[MD] [Bulk] Re: MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
Perhaps next time I will provide posts with a disclaimer to help your
interpretation of my intent.

[Arlo]
At least you admit that my "interpretation" of what you said must be weighed
against your "intent". As interlocutors in a dialogue, we balance these roles
as we evolve, mutually, towards better understanding.

[Mark]
I have no ego invested in my opinions, and willingly change perception when I
come across something better.

[Arlo]
As it should be. But why is it that some think that their perceptual change
must be preceded by the revised authority of an "interpreted" figure?

I don't agree with Pirsig all the time, and isn't that a good thing? What would
it say about my ego if, instead of acknowledging disagreement, I insisted upon
saying that Bob "meant to say" what I think?

I think my biggest frustration here is the refusal to admit disagreement, as if
aligning with the authority of a voice provides all the legitimacy an "idea"
needs. 

[Mark]
So feel free to present better interpretations, I will not take it personally.

[Arlo]
Are my ideas "better" or more legitimate if I tell you they are what Pirsig
really meant to say, than if I said they are mine?

Why should I present "interpretations", aren't my own ideas good enough for you?