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

[X Acto]

Ian:
(Cleveland harbor effect ?)

Ron:
Pirsig describes an event in Lila in which he thinks he's in a place on the map
and he's not, even though all the markers he expeirences are wrong, he still holds to the map
until suddenly he's in cleveland harbor.
he thought it odd that he would trust the map over the experience thinking the markers were wrong
rather than his navigation.


 


----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 12:13:04 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

Ian,
agree, it's kinda a flogging of a dead horse inthis context.
-Ron

 


----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 11:19:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

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
>
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/