Hi Ron, That quite a shrewd observation (of Matt).
I suspect though that the straw-man in there is the idea that "alternative approaches" are necessarily objective and analytic. (Though I can perfectly accept that it was that kind of alternative approach that was Pirsig's target.) Why could I not say that "an alternative approach" was / is "an active attitude to enquiry" ? Regards Ian On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ 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/
