[MD] The Academy is Evil! Here's what I'd do instead...

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
So, in my opinion, the theory [of evolution] has not advanced at all.

[Arlo]
As I just mentioned in my reply to John, there are a lot of open ends here, and
I'm going to address the ones I think are most important, if I skip over one
you want to revisit, please let me know.

I think the theory has evolved, not only do we understand the processes better,
research across many fields has evolved greatly because of gains in this area.

And, if you primary complaint is that Quality explains things Evolution does
not, then at the least we can point to, again, Ant and David Granger (and let's
include Henry Gurr, etc.) HAVE hurdled the wall and Quality IS now making gains
within the Academy. I share your frustration that it has been slow, but
nonetheless we are moving forward.

One thing I'll mention here, that I wrote to John recently, is that more than
the walls of the Academy stifling these ideas is frustration that even after
how many decades the message of ZMM (which I think is the "populist" message)
continues to escape people. You get THAT revolution going, and the Academy (and
everything else Pirsig saw as the effects of blindness to Quality) will simply
go away. "You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It's easy. Make
yourself perfect and then just paint naturally." (ZMM)

[Mark]
Have the ideas of Hegel been advanced?  Or are they stagnant due to rigid
dogma?  It was just a question.

[Arlo]
I think in philosophy ideas are advanced being a transition into a new school
of thought. Platonism becomes Aristotelianism, etc. Again, from that dreaded
Wikipedia, "[Hegelianism] would come to have a profound impact on many future
philosophical schools, including schools that opposed Hegel's specific
dialectical idealism, such as Existentialism, the historical materialism of
Karl Marx, historicism, and British Idealism."

[Mark]
Is philosophy stagnant once a concept is formed.  The interest is more from the
viewpoint of MOQ. Are the writings of Pirsig the final say?

[Arlo]
I read this and I honestly though "this, again?" Of course Pirsig is not "the
final say", any more than James was, or Plato was, or anyone is. "Pragmatism"
is larger than one philosopher, and many have offered variants of pragmatism
and that is GOOD and valid. 

But again, since you brought it up, if all philosophy has to offer Pirsig's
ideas is an endless future of arguing whose "interpretation" is what Pirsig
"really said", then yes I'd say philosophy is stagnant in that case.

[Mark]
I think I meant open institutions to new ideas.

[Arlo]
Well that again just restates the flexibility issue, I am trying to found out
what ideas you all for improving this.

[Mark]
The tenure does not seem to protect against anything except being dismissed for
poor performance.

[Arlo]
I disagree. Tenure provides insurance that social political ideology will not
dictate what is and what is not said. Just as in the example Pirsig refers to
back in his teaching days in Montana when the right-wing wanted to shut the
school down if its "radical professors" were not fired.

[Mark]
I am not speaking of expulsion necessarily, just a mixing up of authority. 
Professors seem to rise to the position of control, and then only relinquish it
at retirement or death...

[Arlo]
I agree we need some way to weed out bad professors, but on strictly
intellectual grounds. We need to ensure this power does not fall into the hands
of social structures.

What tests or measures would you propose we consider to achieve this? More
student evaluations? More publications?

[Mark]
Don't rightly know.  What I do see is a tenacity for what is accepted, and a
fear of coming up with new ideas.  Novelty should be encouraged in some way.

[Arlo]
I don't think anyone in the Academy fears new ideas, in fact I think its often
a reverse paralysis, people fear they won't be able to come up with a new idea.
But I do agree with the final point, novelty should be encouraged more than it
is, I am just not sure where the balance point is, since as I've said I think
"creativity" is an outgrowth of knowledge and comprehension. Einstein had to
KNOW certain things first before his ideas on relativity could have every
possibly been conceived.