[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

Tue Jun 10 16:25:05 PDT 2014

Ron,

It's hard to think of something that isn't problem solving, in some way or
another.
Creativity can't solve intellectual problems on its own, tho.  It needs
logic and analysis, just to define the problem in the first place, and to
test the idea, once it occurs.  It's not any either/or situation but a
situation where if you've very logical, you need more creativity in your
life and if you're too creative, you need more structure and logic.  Who
knows?  Maybe even being too balanced, is a sort of extreme in itself.  If
you never visit the far edges, you never discover your boundaries.

-J

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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."