Re: USAGE: 'born'

> David Peterson wrote:
> >     This only proves my argument, that "becoming" is supposed to mean
> > "attractive", and that they're using that word to form a pun.  How could
> > anyone possibly think that "becoming" is being used seriously as a verb?!
I've seen "becoming" used as an intransitive verb frequently in recent
philosophy papers, particularly those with a post-modern bent. I suspect
it is also so used in literary circles, since postmodern philosopher align
themselves more with the literary tradition than with the traditional
philosophical schools.

"Becoming" so used is often set in contrast to "being". It is used to
indicate somtheing in a state of flux, not having a fixed form, or just
coming into existence.

For some people it seems to be a key idea. They seem to say that old ways
of thinking (particularly science) force the objects they describe into
fixed categories, or try to describe static attributes, thus ignoring the
vitality and changable nature of things. However, I can't say I truely
know what exactly they are trying to say. I tend to find most papers of
this sort a morass of uninteligible language.

Them English word "becoming" used this way may be a translation of a
French term, since most of this philosophy began in France. Indeed,
several of the examples I can think of were originally written in French.
But since I do not know French I couldn't say what the original term
was.

As I've read this thread I can't tell if you are truly confused about what
the author was trying to say, or if you were poking fun at the somewhat
dubious language by finding puns the author might not have known were
there. Or maybe the author intended the pun all along and I've read too
many philosphy papers (ain't that the truth).

Well, I hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much.

David Stokes