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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
This sentence was not mine, but a part of an Atwood quote.  -  See, 
already you misinterpret for your own benefit.  Not playing...

[Arlo]
I expected your typical bombast of denials and evasions, no surprise 
there. You are correct, though, although I had no malicious motive to 
ascribe this quote to you, it was indeed Atwood's words, I merely 
selected it as indicative of the theme of your post. I am guilty of 
this horrible crime, and will summarily beat myself with a stick for 
three days and three nights.

[Marsha]
In this statement the validity of your charge that "In Marsha's and 
Mark's world, Ron's "interpretation" that Pirsig supports rape and 
torture is just as valid as any others" is an assumed (unproven) 
premise, and your conclusion doesn't follow

[Arlo]
It certainly does follow, despite your attempt to warp the logic, 
that in a world where "intepretation" is all that matters for 
validity, we have no way of parsing out anything from the intent of 
author. In following Bo's inane "Pirsig is a weak interpreter of 
Pirsig", we have Mark saying that Pirsig is not an expert on his own ideas.

I understand that the only thread being held onto here is the one of 
interpretative legitimacy, and I understand why you'd post five or 
six replies to my comments say "not playing" (which was good for a 
laugh on this grey morning), its the same type of poor rhetoric one 
has to use to move the away from areas that highlights the 
absurdities of the things one says.

[Marsha]
ACTUALLY, I do think RMP is an expert on his own ideas.  I would not 
dismiss his protests, and actually would love to hear them.

[Arlo]
I'm glad to hear it, but this is simply empty rhetoric, when Pirsig 
has denied your one "interpretation" you continue to act as if 
nothing was said. You continue to search for isolated utterances 
that, despite what he has said, can be twisted to fit your 
"interpretation". So you'll forgive me if such a claim on your part 
is ludicrous.

[Marsha]
Your ideas, on the other hand, of what RMP might protest I can 
dismiss because you have no direct access to RMPs thoughts.

[Arlo]
This is the sort of head-in-sand nonsense that pretty much 
demonstrates my point about "interpretative legitimacy". I have never 
had any problem disagreeing with Pirsig, and when I do I am vocal and 
clear about it. Its a nice attempt at evasion, but it doesn't hold water.

Why is it, oddly, that the very people who champion "interpretative 
legitimacy" tend to be the same ones who are happy Pirsig is no 
longer involved in the dialogue? Every time in the past I have said 
that, yes, I agree that more dialogue with Pirsig would be a good 
thing, its the people who mostly share your interpretation that think 
his involvement in discussing his own ideas would be a bad thing.

In any event, the idea that "it's all interpretation" is absurd.

And unlike you, unless you make some substantive argument or point in 
your replies, I won't respond to your nonsense any longer.