[Dan] BTW, I thought we were done with this SOM as intellect bullshit. Did you not get Horse's memo?
[Arlo] The topic is up, my fault, as a derivative of my argumentation against the idea that "its all interpretation" (not a quote of anyone, a summation of ideas expressed). I've been trying to keep it not about Bo's ideas in particular, but about the ideas of "interpretation" in general, and how the views about "interpretation" expressed are those reflecting the very subjectivism Pirsig had sought to overcome. And, I think broadly, several seem to suggest that evolution of ideas comes from "reinterpreting" what someone has said, that Pirsig's ideas will have more strength if we subsequently reassess what he "meant to say", where I feel strongly that ideas evolve first through clarity and then through agreement and disagreement, and finally into something new. Pirsig, for example, did not seek to "reinterpret" what Aristotle said, he first sought to understand it, and then finding disagreement he formulated something new. He did not make Aristotle a weak-interpreter of Aristotle, nor did he claim Aristotle's disagreement with him only evidenced that Aristotle was not an expert on Aristotle's ideas. Some seem to suggest that unless we follow THAT path, a MOQ will not evolve. I suggest precisely the opposite. Please don't take this out on Mary, she has been the only one of the "interpretation supporters" (if you will) to respond with civility and substance. 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
