>>> Andre:
>>> I used the term 'authority' because you used it. My 'judgements' are based
>>> on
>>>the
>>> Annotations in LC (which clarify specific parts of ZMM and LILA),
>specifically
>>> annotations 129,130,131,132,133 and 135.
>>>
>>> When you read them carefully there is very little room for 'personal
>>>judgements' nor
>>> 'interpretations' nor 'personal opinions'. They are pretty straightforward
>>>comments/
>>> clarifications/observations/judgements from the man whose MOQ we are
>>> discussing
>>>here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Your 'judgements' are based on your 'interpretations' of annotations
>>129,130,131,132,133 and 135.
>> It is also your 'opinion' that they are "pretty straightforward
>>comment/clarifications/observations/judgements."
>> Your 'opinion' also presumes RMP'S communications skills are absolute and
>>perfect. I do not believe
>> he has claimed such an infallible skill.
>>
>> DanG was lucky enough to be able to ask RMP for clarification based on his
>>confusion.
>>
Dan:
> Hi Marsha
>
> I've always believed that we make our own luck. LILA'S CHILD was a lot
> of work, especially for someone with my background. I have no formal
> education to speak of. And the idea for LC wasn't mine to begin
> with... Bodvar Skutvik talked me into it. But once i started, I saw
> the value there and put as much time into the project as was
> practical. Actually, I neglected other areas of my life in order to
> pursue it so in a sense what I did wasn't practical at all.
> You may not like Andre's style but so far as I can see, his comments
> are spot on. I appreciate it when people like Andre, Paul Turner,
> David Buchanan, Horse, and other thinkers find value in LILA'S CHILD.
> Thank you all. But as far as me being lucky? No. There is no luck
> involved. Just plain hard work and persistence.
Marsha:
You may think Andre's comments are "spot on". That's your opinion.
I just don't think that the understanding of the MoQ can end with the LC, not
Andre's interpretation, and not even your interpretations of the annotations
as the LC's author. For all the questions you asked there are many you
didn't. Maybe you can concede that much. And since it's publications maybe
many new questions have arisen. I hate to see the MoQ limited by the few
questions that made it into your book. I'd like to probe the MoQ deeply, and
I will not accept that all answers have already be established.
Ron:
That may be Marsha, but you don't even consider the questions, many of them
the very same you and others raise, as being confirmed and validated by Robert
Pirsig, you consider them interpretations alone. You neglect that these
interpretations have been validated by RMP and the conclusions drawn from
these validations run contrary to your own interpretations.
Thats fine and dandy, but you really can't claim that your own interpretation
is closer to Roberts intended meaning, given that he has verified both Dan's
and Daves interpretations. Unless of course you have been at the conferences
and have been coresponding with RMP.
No?
then perhaps you should'nt be taking such a hard line in defence
of what is mainly YOUR own interpretations, ones that have NOT
been validated by RMP.
himself
Marsha
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
