[Joe] "I disagree with Pirsig" on this". Is Pirsig not allowed to change his mind?
[Arlo] Of course he is Joe, and the purpose of the dialogue is to present ideas and navigate/negotiate these meanings. But until I would hear back from Pirsig that he has considered my translation (to that verse) and has changed his mind on the topic, I have no desire or need to present my ideas as a deconstructionist 'interpretation' of what he really meant to say. I know what he said here, and I say something different. Plain. Simple. Honest. In fact, I'd argue that disagreement/recasting is the ground mechanism by which ideas evolve (um, you know, like Pirsig and most every other philosopher has done). Not over endless claims of 'interpretative authority', which are cyclical not evolutionary. You like music analogies, have you heard Mozart claim that his music was what Vivaldi really meant to write, if only he wasn't too stupid or timid to do so? He may have said he was inspired by Vivaldi, or disgusted by Vivaldi, or that he could write something better than Vivaldi, but not that he was interpreting Vivaldi the way Vivaldi really meant to be interpreted, he just didn't know any better. [Joe] What is logic? Does logic encapsulate the structure of truth? [Arlo] I can't answer this without some qualification, but of course the immediate answer would be "no, of course not". The qualification is that S/O logic thinks it encapsulates the truth (that it exists outside the reality it describes, a recurring S/O error several have made), whereas Pirsig understood this to be a fool's quest. But I think (as has been stated repeatedly) is that the goal should not be abandon logic or rationality, but to expand it. And that's my fourth post of the day. Hasta Mañana. 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
