From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 16:19:38 BST
I think Matt is confusing a notion of 'absolute Truth' (which is
>Redemptive, and which all of Pirsig, Rorty, Wittgenstein and many others
>reject) with the idea of an accurate articulation of the authorial
>viewpoint. It seems to me that Pirsig wished to communicate certain ideas in
>his writings, and that it is therefore possible to have more or less
>accurate accounts of those ideas (and thereby to talk as if there IS a true
>account of what Pirsig is saying). To deny this is ultimately to deny any
>possibility of communication between different individuals, and is an
>argument that stands in close relation to the 'private language' argument
>that Wittgenstein deconstructs in his Investigations. In contrast to the
>post-modernists I do think there is such a thing as an authorial voice, and
>that it can be - more or less adequately - recovered.
>
Hi Sam,
I enjoyed and agreed with your summary. I just wanted to add one thing here.
I look at this way. I think there is an authorial voice too. Interpretations
of his work can vary from being very close to the author's intended meaning to
completely missing the mark. To not look for a 'true Pirsig' is not that
every interpretation is equal but more of a recognition that it is an
interpretation of the author's intended meaning. That you can't create an
interpretation and claim that's what Pirsig "truly" meant.
The only thing that i can call 'true Pirsig' is what written by him
P.S. I really would like to go into depth into the ending of LiLA.
To me there was a whole tone change to the book. I think I want to go back and
reread it before commenting though.
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT