Hi Dave,
I'm curious: do you think we disagree on anything important in these
last few cycles about amateur philosophy? It isn't clear to me that
we do.
Matt said:
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...
DMB said:
Well, it's not that we can have excellence all by itself but yes, the
main idea is that excellence is in some sense supposed to be ahead
of the standards. ...
Matt:
As far as I can tell, you agreed in this response-block to what I said.
As far as I can see, saying that "it's not that we can have excellence
all by itself" agress with my "that doesn't...describe a process we
could actually go through"; and your later "we don't want to think of
excellence all by itself" agrees with my "nor a heuristic I would
commend in practical thinking."
I'm laying this plain because I'm even more confused by the question
of whether you were writing in disagreement.
Matt said:
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.
DMB said:
It's not quite clear what you mean by "relationship to others" but I
took it to mean the amateur's relationship to some kind of audience
for his philosophy.... And this seems to be one of the questions for
which there really shouldn't be a standard answer.
Matt:
Right, that's what I meant by "relationship to others," and here again
I find us on the same page, for my "no point to calling it 'amateur'
philosophy is it were standardized" corresponds to you "there really
shouldn't be a standard answer."
DMB said:
I'm just saying that once you know what you want to say, how you
want to say it and who you want to say it to, then you can start
talking about standards of excellence in more concrete terms. ... I
guess it would be simple enough to just rephrase your idea of
erecting a standard of excellence. You can do that, I'd say, but not
in advance of the process. You build up a taylor-made set of
standards as you go, along side the actual empirical process, as
you make the choices that work or sit well or otherwise hammer
out the kinks.
Matt:
Perhaps the only notable difference in phrasing is that I think
knowing what you want to say, how you want to say it, and who
you want to say it to all _imply_ a whole host of standards (that you
can conform to, tinker, avoid, throw away, break, etc., at your
leisure). This is where the phrasing of standards (not my
preference) gets weird, because it's theoretically paramount for me
to say that "what you want to say" doesn't _have_ standards
implied, but _are_ implied standards. Weird, but also to my mind
exactly parallel to the Pirsigian aphorism "we don't _have_ static
patterns, we _are_ static patterns." And to my mind, your second
formulation is closer to what I'd prefer to say about amateur
philosophy: "you build up a tailor-made set of standards as you go,
alongside the actual empirical process." The only minor difference
(is it a difference?) is that I'd say that "building a tailor-made set
of standards" _is_ "the actual empirical process."
My commendations weren't for a standardizing, but for essentially
increased self-consciousness about the rhetorical process. One
starts with oneself in amateur philosophy, because there is no one
else that need care about you, but then one turns to others, for
everything has an audience (if, rather, one has chosen to write for
an audience other than oneself). The reason for using the
metaphor of standards was to counter, rhetorically, the pernicious
sense of "amateur" -- "one who has no standards/discipline."
Matt
p.s. Who's Ray Davies?
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
