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

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Ron,

Ron said:
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.

Matt:
Yes, Ron, that is how people _try_ to draw the distinction.  
But the distinction you just drew, between "clinging" and 
"not clinging" is the distinction between originality and 
unoriginality, as you yourself drew yourself to be saying by 
aligning "static" with "cling" and "dynamic" with "original".  I 
stated in the post that originality (or "cleverness") is 
_separate_ from _wisdom_.  Conflating the two, I argued, is 
what creates a problem.  If you don't think there is a 
binding of originality with wisdom, reflect on the fact that 
DQ is also our sense of betterness, in addition to, as you 
used it, originality.

I'm not sure what more I need to do to make this more 
explicit, how else to draw attention to the tension.  If you 
want to disagree, that's great, but I don't understand how 
people _think they are disagreeing_ until they make more 
explicit where/how/why they are disagreeing.  For instance, 
try rebutting my suggestions about how we need to 
distinguish between cleverness and wisdom.

Read this paragraph again, and then read the short bit you 
wrote, and tell me why what you wrote escapes the 
parameters of the paragraph--

Matt said:
Since we already have strictures against plagiarism, let’s 
ask this question: what if somebody did just recite somebody 
else’s arguments (given proper citation and the like)?  What 
if they recited them and the other person couldn’t respond 
adequately to them?  What then?  It seems to me that you’re 
highlighting a choice between wisdom (denoted by the 
successful argument) and cleverness (denoted by the 
creative self-reliance) and choosing cleverness.  This seems 
to me to be wrong.  This is why I suggest thinking of 
arguments like tools.  Why invent the wheel all over again 
when you can just pick it up and modify it for your own 
purposes?  In the end, you’re still being clever by the 
modifications and adjustments.  As this goes on, though, 
eventually somebody’s going to throw you an argument 
that you have no tools handy for.  Then you create your 
own argument.  To me, it all depends on what’s demanded of 
you.  Why throw out the Wisdom Traditions when some of the 
stuff is still working?  I mean, Pirsig does it all the time.  Is he 
a philosophologist?

Matt:
Is there something I'm doing to obfuscate the issue I'm 
trying to draw attention to?  I specifically want to know 
why people want to bind together cleverness and wisdom.  
I want to hear why that's a bad description of what Pirsig 
was doing or maybe a defense of binding originality with 
betterness.  Something like that, something that engages 
explicitly with the terms I've suggested.  Not because my 
terms are so great, but because it's the only way we can 
be sure a dialogue is happening.

Matt


> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 05:25:22 -0700
> From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)
> 
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009