Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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.
Dan: Then, I am not sure why you feel it is better to state: "Robert Pirsig says" rather than "the MOQ says." If the MOQ is, as you say, an interpretation of Quality, then doesn't it stand apart from Robert Pirsig? What I mean to say is, the MOQ is an idea. It is static intellectual quality that stands or falls on its own. We all interpret the MOQ, as an interpretation of Quality, the same way that Robert Pirsig interprets it. The fact that he is the originator of the idea lends his interpretation a higher sense of value than someone like me. I respect that. But I still don't see why it is better to state: Robert Pirsig says rather than the MOQ says. >Arlo: > This is NOT saying that all interpretations of Pirsig are equally valid, but > that all our worldviews are "interpretations" of Experience or Quality. Dan: Right. I agree. > > [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: Well, this is why I didn't use "representation" but rather interpretation. You changed my wording. And I was asking the question just to be sure of what you were saying. You seem to imply that the terms interpretation and representation are the same. I don't believe they are. And I take it you agree. > > [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: I disagree. I think it is entirely correct to say Robert Pirsig can interpret the MOQ. Again, he offered his interpretations of the MOQ in LILA'S CHILD and again in Anthony McWatt's work. The MOQ may well be his interpretion of Quality, but there is no reason why he cannot interpret the MOQ. > > [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: I tend to disagree. An interpretation is based upon not only the MOQ but upon the life experience of the person doing the interpreting. If a person has very definite pre-conceived notions of reality, those notions can be nearly unshakable. In that case, the MOQ may not make sense to them. It wouldn't speak to them. In any case, if that person were to restate the MOQ, what they restated wouldn't correspond to the MOQ proper. And that is perhaps the key... there is a proper and right way to interpret the MOQ. In order to see that, though, a person has to be open to that interpretation and not closed on account of coveting their own pre-conceived notions. > > [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. Dan: Yes, if the restatement is better, then it adds to the MOQ even though it may deviate from Robert Pirsig's ideas. I recall (while working on LILA'S CHILD) asking Mr Pirsig a question about Dynamic Quality. It seemed to me that he was saying Dynamic Quality is always positive. He responded that, yes, it wasn't a good idea to say it was always positive. It was better to say Dynamic Quality is "not this, not that." I wouldn't presume to say I changed his mind, but his response changed my own interpretation of the MOQ for the better, and perhaps it helped others understand it better too. I don't know. So, in conclusion, when we add to the MOQ, it is better. But when we take away from it by misinterpreting it in ways that the author never intended, then we are not making it better. We are merely contributing to confusion. >Arlo: > 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". Dan: I don't think so, as I've explained above. There is nothing wrong with bettering the MOQ as long as we do just that, and not take away from it by contributing to contradiction and confusion. Thank you, Dan 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
