Hey Erin,
You asked: "Do you think we are eliminating something from this discussion
by
ignoring verbs, or am I missing something?"
It's by including all things and eliminating nothing that we miss
everything.
Did you ever watch 'the Smurfs' when you were younger? Remember how the
word 'smurf' was this all purpose noun/verb/adjective that could fit into
any context whatsoever (I'm smurfing down to the smurfy store to get some
smurfy-smurf berries. Then I'll smurf them up for dinner, and smurf over
all of my smurfy-friends for the smurfiest party you've ever smurfed).
While any smurf could clearly decode this thought, us humans were left,
episode after episode, to only guess at what our little blue friends were
smurfing about... I mean, talking about. The word's character as a referent
for any meaning of any type, is exactly what deprives of it any value.
By the time the members of this forum gets through with the definition
of the word 'good', it's going to be the metaphysical equivalent of
'smurfy'. We'll give the word so much meaning, it will mean nothing at all.
(This Good(n) isn't really any good(adj) if we can just good(v?) it into a
thought any time we think it good's(v?) good(adj?/n?... whatever).
Good is a noun, said Pirsig... though it's usually an adjective... and
now, maybe a verb....???
Squonk wrote: "A switch to a verb based language would reinforce the
importance of recognizing that all structures are transient and in a process
of evolution."
I've never read this David Bohm... But how could anything
simultaneously be both 'transient' and 'in a process of evolution'. That's
like saying 'new and improved'... If it's 'new', how can be it possibly be
'improved'??? It can only be one or the other.
Likewise, 'transient' means 'to be only temporarily in existence', but
for something to evolve, it has
to survive long enough to require adaptation to changes in its environment
and long enough to implement those changes. In any context (from linguistic
to biological to whatever), the words 'evolutionary process' seems to imply
survival for a great length of time, the exact opposite of transience.
And this is to say nothing of the fact that 'nouns' don't necessarily
imply any more permanence than 'verbs' do anyway... 'Nouns' are people,
places, or things.... Species come and go... Planets and land masses erode
and build-up over and over again... Nothing lasts...... So where are all
these 'permanent nouns' anyway?
it's all good(adj)... or... Good is it all(n).... or... it goods(v?)....
Pick your favorite,
rick(n)
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST