[MD] Mystics, Brains -- Matt has a question

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Mark,

Mark said:
I felt you would be one who would be critical of the moq.
Your response is less critical than my own.
This is a novel position for me!
As i see it, i cannot for the life of me understand why dmb has been so
hysterical about your position before today.

Matt:
Oh, c'mon Mark.  Unless you're being ironic, I can certainly imagine how it 
might _not_ be hard for you to imagine how others could have been so, 
critical let's say, of my position, so I would be surprised if you couldn't.

I still don't think David and I are all that different in the philosophical 
positions we might want to take, but I'm pretty sure why I've mightily 
turned certain people off over the years.  I don't usually like to do this, 
but I have a reflection on Pirsig and the MD at my blog called "Dewey, 
Pirsig, Rorty, or How I Convinced an Entire Generation of Pirsigians that 
Rorty is the Devil: An Ode to David Buchanan" that is kinda' my little 
apology to all the old-timers who put up with my philosophical growth. 
(http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2006/10/dewey-pirsig-rorty-or-how-i-convinced.html)

Mark said:
1. I asked if a divine mind could hold all values?
2. You suggested that Pragmatism (the mind is a tool for dealing with a 
world which thrusts itself upon us) stops Idealism.
3. In order for the tool  under evaluation to work it must:
a. Compile a repertoire of behaviour (inductively at first)
b. Develop the skill of anticipation and problem solving (deductively and 
further by induction)
4. The statement, '...if there are other reasons to suggest a divine mind, 
then I leave that up to...' indicates you are satisfied with:
c. Your repertoire
d. Your skills
(i.e. static)
5. The best Pragmatists are open to Dynamic changes and open to anticipation 
and problem solving.
6. Therefore, the best Pragmatists are Dynamic.
7. You have indicated you are static.
8. Therefore, you are not open to anticipation and problem solving - you  
are not a good Pragmatist even though you advocate it.
9. My question was asked from the position of a Dynamic Pragmatist 
(anticipate new developments and applying potential solutions as one who 
fully  accepts the moq, yet is capable of asking questions the moq may yet 
be presented with in a world which may thrust the unknown upon us).
10. If you are a Dynamic Pragmatist you should therefore qualify, "I'm not 
too hip to the idea of a "divine mind," mainly because pragmatically it 
doesn't do much for you" with, "...as far as i know."
11. It would be problematic to qualify all statements this way.
12. But one may avoid reinforcing the opposite tendency with ones own 
habitual use of emphatic language. Pragmatically, it doesn't do much for  
you or your Motorcycle.

Matt:
This is a nice, clear piece of reasoning.  One of the things that I've been 
suggesting for a little while, mostly in off-hand remarks related to other 
conversations, is that I think we should stay away from using "Dynamic" and 
"static" as stances people take, at the very least in the context you've 
used them.

First, I think 1-4 is exactly right.  The key word is in number 4, when you 
say I'm "satisfied."  That is a perfect description.  I am satisfied with 
the line of thinking, with the repertoire I have to deal with situations, I 
am in equilibrium, coherent.

What I think isn't quite right is to say that a person can be open or closed 
to change, philosophically at least.  We all know the difference between a 
closed-minded and open-minded individual in our common sense lives.  But I 
think that mark is the one between conversability and non-conversability.  
Its not a philosophical stance (at least, not as I'm describing it), its 
part of your personality.

Now, I think it perfectly reasonable to use Dynamic v. static to mark the 
boundary between being conversable and not, between hearing the other side 
and thinking about it sympathetically and not.  But when you frame it as 
being "open versus closed," I think one treads towards bad ground.  I think 
one of the most important parts of Pirsig's description of Dynamic Quality 
is that its unexpected--one will never know in advance when one will 
suddenly have a Dynamic moment, in which their previous opinions will be 
upset.  One can be perfectly conversable and rarely have their minds 
changed.  One can be perfectly un-conversable and change their minds all the 
time.  We don't want "changing your mind" to be a mark of Dynamic Quality 
because sometimes you change your mind from a good opinion to a bad opinion. 
  We should instead reserve Dynamicness as a personality trait for 
"_willingness_ to change your mind," and one mark I can see for that is 
simply conversability, not _actually_ changing your mind.

As I see it, being "satisfied" is simply the natural state of a person not 
in the midst of changing or exploration--a state of equilibrium.  What that 
doesn't mean is that something couldn't come along and make them 
unsatisfied, which sends them into a bout of reflection and inquiry.

I think you're suggesting, when you say good pragmatists "anticipate new 
developments" and apply "potential solutions," that, rather than beg out of 
the inquiry into a divine mind and leave it to someone else to follow that 
thread, I should actively lead the search.  To this I think you're being a 
little over-zealous and not appreciating the limits of human finitude.  
Which is to say, not everybody is going to be interested in everything, in 
every possibility discovered.  A person who _was_ wouldn't ever finish an 
inquiry or line of thought because the possibilities, as they tell you in 
credit card commercials, are endless.  I think it is better, rather than 
forcing themselves down avenues they aren't interested in, for people to 
follow their nose, to think about what interests them and go sniffing down 
the avenues that _you_ think will turn up gold.  You won't always be right, 
but at least you'll be interested, which means you'll probably be more 
likely to enjoy what you're doing and more likely to put your best energy 
into it.

What I hoped to convey by "I leave that up to the poet inclined to do so," 
was the sense that 1) yes, I was satisfied with my current repertoire, but 
2) I'm open to people who do want to take the time to travel down that 
avenue to try and convince me that there is gold down there.  That's why I 
think two other marks of Dynamicness may also be reading widely and going 
out and experiencing different things.  I'm not convinced that spending the 
time to think about that possibility is time well spent, so I'd like to 
reserve my energy for other pursuits.  But I am open to someone who'd like 
to convince me otherwise and show me what the fruits might be.  I might be 
convinced, I might not: but I'm open to the conversation.

So, I can accept that I should (and would) qualify "I'm not too hip to the 
idea of a 'divine mind,' mainly because pragmatically it doesn't do much for 
you" with "...as far as I know."  Except that I wouldn't because the problem 
you identify, in your chain of reasoning at the end, is that one can't just 
add that all the time and should probably settle for being less emphatic.  I 
can accept that (for most things; sometimes I want to be emphatic and am 
unrepentent, as most people should be when they talk about things like, say, 
slavery and racism).  But if you look at what I said, I think its perfectly 
reasonable on reflection.  I didn't say, "The idea of a 'divine mind' is 
bullshit."  I gave a report on my current state of satisfaction: I'm not too 
hip to the idea.  And how could you not know how you currently feel?  I do 
know I'm currently fine with it, but the device of reporting my state of 
feeling as opposed to a statement of knowledge was supposed to do exactly 
what you want me to do: remain open to possibilities.

And on that count, if you accept everything I just said, my defense of my 
belief that I _am_, as you called it, a "Dynamic pragmatist," it leaves us 
in more-agreement-than-previously-thought-imaginable still.  What I usually 
do for everyone I read, whether they say it or leave it out or rhetorically 
leave it unimaginable, is add "...as far as I know."  That's because of the 
condition of humanity: fallibility.  It is a condition that we are fallibile 
and I think the flipside to that condition, whether we acknowledge our 
fallibility or deny it (as the Pope might), is that we are _all_, on pain of 
being inhuman, open to Dynamic Quality because you will _never_ know when 
you might suddenly change.  An apple might hit you on the head or somebody 
might ask off-handedly if you are teaching quality this semester, causing 
you to change the vistas of thought, moving heaven and earth if you have to.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy 
Awards®   http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2