[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Dave,

Matt said:
...I've come to think that it doesn't do enough to help us amateurs 
conceive of our own projects. I think we can, and should, go further 
than that. ...Disciplinary standards have the upshot of giving one a 
defined sense of having discharged one's responsibilities to produce 
quality work.  Not having a discipline can leave one in a void and lost, 
for there is no one they need to please. This can produce good work, 
but it certainly isn't an assured relationship.   So what I'm thinking is 
that, aside from our love of doing whatever it is we are doing, is 
there a way of erecting a standard of excellence in amateur 
philosophy?  ..perhaps the most important question for amateur 
self-definition: even if you would never make anyone else follow your 
own standard, what is _your relationship to others_?  In a discipline, 
this has a clear answer. But in amateur philosophy, it might be 
something to continually meditate on.

DMB said:
Imagine if your comments were altered so that they were all about 
amateur artists instead of amateur philosophers. In that scenario 
you'd find yourself asking if amateur poets and painters should erect 
a standard of excellence for themselves.

Matt:
Yeah, I'm not sure I see the incongruity.  (Nor do I think we really 
disagree on the large point.)  When I write for myself, I write against 
what I think is excellent.  I try to live up to certain ideals of writing 
(like clarity, verve, ingenuity, saneness, etc.).  If a poet, painter, or 
any other kind of producer _struggles_ in their process, I'm not sure 
why we shouldn't think of it terms of them struggling to not let 
themselves down.  And whatever that thing is we call the 
"standard."

Thinking in terms of "standards" is awkward when thinking about 
yourself, and I concede to the limitations the metaphor creates in 
thinking about amateur work, but I'm not sure we can think of 
"excellence" by itself, ahead of standards, as you suggested later in 
your post.  That doesn't, it seems to me, describe a process we 
could actually go through, nor a heuristic I would commend in 
practical thinking about one's craft (whatever it is).  Standards, like 
static patterns, do follow in the wake of creative breakthroughs, but 
thinking about standards is a way of conceptualizing what your 
breaking through.  You don't break through everything: that would 
be chaos.  You break through definable things, opening the gates 
of chaos, but by being held in place by other definable things, you 
invite static latching.

I certainly wasn't trying to move down from a deliberate vagueness.  
As I answered my own question of "is there a way of erecting a 
standard of excellence in amateur philosophy?" no, not if one means 
to carve out a disciplinary space, if one means to 
_standardize behavior_.  There would be no point to calling it 
"amateur" philosophy if it were standardized.  However, if we begin 
thinking about ourselves and the standards of excellence we have 
for ourselves, and _what those are_, then perhaps the best question 
after that is what is our relationship to others.

In re-reading your remarks, I was caught several times by an 
uncertainty as to whether you were taking issue with anything I was 
saying.  Your third paragraph, especially, recapitulates the 
negotiation of the gauntlet of problems in articulating amateur 
excellence I tried in my earlier post's first paragraph (something like, 
"they have no discipline, but are not undisciplined").  So I'm not sure 
what the real disagreement is here, except perhaps the best practical 
heuristic to commend to practicing amateurs when they think about 
what they are doing.  I'm not sure the thinking about the lack is the 
best foot forward.  For example, the lack of a need to please others.  
So, conversely, amateur philosophy is minimally an attempt to please 
yourself.  What if you are easy to please?  Toughening what you 
allow yourself to get away with, it seems to me, is the required step 
for amateurs to continually evolve.  And thinking in terms of 
standards doesn't seem to me get in the way of the amateur ethos.

Matt