[Dan] But what you seem to be denying is that it is acceptable to use "the MOQ speaks" and make oneself understood...
[Arlo] No, Dan. As I said repeatedly, I am perfectly okay with this use of rhetorical convention. But what you seem to be doing is moving beyond that into a realm where "the MOQ" speaks independently of, say, human voices. I've asked you several times for an example of something that "the MOQ" has said that neither you, me, Pirsig, nor anyone else has said. "The MOQ" does not say that "there are four static levels", Robert Pirsig has said this. What I am arguing against is the notion that there is this "the MOQ" sitting out there speaking and you, me, Pirsig and everyone else is just "interpreting" what this "MOQ" is saying. For example, if I said "the MOQ says there are five static levels", and you respond by showing me a quote from a book authored by Pirsig that says there are four, then you are using something Pirsig said to tell me what the MOQ says. This is simply a language morass. Instead, I say, its clearer for me to say "*I* say there are five static levels", and you to respond with "Pirsig says there are four, and I agree with him", and then we can argue about which is a better metaphysics; one that has five or one that has four static levels. Because you see, in the end you are settling disputes about "what the MOQ says" by appealing to things Pirsig has said. You can't point to a single instance of something "the MOQ has said" that Pirsig (or me, or you, or Ant or anyone else) has said. I appreciate you like the poetry of the convention, the irony is that you are arguing against the "interpretivist" position per se, but supporting the very argument that gives their position validity. [Dan] I am constantly interpreting my ideas. [Arlo] Your ideas are your interpretations. You don't interpret them. That makes the word nonsensical at best. If you don't understand your ideas so that you'd need them interpreted, then something is wrong. "The MOQ" is Pirsig's interpretation of Quality. He doesn't need to interpret his interpretation. I am sure he knows what it is. [Dan] If I didn't, they would never grow and evolve... [Arlo] Are you suggesting that "interpretation" is the only means for an idea to evolve and grow?? I am constantly refining my ideas, changing my mind, adding new things, removing things that no longer work, but I am not "interpreting" my ideas, I know what they are. Its like I'd say, "there are four static levels" and then ask "now, how can I interpret that?" Just silly. [Dan] Basically, you've turned my statement into gibberish. [Arlo] Well, yeah, because that is what it was. All I did was make a simple substitution from the first sentence to the second. You tell me how this is wrong. [Dan previously] "The MOQ may well be his interpretation of Quality, but there is no reason why he cannot interpret The MOQ". "The MOQ may well be his interpretation of Quality, but there is no reason why he cannot interpret 'his interpretation of Quality'". [Arlo had asked] 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] I am astounded you don't see this. If everything is an interpretation, how do I know I am "consistent with the framework"? If you say I am not, then isn't that just YOUR interpretation? Please try to see this, if nothing else, you are saying here that there is a consistency ABOVE interpretation that determines any given interpretation's validity. But, since everything is an interpretation, then this consistency is open to interpretation as well. [Dan] And you know the proper and right way to interpret the MOQ. [Arlo] It seems to me that there is disagreement on this accord. What if you and I differ on "the proper and right way to interpret the MOQ"? Since you are using the "no one needs to tell you these things" argument, then how can you say that Bo's "proper and right way" is wrong? What are you appealing to to demonstrate that his way to interpret is wrong but your way is right? [Dan] 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. [Arlo] Restatement are not deviations, they are simply using new words to express the same meaning. Joe is disagreeing with Pirsig and offering new ideas based on Joe's interpretation of experience. You are agreeing with Pirsig and restating his ideas (about there being four levels). Why is that so hard for you to see? [Dan] So RMP can restate the MOQ, but he isn't allowed to interpret it. Huh. [Arlo] Dan, THE MOQ IS HIS INTERPRETATION. He doesn't need to interpret his interpretation, he doesn't need to interpret his own ideas, he knows what they are. [Dan] And just how is he to restate something he cannot interpret? Yes Arlo, you are making sense now. (wink, wink) [Arlo] He doesn't need to interpret his own ideas! If you do, if you seriously need to interpret your ideas to know what they say, then I think the problem is on your end. Again, HIS IDEAS ARE HIS INTERPRETATIONS. He does not "interpret" his ideas, his ideas are the result of the act of interpreting experience. [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. [Arlo] Of course we all interpret our experience, all the time. I've said that for several posts now. But our ideas are the result of this activity. Pirsig does not "interpret" the MOQ, the MOQ IS his interpretation (of experience). 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
