Hi Arlo,
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:36 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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 now]
Yes, I do admit that. My intent is either benign, or with the
development of MoQ at its forefront. For personal reasons, this is
much more than just a hobby or pastime. Now that you know my intent,
your interpretation may be facilitated.
>
> [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?
[Mark now]
Yes, I agree with that. What we post here is our own opinions. Many
seem to think that if they place a quote in by Pirsig, that it makes
their opinion more weighty. It is still their opinion. As I have
said to dmb, it is possible to pick and choose any possible opinion
out of Lila that one wants. My interpretation of MoQ's use in
explaining certain phenomenon (such as the Victorian Age) does not
coincide necessarily with Pirsig's. I was working on this metaphysics
long before Lila, so that may explain why. However, the overall
message that I have is the same as Pirsig's as far as I can tell.
>
> 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 now]
I agree completely. We are discussing what thoughts were evoked by
ZMM and Lila. Our thoughts do not have to coincide with any
established dogma. We cannot be wrong with our thoughts. My thoughts
on the subject change all the time. Does that mean I was wrong
before? No, I just changed my mind.
>
> [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?
[Mark now]
No, I think some of your ideas are pretty cool just coming from you.
>
> Why should I present "interpretations", aren't my own ideas good enough for
> you?
[Mark now]
Well, my understanding of this forum is that we discuss what we think
of MoQ. As such, we are presenting our interpretations of that
subject. Perhaps you and I do not have the same interpretation of
interpretations. For me, an interpretation is a different way of
stating what was read. It doesn't make sense to just provide a quote,
I can find those in the book. I am interested in what people think,
not in their proclaimed adherence to the true meaning of the book.
>
>
> 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
