[Mark] Perhaps next time I will provide posts with a disclaimer to help your interpretation of my intent.
[Arlo] At least you admit that my "interpretation" of what you said must be weighed against your "intent". As interlocutors in a dialogue, we balance these roles as we evolve, mutually, towards better understanding. [Mark] I have no ego invested in my opinions, and willingly change perception when I come across something better. [Arlo] As it should be. But why is it that some think that their perceptual change must be preceded by the revised authority of an "interpreted" figure? I don't agree with Pirsig all the time, and isn't that a good thing? What would it say about my ego if, instead of acknowledging disagreement, I insisted upon saying that Bob "meant to say" what I think? I think my biggest frustration here is the refusal to admit disagreement, as if aligning with the authority of a voice provides all the legitimacy an "idea" needs. [Mark] So feel free to present better interpretations, I will not take it personally. [Arlo] Are my ideas "better" or more legitimate if I tell you they are what Pirsig really meant to say, than if I said they are mine? Why should I present "interpretations", aren't my own ideas good enough for you? 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
