due to the lack of external reference for discourse which, in turn, is due to not finding an acceptable signified in the field of experience based on perpetual and constant linguistic meaning. Second, there is an external reference for linguistic meaning but the context prevents us from accepting the reference emanated from linguistic meaning. In both cases, for understanding the intended meaning of the author, we use interpretation that is, we release ourselves from the hegemony of predetermined meaning of signs and we impose our own meaning on signs. In other words, we construct a secondary system on the primary system of discourse in which signs become full of our subjectivity. Such a process considers signs as codes and accepts the interpretability of texts. As a result, the monosemy of language is toppled down and polysemy is substituted, and a new manner of reading is created whose main instrument is meaning-creation of the text. By giving a number of examples, this article tries to prove the appropriateness of such reading for these types of texts and also Persian classic poetry. https://jpll.ui.ac.ir/article_16391_6d0035af7ddfb251cfb70dd31ef3565f.pdf