Marsha: Did you miss my statement "And I am not in the mood to be on the defensive." THE END...
___ On Mar 31, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [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 ___ 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
