[MD] Interpretive Legitimacy

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
No-one not even Mary (or Ron or Marsha or John, or whoever) is 
arguing for total subjectivism.

[Arlo]
Of course not, I think this has been part of my point, but the 
question (to them) I've posed is at what point does something cease 
being something we can ascribe to an author? How do we parse out, in 
other words, what has legitimacy and what does not?

Do you think, for example, its legitimate for me to claim that Pirsig 
"meant" to include non-humans in his S/I levels, despite his 
statement to the exact contrary? Do you NOT see the difference 
between my arguing that my idea is better (I believe it to be), and 
that Pirsig can't be counted on as an expert in what he "meant"?

[Ian]
I very much doubt Ron or anyone else's interpretation suggested MoQ 
"promotes" rape and torture. A straw man if ever I heard one (see 
motivation above.) Twisted Talk Radio rhetoric even...

[Arlo]
Well, duh. Ron was being sarcastic, but I think its a valid point. 
One has to draw a line somewhere, and as much you see to want to be 
wishy-washy about it, I think having that line as clear as possible 
HELPS advance a MOQ. Don't you? What possible benefit does it serve, 
in advancing Pirsig's ideas, to argue endless over whether he "meant" 
to say this, or "meant" to say that?

[Ian]
Deep breath - I don't need this argument -

[Arlo]
Then don't bother, Ian.

[Ian]
But the argument would not be one of subjective relativism - one of 
dealing with a (real or hypothetical) living situation. The 
legitimacy would be in the experience (and motivation dare I say) of 
the situation.

[Arlo]
Have you even read what I wrote? Really. Of COURSE the value is in 
the experience. I just got done saying to Mary, in the very post you 
replied to, that the value of her beliefs are all that really matter. 
The "legitimacy", if you will, for a view is whether or not it works 
for her, whether or not holds explanatory power for her. I don't 
dispute that. How could anyone? Why would anyone want to "destroy" 
that? Indeed, how could anyone destroy that?

But this is exactly my point, the legitimacy does NOT derive from 
"interpretative legitimacy", from it being "what the author meant to 
say". This is precisely why I've said that the incessant demand for 
interpretative legitimacy is invalid, that it does NOTHING, and 
certainly nothing for any evolution of Pirsig's ideas.

The "legitimacy" of an idea over time plays out if an idea is 
"better" than another idea. This is exactly why I've said that 
arguing "X is better than Y" is a perfectly valid argument. But this 
has not been the case, and instead has nearly exclusively been 
"Pirsig said X and not Y".

So I am not sure what your argumentative point was, Ian, but either 
you aren't reading my posts and are merely looking for something to 
argue, or I am not making myself clear. If its the latter, I apologize.