Hello everyone On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [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: I am going by the dictionary definition of speak: 5. to make a statement in written or printed words. 6. to communicate, signify, or disclose by any means; convey significance. [dictionary.com] Dan comments: I understand your usage of speak is valid as well. But what you seem to be denying is that it is acceptable to use "the MOQ speaks" and make oneself understood, unless the person being spoken to is being purposefully obtuse. > > [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: Now, you are restating my sentence in a way that renders the meaning rather useless and silly. We all express our ideas... how else are we to get them across? > > [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 thought I explained that quite adequately, though I see you've taken the liberty of excising that from your reply. I get the sense you are more interested in continuing to find fault any way you can rather than moving towards a mutually acceptably agreement. > > [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: I am constantly interpreting my ideas. If I didn't, they would never grow and evolve, but rather stay rigid things that resist change. And no, I don't 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: Again, you are restating my comments without regard to the context that I set up. You've excised that bit from your reply. This seems to be a recurring theme with you. Basically, you've turned my statement into gibberish. > > [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? Dan: By staying consistent with the framework of the MOQ. >Arlo: > Or is the "proper and right way" open to interpretation as well? Do we > interpret what this "proper and right way" is? Dan: You already know that, Arlo. What is the proper and right way to cook a meal? What is the proper and right way to treat your children? What is the proper and right way to ride a motorcycle? You know all this. And you know the proper and right way to interpret the MOQ. We all interpret our experiences in our own ways but these experiences also correspond to right and wrong. No one needs to tell you that. Why are you asking such silly questions? > > [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. Dan: Well, I am sorry, Arlo. You'll have to forgive my feeble grasp of the language. >Arlo: > 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: I suppose that is the problem we are having here. You seem intent on taking my comments out of context, restating them in ways that make no sense, and then concluding I am wrong. And I am rapidly becoming at a loss for words. > > [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: Of course it is. What is a restatement but a deviation from what has already been said? I don't care to diavate from the four levels but Joe has. He has restated the four levels as seven, following the musical scale. Now, I may not agree with his restatement, but for him, it works better. > > [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. Dan: I would say that he interpreted my question and modified his response to accomodate it. >Arlo: > 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: So RMP can restate the MOQ, but he isn't allowed to interpret it. Huh. And just how is he to restate something he cannot interpret? Yes Arlo, you are making sense now. (wink, wink) > > [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". Dan: No. We all interpret our experience, all the time. There is no "meta-narrative" that we interptret, however. That is why experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous within the MOQ. 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
