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

X Acto xacto at rocketmail.com
Tue Aug 4 06:48:12 PDT 2009 

Hello Ian,

I think that you have a good point although I believe it is more useful
to make the distinction between an active inquirey that involves a
a body of thought that includes a history which views itself as 
the evolutionary culmenation of active inquirey with an active inquirey
that does not.
This leaves objectivism free to use without rejecting it out of hand
as altogether wrong or bad but merely limited and one of many
ways inwhich a body of understanding may be created.

MoQ places active inquirey at the fore front where objectivism
tends to give it a back seat and tells it to shut up when
expereince does not match it's methods and interpretations.

cleveland harbor effect

-Ron



 


----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

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/
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/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list