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

[Matt Kundert]

Ya' know why I don't think it's a dead horse?

Because Pirsig insists on calling that horse the "horse of 
philosophy"?

I happen to find philosophical interest in Pirsig's distinction.

It appears, most other people just see it as a funny little tag 
to put on pretentious people.

When it gets down to it, I don't really care if people want to 
keep it for the fun it pokes at academics.  But somtimes, it 
looks like they want to make that larger point, like Pirsig, 
which is when I think they want to find philosophical interest 
in it to, and so might want to dialogue about it.

Perhaps not.

Matt

> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:13:04 -0700
> From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009