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

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 6:17:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)


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--

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?

Ron:
My point was that it depends on the understanding, the intent.
I'm not looking to make a formal rebuttal but perhaps taking another look at 
the situation from another perspective. Philosophopologist was a term Pirsig
used to connote a specific state of mind, an objective one. Cleverness may 
be called apon to engage a dialog of inquirey in regard to this state of absolute
certainty. I was agreeing and pointing to the internal struggle we all share in this regard
But I think you took it as a re-hashing of the social conflict you see Pirsig instigating.

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.

Ron:
You answered, I replied, a dialog is happening. Not one you
may recognize and in the terms you are accustomed to, but
I simply inquire into another look at the situation. 
I thought in the post I reponded to that distinctions were
rather limited and did'nt cover the situation adequatly
because definitional classifications were being drawn.
I agree that it has become a buzz word to dismiss ideas
they want to make a true/false distinctions based on 
knee jerk static appearances, like calling people "academics".
They both are used as rhetorical devices to defend their own prejudices
and attack Moq concepts they do not agree with. 
Instead of inquiring as to the nature of the prejudice they labor
at re-constructing Pirsigs words and meaning.
Its an internal struggle that must be met before that struggle is met socially.