[Marsha]
You misrepresent what I say, what I think, what I believe and my experience.
[Arlo]
If I've misrepresented anything, perhaps you could clarify, then,
what you think of "interpretation" and its role in such sentences as:
"It wasn't a question, and is more a matter of interpretation and
translation. This points back to the comments by Margaret Atwood
that I posted and there being different interpretations of a literary
text." (Marsha)
"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." (Marsha)
Do these NOT suggest that for anyone apart from the speaker, all
meaning is "interpretation"?
As I said, the problem in the former (one of them) is that it
suggests an utterance can be taken out of the flow of dialogue and
"interpreted" apart from any "intent" on the part of the speaker.
Indeed, the dichotomy of "intent-interpretation" plagued many western
philosophers, but has been shown as false by a (now) large cadre of
philosophers. And, as I said, it is rooted in an almost pure
subjectivism where the "objects" we encounter (literary texts,
paintings, etc.) are objects devoid of any intrinsic or intentional
meaning, and to these meaningless objects we alone, in a vacuum,
construct legitimate "interpretations" of them.
I argue that the "intent-interpretation" here is an overlay of the
"objective-subjective" dichotomy, and that a more dynamic view where
interlocutors are always intentional and interpretative as meaning is
negotiated towards mutual understandings. Along the way, new insights
can certainly be added, meaning revised, which is precisely how ideas evolve.
I'd ask you think, if all interpretations are NOT equally valid, how
do YOU discriminate between them? Do you then disagree with those
who've suggested that Pirsig is a "weak interpreter" or a
"non-expert" on his own ideas, because "interpretation" is more valid
than "intent"?
Those who appear bent on serving a platter of nothing but
"interpretation" caution against a platter of "intent" where what one
person says is the end of the discussion. Both of these are not only
problematic, they are artificial and emblematic of the S/O split
Pirsig illuminates.
In short, some offer only a choice between "papal bulls" and
subjective "interpretations" as the only possible paths we can take,
but in reality neither are valid descriptions of the way meaning is
actually negotiated, and how ideas evolve. What do you offer? Do you
agree with me? Disagree?
"In fact, when proposed that I could perhaps interpret ZMM and Lila
in a way different from some, this was also met with
incredulity. Any good book has multiple interpretations, and nobody
has rights to the correct interpretation." (Marsha)
In your above statement, for example, I think a sentiment like "it's
all interpretation" is readily evident. In a world where nobody has
rights to the correct interpretation, please tell me how Ron's
"interpretation" of Pirsig's MOQ supporting rape and torture would be
dismissed?
[Marsha]
You seem to want logic when it suits you, and allow for paradox when
that is advantageous.
[Arlo]
Well I am not even sure how "paradox" is a part of this particular
discussion on "interpretation", but this is another false dichotomy.
Logic does not exist apart from paradox, I never separate out the
two. I don't "allow for paradox", paradox is inherent in all
representational systems, including language and "logic".
But I think you are confusing "paradox" with poor arguments, faulty
reasoning and inconsistent statements. I do NOT condemn
"interpretative legitimacy" out of any sort of "paradoxical" nature,
I condemn it because it is a largely incoherent view that rests on
faulty s/o assumptions.
"Paradox" is not an excuse for "anything goes", if that is what you
are implying.
[Marsha]
If you want me to be Lucy, show up with 2 dozen yellow roses and take
me for a ride on your Harley. In exchange I'l moan into your ear
"I'm Lucy, I'm Lucy" as long as you want.
[Arlo]
I don't understand your Lucy reference. The Beatles song? Or is this
a vernacular allusion to Aphrodite or Shakti? An alliterative play on Lila?
[Marsha]
But I am not going to play your silly word games.
[Arlo]
Well considering I just spent three replies having to respond to
accusations of maliciously quoting you, after asking you repeatedly
for substantive comments and not evasive accusations, I'd say that
there is a pretty funny statement.
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
