Hi Arlo, I find your perspective on what I wrote interesting. There is a sense of protection, and outrage which must have been building up waiting to let loose. Get a grip.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:36 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Marsha] > The act of reading a text is like playing music and listening to it at the > same > time, and the reader becomes his own interpreter. > > [Mark] > That is, that he had no control over the protagonist once the book was > released. In fact, he was no longer an expert on the subject, we all were. > > [Arlo] > Its funny to me that those who diverge the most from what an author has > repeatedly said, are those that argue loudest that what the author said is > irrelevant, but what they want to think he said is all that matters. [Mark] If anybody is diverging from Pirsig, it is you Arlo. My statements are consistent with MoQ, and you know it. > > That meaning is negotiated, that texts are deconstructed and reconstructed > historically, that dialogue is an interplay of intent and interpretation, is > really not much of a serious contention any longer. Derrida instigated and > subsequent postmodernists have been developing and refining theories of > "interpretation" is some form or another for decades. [Mark] Hmmm. intent and interpretation. I kind of like that analogy. Do we interpret something with intent, or is our intent an interpretation? It certainly points to dynamic quality. Would you prefer a static world of dogma and submission? Symbols themselves are interpretations and not the real thing, at least according to Pirsig. Perhaps you disagree. If so, why? Interpretation has been around for thousands upon thousands of years back to the times of the Lemurians. Read your history book, it is full of interpretations. Where can you find something written that is not an interpretation without intent. Where can you find an intent that is not interpreted. Even the samurais interpreted their intent. > > The problem is, the form of "interpretation" being pushed here is simply good > old fashion subjectivism (by denying and dismissing "intent", which would > constitute a dialogue), whatever I think someone meant is all that's > important. > And when the protagonist argues his intent was different, he can be summarily > dismissed as not an "expert" on his own ideas. [Mark] Well, Arlo, it would appear that there may be subjectivism with intent, as well as dynamic intent at subjectivism. Is subjectivism at all tied with experience? Are you against the postulates of experience as presented by Pirsig.? If so, why? If not, then is meaning an objective platform that has nothing to do with experience? Why don't you accept personal experience as a valid form of reality? > > This is precisely the sort of inane nonsense that had Bo claiming Pirsig was a > "weak interpreter" of Pirsig's ideas. And at this point we should dust off > Ron's "interpretation" that Pirsig's MOQ supports rape and torture. Hey, why > not, if that's how he "interprets" it, that's all that matters. [Mark] Oh, I get it, this is all about Bo. Gee, don't you like Bo? Your interpretation of "us" fellow MoQ contributors is pretty interesting. How did you come by this interpretation? Just lay back on the couch and tell me all about it. You just stated that you support the end to subjectivism through experience, and that you want to create a reality which is confined to Static values. It seems that Ron is tame compared to that. > > And this is all part of the stuckness on "interpretative legitimacy", that the > validity of what one says can't be questioned because any and all > "interpretations" are just as valid. [Mark] The interpretations that most agree on are usually the ones that survive. Or perhaps you do not believe in evolution as Pirsig presents it. What is your antidote to evolution? You interpretation is far from valid, sorry. Are you a creationist or something. This is the wrong forum for preaching such dogma. There are a few sites I could direct you to though. I am directly questioning your validity even if you say that I shouldn't. I don't think it is of high quality, and will eventually die out, at least by Dec 21 of next year. Then you will experience a rebirth. > > It gives two choices, the same problem of SOM, one between "soliloquy" and > "interpretation", the same problem that confounded initial deconstructionists > of everything being either (1) objective words from on high (what they were > rebelling against) or (2) subjective thoughts about whatever "meaning" you > want > to give something (their solution). [Mark] Arlo, are you deconstructing the deconstructionists? I'm afraid they beat you to it. Is this a case of (1) Preaching the truth from some pulpit (2) being free to discover meaning for oneself. If you really want authoritarianism, then you are in the right country, since that is where we are headed. Keep up the good work and gather some more followers, you may need them if people start thinking for themselves. > > Sound familiar? It should. Its about as S/O mired as you can get. [Mark] Now hold on Arlo. The dogma you are spouting is a little more mired in S/O. You keep pointing at things that don't exist outside of your head. Think more about Quality, that is the purpose of this forum. > > Luckily, other postmodern thinkers, like Bahktin, Bourdieu, Giddens, and many > others, instead place "interpretation" inside a dialogue alongside "intent", > and "meaning" becomes more than "my interpretation" but an ongoing dialogue > where interlocutors intend-interpret meaning as they clarify and expand their > ideas. [Mark] Well, it appears that Arlo has the meaning. Did you have to travel far to get it? How much did it cost you. What color is it? I hope it fits, and just remember that it may just shrink in the washer. Whatever you do, don't pull that hanging thread, no telling what may unravel. Now your interpretation, well, now that you mention it, I can see that such a thing is not "yours", but comes from a much higher place. Are you from the Himalayas? Cool. > > In Marsha's and Mark's world, Ron's "interpretation" that Pirsig supports rape > and torture is just as valid as any others, and should Pirsig protest he can > be > dismissed as not being an expert on his own ideas. [Mark] In Arlo's world everybody who does not agree with him should be placed in the square and subjected to public ridicule until they recant. Gee, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Well, I guess nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, especially in this forum. In Arlo's world if somebody says they are feeling hungry, he accuses them of being cannibals. In Arlo's world, saying "bubble, bubble" means that you support witchcraft, especially the kind that kills babies and feed them to frogs. In Arlo's world questioning a sentence from Lila is tantamount to trying to shoot Mother Teresa, again. What ever happened to moderation in conjectures? I had better not tell him I don't like turnips, no telling what that means to him, he might call me a KKK racist. > > In a better world, "meaning" is negotiated and refined as intent and > interpretation play off each other over time. In this world, Pirsig's > protestations about his intent WOULD matter, and certain "interpretations" > would be seen as disagreements and divergences from "intent". [Mark] OK, so now you want to negotiate. OK, what'll you give me for this dynamic watch? It's a chinese watch by the way. By the way, It appears your intent is quite open despite Pirsig's protestations about HIS intent. No need to look for enlightenment there, pretty cut and dried. Ever tried writing an instruction manual? > > We cannot, in other words, remove one utterance from the flow of a dialogue > and > claim that it exists in an intent-free vacuum, one has to consider instead the > dialogue, which includes both intent AND interpretation, back and forth and > back and forth, refining and evolving.... [Mark} REALLY??? Are you refining towards the static and evolving towards the dynamic? Yes, dialogue is important which is why I so appreciate your post, and, I didn't see any *meaningful* quotes which some like to throw like spears. And, in terms of you interpreting my intent, you have no idea what my scheming mind is thinking of now. HAH HAH HAH! Thanks for the well written prose! Mark > > > > > > 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
