>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
Hey Rick,
That was a very smurfy answer. Simpsons, Smurfs...Should I put my Pirsig book
on the shelf and put on Cartoon network to get a better grasp of Smurfness?
"Art imitates Life but Life imitates T.V." Ani D. (sorry for any ex-g
flashbacks)
Erin
> 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
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