From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 09:24:33 GMT
> > MATTHEW
> > If love is synonymous with value, why use the term
> love at all? And
> > asserting this synonimity doesn't really go far
> towards explaining how love,
> > as
> > human phenomenon (whether social or biological)
> fits into the MoQ.
> >
> > RICK
> > This "over-synonym-ization" of words is
> something I'm very sensitive to.
> > I tend to think that in most cases where two words
> are 'revealed' to be
> > synonymous in meaning, what's really happening is
> that one one of the words
> > is being deprived of its meaning. This is an
> offense I've accused Pirsig of
> > in the past with his Quality=Good=Morality=Value
> equation; Far be it from me
> > to try and add 'love' on as well. So I
> differentiate 'love' as the most
> > intensely held values.
> > Now that you can see how the words are not
> being used synonyms, we can
> > see how it fits into the MOQ at ALL levels (not
> just social or biological).
> >
> > MATTHEW
> > It only explains love as in'loving', as a verb,
> not as the noun form that
> > John Lennon sang about.
> >
> > RICK
> > It was my impression that the "noun form" of love
> that John Lennon sang
> > about was the "brotherly love" or "comradery" of
> the social level. No?
I say:
The point I was trying to make is that there are two
forms of love - the verb and the noun. The latter, I
believe John Lennon sang about, is a concept, a great
force that drives humanity. I don't think it's
brotherly - and this is important because when we
define 'love' we often speak of this big, mystical
force. It's not like 'love thy neighbour', but rather
an ability within all humans to devote their lives to
another person.
The problem is that this big, noun definition (I
believe it to be the common definition) can't fit into
the MoQ in the love=value sense. Only the verb form
can do that, and the verb form is totally independent
of the noun form (as it is specific in each instance,
between two people, not being derived from the big
noun (unless you subscribe to some sort of mystic
metaphysics)). Basically, the verb form is
insignificant, as it only relates to two people per
instance, and is a mere product of our biological
make-up.
The point is that one should be clear of this
distinction to avoid 'love' being held as
over-important in the MoQ. If you do believe that A
valuing B intensely equals A 'loving' B, then isn't
this merely a semantic point, *separate* from the
'love' in the popular (noun) concept?
Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 09:25:08 GMT