Hello Arlo, I like you and I'm not at all trying to pick a fight, but your thread has left an entre - an opening. I just have a few thoughts and tonight feel bold enough to see if I can get away with expressing them. I feel very heavily censored here. I guess the only reason I still bother to read the posts is because of the mental exercise and enjoyment I might take in constructing the reply I would like to have written.
I disagree with your interpretation of Bo's interpretation. I think all interpretations that are well and honestly made are valid, at the very least to the person in good faith making them. My true and honest opinion is that Bo's interpretation was never grasped by many. It is easy to make fun of that which you do not understand, and I certainly put myself in that camp too, though pertaining to different subjects. As to Pirsig, when any author releases his work onto the world it is no longer his. It becomes the property of the planet. His chance to control the message ended with the final page. For good or ill, ideas released into the wild are subject to evaluation and interpretation by any and all eager minds. A writer secure in his words is only pleased by the interest, not threatened. The author does not require your vigilance at restraining the message, and it is insulting to him to attempt it. The louder the acolytes object to creativity, the more they diminish the author. Is his message so weak and so subject to misinterpretation that it requires you few here to marshal the message? How silly. The only message you have the authority to convey is your own. The biggest stumbling block to open communication here seems to be the many years of accumulated personal insults and rigid inflexibility. The true exchange of Ideas was stifled long ago, then codified. This is sad. Not at all like the early days, and not at all your fault, either, just in case you think I'm trying to cast aspersions. I suppose there's really no form of degeneracy this could have devolved into other than the one we see. This has become a very static place. I miss Bodvar Skutvik and I think you do to. You did, after all, bring him up. Best, Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arlo Bensinger Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.) [Marsha] This sentence was not mine, but a part of an Atwood quote. - See, already you misinterpret for your own benefit. Not playing... [Arlo] I expected your typical bombast of denials and evasions, no surprise there. You are correct, though, although I had no malicious motive to ascribe this quote to you, it was indeed Atwood's words, I merely selected it as indicative of the theme of your post. I am guilty of this horrible crime, and will summarily beat myself with a stick for three days and three nights. [Marsha] In this statement the validity of your charge that "In Marsha's and Mark's world, Ron's "interpretation" that Pirsig supports rape and torture is just as valid as any others" is an assumed (unproven) premise, and your conclusion doesn't follow [Arlo] It certainly does follow, despite your attempt to warp the logic, that in a world where "intepretation" is all that matters for validity, we have no way of parsing out anything from the intent of author. In following Bo's inane "Pirsig is a weak interpreter of Pirsig", we have Mark saying that Pirsig is not an expert on his own ideas. I understand that the only thread being held onto here is the one of interpretative legitimacy, and I understand why you'd post five or six replies to my comments say "not playing" (which was good for a laugh on this grey morning), its the same type of poor rhetoric one has to use to move the away from areas that highlights the absurdities of the things one says. [Marsha] ACTUALLY, I do think RMP is an expert on his own ideas. I would not dismiss his protests, and actually would love to hear them. [Arlo] I'm glad to hear it, but this is simply empty rhetoric, when Pirsig has denied your one "interpretation" you continue to act as if nothing was said. You continue to search for isolated utterances that, despite what he has said, can be twisted to fit your "interpretation". So you'll forgive me if such a claim on your part is ludicrous. [Marsha] Your ideas, on the other hand, of what RMP might protest I can dismiss because you have no direct access to RMPs thoughts. [Arlo] This is the sort of head-in-sand nonsense that pretty much demonstrates my point about "interpretative legitimacy". I have never had any problem disagreeing with Pirsig, and when I do I am vocal and clear about it. Its a nice attempt at evasion, but it doesn't hold water. Why is it, oddly, that the very people who champion "interpretative legitimacy" tend to be the same ones who are happy Pirsig is no longer involved in the dialogue? Every time in the past I have said that, yes, I agree that more dialogue with Pirsig would be a good thing, its the people who mostly share your interpretation that think his involvement in discussing his own ideas would be a bad thing. In any event, the idea that "it's all interpretation" is absurd. And unlike you, unless you make some substantive argument or point in your replies, I won't respond to your nonsense any longer. 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
