Marsha: No, Andre, you are misinterpreting what I said, which was "sq is not other than DQ." The fundamental nature of sq is DQ.
And you are forgetting that "your interpretation" is "your interpretation." Mr. Pirsig may talk about Mr. Pirsig's MoQ because he developed it, while your talk is of "your interpretation" of Mr. Pirsig's MoQ. On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > 'The printed text of a book is thus like a musical score, which is not itself > music, but becomes music when played by musicians, or "interpreted" by them, > as we say'. > > Andre: > Problem is Marsha, you are not 'interpreting' the text. You are changing it. > By saying DQ=sq you are undermining Pirsig's MOQ. By substituting, to use a > static example, all B flat's into B sharp's you are altering the composer's > intention and you'd have to change all notes to keep them harmonious. (Not > that I know a great deal about composing music but you get the drift). > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that. You can transcribe it > into a completely different key as far as I am concerned, alter the beats > from 4/4 to 3/4 or 2/4 but don't attribute the result to the composer. > > We are here talking about Mr.Pirsig's MOQ and not your own concoction of it > which, as I suggested above, makes a mess of things. It renders it > meaningless. > ___ 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
