[DMB] I think you must be using a specialized notion of "interpretation". According to common sense and ordinary dictionary definitions a good interpretation is one that accurately reflects the meaning of the text.
[Arlo] I must be. Perhaps you can tell me what you see as a distinction, then, between a "restatement" and an "interpretation"? Because your statement above would seem to make them synonymous. A good "restatement" would be identical to a good "interpretation", in that they both do not deviate from the author's meaning or intention. [DMB] When that text is full of explicit statements, examples and explanations, as Prisig's books are, I think it's safe to assume that the author wanted to be clearly understood by his readers. [Arlo] I've rarely come across authors who did not want to be clearly understood. This is why I think we need to take author's at their word, and one reason why I found the argument that makes an author a "weak interpreter" of his own ideas quite idiotic. [DMB] I don't think we have to believe there is one objectively true interpretation to assert this common sense notion. [Arlo] This contradicts what you say above. I am not sure how there can be multiple valid "interpretations" if validity demands zero deviation from an author's meaning or intent. Oh sure, it can be restated in many ways, and have different lights shown on it, but how many ways can you "interpret" the statement "there are four static levels" validly? [DMB] I don't think that we are hindered at all by the fact that every reader is an interpreter. [Arlo] I don't know, I don't try to "interpret" Pirsig, I try to listen to what he said. As for the "every reader an interpreter", well yes in that whatever worldview we construct is an interpretation of our experience, yes, but if you move down into the arena that everything is an interpretation, then casting "valid interpretations" as those that reflect intent is meaningless, as how could we ever know, since all our efforts to reach that are dependent on interpretation? You see where this goes. You can't have everything be "interpretation" and then set up criteria that would rely on non-interpretative accuracy to validate interpretations. 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
