[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
It is not my intention to fight and certainly I expressed that in my post.

[Arlo]
Well I took your use of "divined" and scare quotes around "mistake" 
to be fightin' words. Sorry if that was in error.

[Mark]
While you do not bend over backwards to prove what Pirsig meant, you 
do have a personal interpretation of what it is.

[Arlo]
No, I do not. I have personal ideas that germinate from Pirsig's 
words, but I clearly know what he said and what I am saying in 
return. This is not an "interpretation" of his words, it is 
agreement/refutation.

[Mark]
This is why I state that if dmb has THE interpretation, he 
should post it for the rest of us.

[Arlo]
Clearly I do not think there is a "THE" anything. There are Pirsig's 
ideas and there are mine, yours, etc. It is not "an interpretation" 
of the MOQ to claim it is theistic, it is a disagreement with 
Pirsig's ideas. As I said, when Pirsig wrote "The MOQ says..." he was 
using a narrative device to avoid saying "I, Robert Pirsig, say...". 
As such, when I read "THE MOQ", I read "Robert Pirsig's ideas".

This is not to say that ONLY Pirsig's ideas are relevant. This is why 
I prefer "A MOQ", as it separates out your and my ideas from Pirsig's.

Example. It is not "an interpretation of the One True MOQ" to claim 
it is theistic. Pirsig's MOQ is, as he says, anti-theistic. YOUR MOQ, 
or rather your ideas that may derive from Pirsig, is a MOQ that is 
theistic. Instead of wasting time claiming which "interpretation" is 
right, you can argue why your ideas are better. And, I'll add that 
"interpretation" leaves the door open from anything and everything 
that anyone wants to say Pirsig meant is equally valid. "Hey, its my 
interpretation that the MOQ is pro-pedophilia. What? Well, my 
interpretation is just as valid as yours. Pirsig said otherwise? 
Well, he is just a weak interpreter of his ideas and can be 
discounted, you 'in the box apostle' you".