[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Ian said:
Hi Matt, not sure why you needed to give us that "lecture" on 
interpreting words and their intent in context - ie that doesn't seem 
contentious ? It didn't seem particularly related to Steve's point ?

Matt:
Well, it was related to Steve's meta-point about the relationship we 
have to Pirsig.  I felt like giving a "lecture" on reading because I think 
if we--all of us--thought more about these meta- things while we 
were relating to each other about Pirsig and philosophy in general, 
then perhaps we might change the form, and possibly the content, of 
what we say.  Given the state of the MD (as I felt it) at the point at 
which I sent the post (recently), I felt like this was the thing to say.  
I.e. it seemed like, while not being contentious, we might be 
occasionally violating its strictures.

For example, why didn't Dave say all of those neutral things about 
compassion and empathy in his expansion of the MoQ to Steve, and 
not me?  One answer might be because of how he perceives Steve 
as an interlocutor, and on the other hand how he perceives me.  The 
same can be said about Steve.  And the point I want to make is that 
there has got to be a better way of allowing _each other_ to better 
express the viewpoints we each individually have.  Because we _all_ 
have Pirsig's Ch. 26 blessing to avoid the cart of philosophology.  But 
how do we relate to each other's carts?

We, each of us, bring out of each other different sides of each other.  
Sometimes I get tired of people not being able to talk to each other.  
When that happens, the thing to do--it seems to me--is to start at the 
beginning, with principles of interpretation, the rules of the game of 
rationality.  You say what I said isn't "contentious," but when I started 
posting interpretations of Pirsig that were contentious in content, one 
of the things I was slammed for was my method, my interpretive 
principles.  The reason to reiterate these, whatever they are, isn't to 
bash each other again with one more weapon, but to try to start the 
conversation over.  That's what I've realized in my old age.

I've been here too long to think that the battles might never pause, 
and take time to reflect on themselves.  That is generally how 
interactions occur, but I'm too old now to think that we 
can't--if we wished--wipe our own memories, forgive the heat of the 
battle, and try and repair our distances and talk sanely and relevantly 
to each other.

Why did I say it?  How 'bout this Ian: because you weren't.  Because 
you're slogan tagged to each email wasn't, apparently, working.  
Because I felt like saying the thing we all ostensibly agree to explicitly 
in the idea that we might see some of our own recent actions cutting 
against its grain.

Matt