Jonathan and Diana & LS
JONATHAN wrote:
> 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.
Interesting list of ambiguous phrases. "Scandinavish" is a little
more stringent than English regarding CAUSE where the two are
different words, and I guess other languages have their own
specialities.
Regarding DETERMINATION. Yes, it is equally strong ;-)!
> 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.
Agreed! The subject-object split is manufactured by language -the
main carrier of Intellect - SOTAQI again!
DIANA.
You are right in pointing to purpose as only a platypus in SOM, while
in the MOQ it can be regarded as the essence of everything (= value).
Lorenz once pointed to 'meaning' and Troy to 'love', and I guess
that a Metaphysics of Purpose - along with a MoL or a MoM - would have
been just as relevant as the present MOQ. Except more mystic and
harder to sell at the Philosophy Faculty doors.
Bo
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