[MD] Step One

[118]

Mark said to dmb:
>
> My opinion is that once a book is written in the fictional realm, the
author
> releases himself from the character.  The reader then interprets the
> character as he sees fit.  In this way, a character continues to grow.
 So,
> I suppose it doesn't really matter what RMP meant, he has no control over
> what the character becomes.  The character takes on a life of its own
which
> is neither correct or incorrect.  One can read a book many different ways,
I
> wish there weren't so many books to read!  I have returned to ZMM over the
> years for a reread, and find something new which jibes with what I have
> learned over that time.  Intentional or not, it doesn't really matter.  I
> love poetry for that reason, it always seems to fit the mood.

dmb says:
While it's certainly true that each reader brings something and there are
many ways to interpret the text, the author's intended meaning is a very
real factor too and every interpretation is constrained by the text to some
extent. The writer and the reader are not the only factors but they
practically define each other. Each function is literally meaningless
without the other.

The philosophy of art course I took was essentially a parade of mutually
exclusive interpretive theories. Some said it was all about the author's
intent. Some declared the death of the author and put the whole thing on the
reader, although they were proud to have published such theories and didn't
feel dead when they were cashing their royalty checks. Some said it was all
about the cultural context or the means of material production. Commie Lit
Crit, oh my! It was a frustrating semester because every theory seemed
ridiculously narrow or myopic. I don't know how to add them all up in some
grand synthesis but it seems pretty clear that they all make some important
point. Each one can go into a toolbox. There are different kinds of books
and different kinds of purposes for the reader, so why not have a diverse
set of interpretive tools? And I want to use that analogy because
interpretation is a skill and like the motorcycle mechanic, it demands a
certain respect for the precisi
 on parts you're working on.

Surely there are interpreters who are the literary equivalent of those
careless mechanics who punched a hole through Pirsig's cover plate. The
unskilled application of the wrong tool. Bam! Major damage.


Not that you asked.

Mark replies:
Hi David,

Your point is well taken.  Any allegory is is open for interpretation.
 Whether RMP intended ZMM or Lila to be such, I don't know.

Since you opened the window, I have something to ask on the growth of MOQ.
 We live in an unprecedented age which through technology allows the rapid
communication of people from all over.  The computer provides some anonymity
and freedom of expression.  It levels the playing field for the individual
and helps remove the authority of the leader or corporation.  As such  it is
a big swamp full of opinion and requires some patrolling to enhance certain
sites.  But it is an ideal medium for the propagation of ideas, something
which Plato or Christ did not have.  I am in the camp which believes
Christianity was hijacked by politics and would have turned out much
differently if the internet had been available.  Having said that, there is
still nothing like face to face interaction in a hostile environment to
develop ideas.  A great environment for a new kinds of philosophies which
captures the modern age.  The moniker of New Age philosophy is full of
baggage, but new philosophies based on accepted rules can also grow rapidly.

So, in the context of skilled interpreters, what is the mechanism by which
MOQ is crystalizing and growing?  Certainly there should be boundaries or
rules of engagement which encompass the direction, like the DNA of a seed
defines direction for the shape of the tree.  Such boundaries may be
provided by the original manuscript or seed.  There are many ways to climb
the mountain of Quality, one face may require different tools than the
other, kind of like when Phaedrus met Poincare (I think it was Poincare).
 What are these boundaries?  When does speculation on MOQ fall outside these
boundaries and become not fit to use that label?  I know these things are
probably posted, and being the rebel I am I have not taken the time to read
them.  What role does the forum, generously maintained by Horse, play in
this?

Regards,
Mark