[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?
[Arlo] Well, my words are an interpretation of experience, but they do not speak, I do. "On the Road" was Kerouac's interpretation of his experiences, but "On the Road" does not speak, it is what was spoken. [Dan] We all interpret the MOQ, as an interpretation of Quality, the same way that Robert Pirsig interprets it. [Arlo] Robert Pirsig does not "interpret" his ideas, he expresses them. "The MOQ" is his interpretation. It makes no sense to say "he interprets his interpretation", unless we are define every static pattern perceived as an "interpretation that we interpret". [Dan] 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. [Arlo] How do you see them as different, since in your wording I can't ascertain a distinction? [Dan] 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. [Arlo] He is not "interpreting" his ideas here, he is clarifying and explaining them. Do you have to interpret your ideas? Don't you know what they are? [Dan] The MOQ may well be his interpretation of Quality, but there is no reason why he cannot interpret the MOQ. [Arlo] You see what you just said? "The MOQ may well be his interpretation of Quality, but there is no reason why he cannot interpret 'his interpretation of Quality'". Do you have to interpret your interpretations? Do you then have to interpret the interpretations of your interpretations? [Dan] 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. [Arlo] If everything is an interpretation, how do we figure out this non-interpretive "proper and right way" to interpret? Or is the "proper and right way" open to interpretation as well? Do we interpret what this "proper and right way" is? [Dan] 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. [Arlo] This is really convoluted word use. What you mean is they have to be open to other people's interpretations, as their own "pre-conceived notions" would be their own interpretations. But since everyone interprets everything, how do you convey your interpretation without me interpreting it? [Dan] Yes, if the restatement is better, then it adds to the MOQ even though it may deviate from Robert Pirsig's ideas. [Arlo] If it deviates, its not a restatement. Can you restate "there are four static levels" in such a way that deviates from Pirsig's ideas? [Dan] 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. [Arlo] Right. He restated his ideas so that you better understood what he was saying. Isn't that much better than saying something like, 'he reinterpreted his interpretation so that your interpretation of his interpretation appealed to a non-interpretative degree of accuracy'? [Dan] But when we take away from it by misinterpreting it in ways that the author never intended, then we are not making it better. [Arlo] If everything is interpretation, how do you convey "misinterpretation"? There would have to be a meta-narrative, that was non-interpretative, that examined interpretations and determined what was a "misinterpretation". 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
