From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 18:50:58 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD a small comprehension doubt
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:17:34 -0500
>
>Hi Jordi, Dan, all,
>
>Jordi Soldevida wrote:
> >> ... I’ve got a
> >> doubt on the comprehension of a term in a phrase of the book, namely in
> >> the page 252 (chapter 20). The fragment in wihich this word is included
> >> is the following:
> >>
> >> “Phaedrus remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between
>Western
> >> and Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the
> >> Taoists, even the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism
> >> similar to Hegel’s philosophy. Phaedrus doubted at the time, however,
> >> whether mystical Ones and metaphysical monisms were introconvertable
> >> since mystical Ones follow no rules and metaphysical monisms do. His
> >> Quality was a metaphysical entity, not a mystic one. Or was it? What
>was
> >> the difference?”
> >>
> >> I think, thanks to the context (cause i can’t find the meaning of this
> >> adjective anywhere) that this phrase means, more or less, that he
> >> doubted whether mystical Ones and metaphysical monisms were the same.
>
>Dan said:
> > It's nice to hear from you. So far as I know there's no such word as
> > "introconvertable." I believe Robert Pirsig meant "interconvertable"
>which
> > as you have surmised from the context means interchangable.
>
>Dan must be right about this being an error. But I wonder if there is some
>subtle difference between saying that the two are the same as Jordi
>suggested, that the two are interchangeable as Dan suggested, and that they
>are "convertible the one into the other" as dictionary.com defines it (see
>ref. Below). I imagine that if Pirsig meant interchangeable he would have
>used this word rather than than the more esoteric interconvertible. It
>seems to me that Pirsig favors using language that people understand.
>Recall that he criticizes "technicians" for this kind of thing. Can anyone
>shed any light on why Pirsig would choose this word?
Hi Jordie, Ant and Steve
I didn't say RMP's use of the word "introconvertible" was a mistake though
that's a distinct possibility. I find it odd if it's a mistake that no one
caught it before now. Does anyone have a recent copy of ZMM? Is the word in
there too? My copy is dated. Perhaps it is a mistake or perhaps RMP coined
the word to mean as Steve says something more subtle. As you can see by the
following definitions it depends on what context the word is being used.
Dan
>Dictionary.com provides this definition:
>
>"interconvertible
>
>\In`ter*con*vert"i*ble\, a. Convertible the one into the other; as, coin
>and
>bank notes are interconvertible.
>
>Source :Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. "
Same: 1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before. 2.
Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree. 3. Conforming in every
detail: according to the same rules as before. 4. Being the one previously
mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.
Interchangeable: Admitting of exchange or mutual substitution.
Equivalent: 1. Equal, as in value, force, or meaning. 2 a. Having similar or
identical effects. b. Being essentially equal, all things considered: a wish
that was equivalent to a command.
(dictionary.com)
_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 18:51:52 GMT