From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 00:06:49 BST
>> I see three reasons not to use a different word. The first is, as Steve
>> says, the old words have an old value that has been wiped out by the
>> combined efforts of fundamentalists and secularists. To recover this old
>> value is to both recover and make them new.
>
> but then there is always a risk that the current meaning will be recovered in
> the feature once you have reverted the meaning to the original - too many
> layers, increasing the posibility of ambiguaty/missunderstaning, and context
> dependant meanings
>
>> The second is that there are no different words, or at least I can't
>> think of any. One method is to use foreign words (typically from
>> Sanskrit) but that raises different problems in miscommunication (like
>> treating "maya" as "illusion").
>
> the french government actually creates new french sounding words for new
> technologies like computers and astronaught
>
>> The third is political. Philosophy is all about redefining really basic
>> words, like "reality". That's what the MOQ is trying to do, for example.
>> This has social effects.
>
> redifining = scrapping part or whole of old definition + creating new
> definition. 2 steps in place of one. besides if you create a new word you have
> expanded your vocabulary, while replaceing meaning does not.
I'm not convinced by your arithmetic that creating new words would be easier
to do. I could just say, "alright, go ahead, make a new language." But I
don't think you would have much success getting others to use you words and
understand you when you do.
In fact, I take back what I said about Pirsig creating a new language. He
didn't. He just used old words in new ways and now we all listen with new
ears that perk up when someone says "value" or "quality." My suggestion is
that we also reclaim the words that are traditionally used to talk about
spirituality.
On Thanksgiving when Uncle Joe says grace, does the intellectual have to
feel awkward and make everyone else feel the same way or can he hear "let us
all bow our heads to pray..." as "let us all make our selves aware of the
dynamic quality that is all around us..."? When Uncle Joe begins, "God is
good, God is great.." can he think to himself, "yes, Uncle Joe, Quality is
indeed Quality!" and actually participate in the prayer? Isn't dynamic
quality what wonder and miracles are about? Isn't participating in society
more important than expanding our vocabularies?
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 - 10:37:52 GMT