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

[Ian Glendinning]

Ron, (and Steve)

As a matter of degree or emphasis on priorities - I certainly couldn't
argue with that Ron.
(Cleveland harbor effect ?)

But Steve's point (directed at Matt) - I too still get this feeling
that the distinction does not have much ongoing value to the MoQ
itself - except as part of understanding the history of why Pirsig
(felt he) needed to make that emphasis. (Since that emphasis on
experience over analysis - even in the intellectual level - is kinda
fundamental to the MoQ anyway, quite apart from talk of philosophers
and philosophologists.)

I get this "let's move on" feeling - but remain respectful of minds
like Matt and DMB that still do see the need for debate here ?

BTW all distinctions are fuzzy in reality - they are only distinct
from the perspective of some purpose ;-)

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>