English Social Sciences Psychology therapeutic regressions

Dear colleagues,
I was wondering whether the phrase “not to interpret” in the following passage about regressions in psychotherapy might be interpreted also as “deciding not to interpret”. My doubt derives from the fact that in the previous sentence, the author says “noninterpretation” . So I was wondering whether there might be a slight difference: in the case of “noninterpretation”, it might be interpreted as "absence of interpretation",. In the case of “not to interpret”, there may be an emphasis on deliberately leaving out any form of interpretation.
Do you think this may be a plausible interpretation,in this context? Thank you so much for any hint!


*******************************

I think in Winnicottian and Balint’s terms, which are very similar [...] that is, in terms of the basic fault and therapeutic regression where, in the analysis, the patient gets back to much earlier states of development, perhaps to traumatic or pretraumatic states. And working with these states, both in terms of experiencing and in terms of interpretation. Very often, it is the *** noninterpretation *** that is as important, the experience of the analytic situation. And also it can be very important *** not to interpret *** because interpretation, particularly transference interpretation, can take the patient out of a state of regression. It is better to allow the patient to experience what it is like to be in that state and for you to be in the regression with them [...]. You should do everything you can to keep yourself as “unobtrusive,” in Balint’s phrase, as possible.