> RICK:
> [...] MY point was that if one uses the terms "law of gravitation" and
> "gravitation" side by side in the same sentence (as Pirsig did in the above
> quote) then that's highly indicative of the fact that he thinks of "law of
> gravitation" and "gravitation" as two different things. [...]
Perhaps Pirsig was simply a bit informal there. In the light shed by this
discussion, when you read "law", you probably are a bit biased to think of an
equation, a sequence of symbols that is clearly distinct from "gravitation
itself". But by law one could also think of "the fact that things fall", which
happens to be the same thing as "gravitation itself", if you are informal
enough. Using both terms might simply be a rhetoric, stylistic thing.
Rick:
>And if he wanted to say that the two terms had the same referent, then why not
be more explicit about it?
It depends on what you think to be the default position of the reader. I might
as well argue that if Pirsig meant to say that the two terms had *different*
referents, he could or perhaps should have been more explicit about it. Ask the
man in the street about what is the difference between gravitation and the law
of gravitation and you will hardly get a philosophical digression on symbols,
maps, reality, etc. I teach programming languages, and can give this example: it
may take up to one full hour to let the average audience understand the
difference between a number and a sequence of digits representing a number in
decimal notation.
My humble opinion.
Andrea Sosio
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
