Hi Squad,
The platypus discussion is formally in its last stages, and I'd like
to offer the following thoughts.
The English language evolved mostly in the first half of the millennium,
and this certainly goes for the vast majority of words we use. In
contrast, the use of English for subject-object dialectical thought is a
phenomenon of the modern age. I have noticed that many of the words we
use in the Lila Squad discussions are ambiguous, and it seems that the
ambiguity is the result of a subject-object cleavage giving the same
word separate "objective" and "subjective" meanings. Here are a few
examples:-
The CAUSE of stratospheric ozone loss is CFC pollution
The CAUSE of Greenpeace is environmental conservation
The MOTIVE force in a turbine engine is gas expansion.
The MOTIVE of the LS is promotion of Pirsig's MoQ.
A turbine engine is DRIVEN by gas expansion.
The LS is DRIVEN by a desire to spread Pirsig's MoQ.
The orbit of planet Earth is DETERMINED by the laws of physics.
Bodvar is DETERMINED to convert us to SOTAQI.
Archimedes PRINCIPLE equates the mass of a floating body with the mass
of water displaced.
Children should learn the PRINCIPLE of honesty at an early age.
All these words are related to PURPOSE which I already called a
platypus. We just don't know whether the concept should be objective or
subjective, so the meaning has been split.
It seems that all purpose is to serve the "interests" of the Subject.
Pirsig's purpose (subjective) was to explain MoQ, and the purpose
(objective) of the novels was
the same. Intrinsic (subjective) purpose implies an aspiring SELF. This
whole line of thought started with Diana's comments on SELF WILL. That's
what makes an MoQ level - it's when we recognise an intrinsic purpose or
moral to a type of pattern.
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST