[MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

[X Acto]

Matt,
The brujo's story is everyones story

think bob sez that somewhere

the philosphilogogist
will cling to a particular set of static patterns
while a philosopher loves the pursuit of wisdom

in this pusuit the philosopher will use parts from
many static patterns in dynamic original ways.

what did James say? some new ways of thinking about old terms?

-Ron


----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2009 9:01:44 PM
Subject: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)








(from April 12, 2005)
-----
Robin and David suggest more or less the same reading of 
the 
philosophy/philosophology distinction as Steve.  Robin 
initially said that a 
philosopher is anyone “that does not 
blindly follow the ‘truths’ found by 
someone before him.”  
Robin has since capitulated on that view for reasons 
similar 
to those I offered above.  Robin said that a philosophologist 
is 
someone who uses static patterns to combat static 
patterns, while a 
philosopher is someone who “uses his own 
dynamic/creative beliefs and 
experiences to create a new 
philosophy or to identify with an existing one.” Robin said 
she noticed the contradiction here.  The problem, I think, is 

the same one I pointed out with Steve and the exultation of 
the “internal 
struggle that creates Quality.”  Beliefs are static 
patterns, and so the 
apparent contradiction in Robin’s 
formulation.  But if we accept that our 
beliefs are static 
patterns, and that most of our lives are static, but it 
is the 
interplay of warring static patterns that breeds Dynamic 
creativeness 
(as in my description of how new arguments are 
born), I think we can see how 
creativeness should be praised. 
I think this formulation also pays better 
homage to Pirsig’s 
description of static latching, where Dynamic innovations 

move us to a higher plateau of Quality, but then become 
crusted over as they 
become old, and eventually become 
thrown away as new Dynamic innovations are 
created on the 
shoulders of the old ones.  As Dewey would say, the bad is 

simply a discarded good.


But if we accept these views of creativity, I think we’ve left 
the 
philosopher/philosophologist distinction behind.  As Erin 
has said, the 
application to cases makes the whole thing 
very blurry.  The reason is 
because the distinction is 
supposed to be for deciding who is and isn’t a 
philosopher 
and it isn’t completely clear how creativity plays into it.  If 

the distinction just breaks down into a distinction between 
originality and 
unoriginality, why have the 
philosopher/philosophologist distinction when we 
already 
have the originality/unoriginality distinction?  The reason 
for the 
confusion is because Pirsig builds the distinction 
around two descriptors, 
not one.  “Creative” is on the 
“philosopher” side of the distinction, but so is “inattentive 
to history.”  The second descriptor gives us an easy basis 

for applying the distinction (“Does he pay attention to the 
history of 
philosophy?”), but the first descriptor is the term 
of approbation.  Pirsig 
conflates “creativity” with “inattention 
to history” to create an easy way 
to apply the distinction 
and a reason to.  Without the creativity 
descriptor, people 
would begin to wonder what’s wrong with reading history.  

But with the creativity descriptor, we have our reason: 
because you’re not 
being creative or original.


However, my argument has been (among others) that the 
original/unoriginal 
distinction cuts _across_ the 
historical/unhistorical distinction.  But this 
equivocation in 
our description of the philosophy/philosophology distinction 

is what leads David to first say, “philosophology is when 
the writing is 
very static and offers nothing original,” but 
then to add, “but that's not 
to say there is zero creativity 
in philosophologists.”  This equivocation is 
bred because of 
the way Pirsig constructs the distinction.  So when Robin 

asks, “Would you say either role (philosophologer or 
philosopher) is morally 
better than the other, and on which 
basis?” the only reason we may scratch 
our head a little and 
wonder is because of Pirsig’s conflation.  If you want 
to 
emphasize creativity, you’ll say that philosophers are better.  
If you 
want to emphasize the fun and bonuses of reading 
history, you’ll deny that 
one is better than the other.  What 
we have to remember, though, is that for 
Pirsig, the 
distinction was created to distinguish real from fake 

philosophers.  And real philosophers are creative and 
inattentive to 
history, though it is unclear how Pirsig sees 
the two descriptors being 
related.  The only thing I can figure 
is that he thinks people who know less 
about history are 
more likely to be creative, much like the baby who smiles 
in 
wonder at everything because she’s experiencing everything 
for the first 
time.  But should we really expect the baby to 
make significant innovations 
in philosophy?


I’d like to leave this for the moment to rephrase my argument 
to perhaps 
make it more clear.  I think people are confused 
about my argument because 
they think I’m arguing that 
historically-conscious philosophers 
(specifically philosophers 
steeped in the history of philosophy) are the 
real philosophers.  
This isn’t true.  My argument is that Pirsig’s 
distinction 
_forces_ us to decide who the real philosophers are, when the 

spirit of his philosophy tells us that we _shouldn’t_ decide.  
Because of 
the peculiar thing philosophy is, gathering wisdom 
and seeing how things 
hang together, there is no way to pin 
down philosophy except for parochial 
reasons of expediency 
because there is so much wisdom to be had because 
there 
are so many _things_ to be hung together.  You can’t cut a 
distinction 
between history and substance because there is 
no substance outside of our 
mostly unconscious, educative 
reception of the history of humankind.  If you 
do pin down a 
substance (as you’ll have to), it will be for parochial, 

expedient reasons, i.e. personal reasons, based on the type 
of wisdom you 
want to generate, the types of things you 
want to hang together.  My focus 
(or “substance”) has been 
on the history of Western philosophy because those 
are the 
things I want to hang together.  What I’m not doing is saying 
that 
what I do makes me a real philosopher.  We are all real 
philosophers.


Pirsig’s emphasis on personal creativity comes from Pirsig’s 
love of genius. He wants us all to try and overcome ourselves, 
i.e. overcome our inherited 
static patterns, our inherited 
“train of collective consciousness.”  This is 
the theme that 
resonates so strongly with the existentialist theme of 

“authenticity.”  To become authentic is to engage in a 
Nietzschean project 
of self-overcoming in which we, in 
Nietzsche’s words, “become who we are.”  
But I don’t think 
this love of genius is motivated simply by the personal 
need 
to be authentic.  Throughout Pirsig’s works he’s trying to help 
us out 
of the spiritual crisis of our age.  I think Pirsig’s 
emphasis on 
creativity, genius, _Dynamic Quality_ stems from 
his recognition that 
humanity’s geniuses are the ones who 
have created who we all are, that, 
following Shelley, poets 
are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.  
Pirsig wants 
us all to reach for this creative genius, reach for Dynamic 

Quality, and he wants us to do so, not simply to be unlike 
anybody else who 
has ever been, but because it will raise 
humanity to a higher plateau.  This 
is where I think Pirsig’s 
claim that we _need_ both static and Dynamic 
Quality is 
important.  Humanity’s train is static patterns of Quality and 
we 
need brujos to expand the train, to help us all become 
better.  But, 
contrary to the way Pirsig sometimes writes, I 
do not think there is any 
point in saying that it is better to 
be a brujo than an underlaborer.  We 
need both to move the 
train along.

-----

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Get your vacation photos on your phone!
http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/