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

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Ron,

That quite a shrewd observation (of Matt).

I suspect though that the straw-man in there is the idea that
"alternative approaches" are necessarily objective and analytic.
(Though I can perfectly accept that it was that kind of alternative
approach that was Pirsig's target.)
Why could I not say that "an alternative approach" was / is "an active
attitude to enquiry" ?

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Matt,
> Defense mechanisms raise easy I see. To me, in a conversation
> there is a certain amount that may be unsaid due to the following
> of the thought pattern of the exchange
> If you need someone to be that litereral to understand
> the meaning of my short comments then perhaps Dave may have
> a point about your style being a bit too analytic to a point
> where it begins to impede the dialog and the understanding of it.
>
> In this manner I have understood philosophilology as
> the objective analytic approach to philosophy.
>
> I understand philosophy as an active attitude of inquirey.
>
> Objective analytic approach to an active attitude of inquirey
> as a cultural norm definition of philosophy is the gripe, it attracts
> the label of unoriginal thinking by Pirsig precisely because
> of this. It is also why Pirsig views alternative systems of approach
> to an active attitude of inquirey as more original.
>
> I think Dave sees this as THE arguement Pirsig brings to bear
> on philosophy and rendering it meaningless is undercutting it.
>
>
>
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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--
>
> 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
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/