[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Horse,

I agree with your fears, that's why I expressed the idea as a question
rather than a suggested solution ....

But you (all) kinda missed my main point .... that we cannot expect
tight definitions of important words to fulfil the needs of general
natural language discussion and formal technical philosophical
discourse at the same time. (A view borne of much experience beyond
the discussions of Pirsig.)

My real suggestion was ... so therefore rather than believe we are
working towards clearer language .... we should just get over
ourselves, and seek trust and pragmatic intent.

Ian

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>  Not really. I think it would just give more credence to those that complain
> that Pirsigs MoQ is lumped in with cults and similar. You just need to take
> a look at Hubbards book on Dianetics!
> Personally I can't see what's wrong with ordinary English, written well. Of
> course, we might have to spend some time defining the terminology of the MoQ
> but that's just part and parcel of writing well and with a particular
> audience in mind - i.e. ordinary and inquisitive folk who can read and use a
> dictionary in an emergency.
> I think the biggest stumbling block we've had in expressing even the basics
> of the MoQ is using particular words inappropriately - and I would even
> accuse Pirsig of this as well. Atoms are not intelligent! I don't even think
> they're particularly clever.
>
> Horse
>
> On 18/08/2010 13:00, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone see value in working towards a MOQish language ?
>>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>