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

[MarshaV]

On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Arlo's rhetoric]
>  
> 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.


Marsha asks: 
 
Do you have a source for ther quote "it's all interpretation"?   I never made such a statement.    


 
 
 
___