Matt, Defense mechanisms raise easy I see. To me, in a conversation there is a certain amount that may be unsaid due to the following of the thought pattern of the exchange If you need someone to be that litereral to understand the meaning of my short comments then perhaps Dave may have a point about your style being a bit too analytic to a point where it begins to impede the dialog and the understanding of it.
In this manner I have understood philosophilology as the objective analytic approach to philosophy. I understand philosophy as an active attitude of inquirey. Objective analytic approach to an active attitude of inquirey as a cultural norm definition of philosophy is the gripe, it attracts the label of unoriginal thinking by Pirsig precisely because of this. It is also why Pirsig views alternative systems of approach to an active attitude of inquirey as more original. I think Dave sees this as THE arguement Pirsig brings to bear on philosophy and rendering it meaningless is undercutting it. -Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: Matt Kundert <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 6:17:53 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005) Hi Ron, Ron said: the philosphilogogist will cling to a particular set of static patterns while a philosopher loves the pursuit of wisdom in this pusuit the philosopher will use parts from many static patterns in dynamic original ways. Matt: Yes, Ron, that is how people _try_ to draw the distinction. But the distinction you just drew, between "clinging" and "not clinging" is the distinction between originality and unoriginality, as you yourself drew yourself to be saying by aligning "static" with "cling" and "dynamic" with "original". I stated in the post that originality (or "cleverness") is _separate_ from _wisdom_. Conflating the two, I argued, is what creates a problem. If you don't think there is a binding of originality with wisdom, reflect on the fact that DQ is also our sense of betterness, in addition to, as you used it, originality. I'm not sure what more I need to do to make this more explicit, how else to draw attention to the tension. If you want to disagree, that's great, but I don't understand how people _think they are disagreeing_ until they make more explicit where/how/why they are disagreeing. For instance, try rebutting my suggestions about how we need to distinguish between cleverness and wisdom. Read this paragraph again, and then read the short bit you wrote, and tell me why what you wrote escapes the parameters of the paragraph-- Matt said: Since we already have strictures against plagiarism, let’s ask this question: what if somebody did just recite somebody else’s arguments (given proper citation and the like)? What if they recited them and the other person couldn’t respond adequately to them? What then? It seems to me that you’re highlighting a choice between wisdom (denoted by the successful argument) and cleverness (denoted by the creative self-reliance) and choosing cleverness. This seems to me to be wrong. This is why I suggest thinking of arguments like tools. Why invent the wheel all over again when you can just pick it up and modify it for your own purposes? In the end, you’re still being clever by the modifications and adjustments. As this goes on, though, eventually somebody’s going to throw you an argument that you have no tools handy for. Then you create your own argument. To me, it all depends on what’s demanded of you. Why throw out the Wisdom Traditions when some of the stuff is still working? I mean, Pirsig does it all the time. Is he a philosophologist? Matt: Is there something I'm doing to obfuscate the issue I'm trying to draw attention to? I specifically want to know why people want to bind together cleverness and wisdom. I want to hear why that's a bad description of what Pirsig was doing or maybe a defense of binding originality with betterness. Something like that, something that engages explicitly with the terms I've suggested. Not because my terms are so great, but because it's the only way we can be sure a dialogue is happening. Matt > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 05:25:22 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005) > > Matt, > The brujo's story is everyones story > > think bob sez that somewhere > > the philosphilogogist > will cling to a particular set of static patterns > while a philosopher loves the pursuit of wisdom > > in this pusuit the philosopher will use parts from > many static patterns in dynamic original ways. > > what did James say? some new ways of thinking about old terms? > > -Ron _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 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/
