[Dan]
In our last discussion, you seemed to be saying all interpretions are equal.
[Arlo]
I was arguing against the idea of "interpretation" altogether.
[Dan]
Now, this is where I see you arguing for some sort of interpretive
legitimacy that stands above and beyond "what the MOQ is saying." It
was my point that the MOQ speaks to us...
[Arlo]
Pirsig spoke, we hear his words. We assimilate his words into our
unique socio-intellectual historical dialogue. We respond.
My point was that the word "interpretation" itself implies something
that stands "above and beyond" and all we are doing is merely
"interpreting" it. I have said that the only level I agree with the
use of this term is in that "the MOQ is Pirsig's interpretation of
Quality". As such, we all construct our own interpretations of
Quality, and our constructions include the dialogue we have with
Pirsig over his ideas.
This is NOT saying that all interpretations of Pirsig are equally
valid, but that all our worldviews are "interpretations" of
Experience or Quality.
[Dan]
So interpretations are actually representations?
[Arlo]
No, if you wanted to delve into some lite semiotics. I used the word
"representation" to contrast "interpretation".
"Your interpretations run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. And as
long as they do, they are not high quality representations of the MOQ."
In the above, high-quality "representations" are only those that
restate without deviation the thoughts of the author.
"Interpretations", by definition, are not the same.
[Dan]
But wouldn't that just be RMP doing the interpreting then? How is
that different than, say, dmb or Ant doing the interpreting?
[Arlo]
Pirsig does not "intepret" the MOQ, the MOQ is his "interpretation"
of Quality. All of us, by the very act of constructing symbolic ways
of coding experience, are "interpreting" this experience into
something symbolic.
[Dan]
Yes, I think there is a difference [between "restating" and "interpreting"].
[Arlo]
Which is why your call for "interpretations" to be non-contrary to
Pirsig's ideas are better seen as support for "representations" or
"restatements".
[Dan]
We all interpret the world according to our own individual
experiences, and that includes the MOQ. But there are high quality
intrepretations vs low quality interpretations of both the world and the MOQ.
Is that what you're asking?
[Arlo]
Partially. If your criteria for "high quality interpretation" of the
MOQ is "non-contrary to Pirsig", then this is actually support for
restatements NOT interpretations.
Interpretation is, by definition, additive and/or diminuative, or in
some way involves functional variance to what is being interpreted.
That is why "an interpretation of Pirsig's ideas" semantically can
involve deviation from his meaning, and this deviation (in the form
of disagreement) can be valued independently of Pirsig's ideas.
What I am pointing at is that you are the one bringing in the concept
of "interpreting the MOQ" but then trying to restrict it to define
valid "interpretations" as those that are only "representational".
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
