[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Ron Kulp]

John,
Is there a distinction between creativity and problem solving?

-Ron 

> On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> Again, isn't creativity a problem solving endeavor?
> -Ron 
> 
>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:07 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Not at all, Ron.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John,
>>> Ok, you feel creativity stands above excellence. But I ask, how is
>>> creativity set apart from problem solving? Isn't necessity the mother if
>>> invention?
>>> - Ron
>> I feel that creativity stands side-by-side with excellence.  It's a
>> marriage, not a hierarchy.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Ron,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ron:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what
>>>>> The term "intellect " means, to you.
>>>> 
>>>> Jc: I'm sure that's true.  Just about any philosophic problem hangs on
>>> our
>>>> assumptions.
>>>> 
>>>> Ron:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of
>>>>> consciousness, the act of critical
>>>>> Thinking.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> jc:  The act of critical thinking comes closest to my view.  Everybody
>>> has
>>>> a mind, but not everybody uses their intellect.
>>>> 
>>>> Ron;
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jc:  What interests me Ron, is that "the act of critical thinking" is
>>> only
>>>> half the story.  Why then does the MoQ make it seem like the whole
>>>> enchilada?
>>>> 
>>>> Ron:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> That traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is,
>>>>> A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of "intellect" handed down
>>>>> by the Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs
>>> project
>>>>> Is to correct this misunderstanding.
>>>>> That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand
>>>>> The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project
>>> is
>>>>> about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation
>>>>> divided it. "Art is born when out of the many bits if information
>>> derived
>>>>> from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of
>>>>> which they are unified whole."
>>>>> Aristotle metaphysics book alpha.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Knowing in the truest sense concerns
>>>>> What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in
>>>>> being aware of the intelligible. "
>>>>> 
>>>>> "It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self
>>>>> sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best."
>>>>> - book Lambda
>>>>> 
>>>>> To the Greeks knowing what is best
>>>>> Is the divine aspect of being.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JohnC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PS:  By "respond" I mean without resorting to "because RMP said so".
>>>>>> Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something
>>> more
>>>>>> is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.
>>>>> Ron:
>>>>> How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to
>>> his
>>>>> work.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What I mean is, since I'm addressing a shortcoming in Pirsig's view, it's
>>>> nonsensical to respond with "but that's Pirsig's view".  or "you don't
>>>> understand the MoQ"
>>>> 
>>>> Look at the story - Phaedrus licked the daemon of objective intellect,
>>>> right?  And this thing, that he hated, was in himself as well, right?
>>> That
>>>> which endlessly analyzes and examines critically.  Then in Lila, he falls
>>>> back into, what he terms himself, "degenerate activity". (Matt 12:43-45)
>>>> 
>>>> But the immorality was not doing metaphysics, the immorality was
>>>> enthroning intellect as the king of all static being.  The reason I say
>>>> immoral is, because intellect was also doing the crowning.  A king cannot
>>>> crown himself.  There must be otherness, at the top level to avoid
>>>> recursion.
>>>> 
>>>> Also immoral, because making the MoQ thus, allows intellect to bully and
>>>> rule over all other patterns, putting itself first and reifying itself,
>>> it
>>>> then kills all opposition and alternative thinking.  It's too static.  DQ
>>>> has been placed in the unobtainable ether where its inaccessible and we
>>>> don't talk about it anymore.  My solution is to bring it down to earth,
>>> and
>>>> make artistic imagination the partner of intellect at the 4th level and
>>> not
>>>> only is that satisfying (there's no place for ART in the MoQ!!)  it's a
>>>> logical solution because without imaginative conceptualization, there is
>>>> nothing to critically analyze.  Intellect is good at selecting among
>>> given
>>>> ideas - but then where do given ideas come from?  Not intellect, or
>>>> Phaedrus would have deduced how hypothesi arose.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for hearing me out, Ron.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 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/md/archives.html
>>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> "finite players
>> play within boundaries.
>> Infinite players
>> play *with* boundaries."
>> 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/md/archives.html
> 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/md/archives.html