Dan & Matt, There were two parts to my original post.
>>> Marsha: >>> You make some very thoughtful points. Marsha: : I was suggesting that: If one held that there were such a difference (professional vs. amateur) than the points you (Dan) made were thoughtful, and I appreciate your care in providing them. >>> Marsha: >>> But I think of a philosopher as someone who is curious about the nature of >>> Reality, or at least some aspect of Reality, not necessarily someone who >>> has an opinion about everything. RMP was certainly a philosopher. I >>> think, also, of his example of William James becoming interested in the >>> relationships between squirrel, tree and observer is an excellent example. >>> Getting underneath the obvious becomes an obsession. Anyway, here's a >>> short few paragraphs I thought appropriate. Marsha: : _But_, here's a different view. On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Matt Kundert > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Marsha, >> >> Marsha said: >> My alternative view is that the differentiation between professional >> and amateur philosopher is just so much cultural clap-trap. >> >> Matt: >> When one combines this formulation of your alternative with Ron's >> observation that "every topic is cultural claptrap" (because, I take it, >> everything to discuss is built out of our culture, i.e. static patterns) >> and then Dan's iteration of the value of discussion despite that broad, >> too-true fact, I think we can get the sense in which this formulation >> isn't as preferable as your second formulation: "the differences are >> not really a topic that interests me." >> >> For the second strikes me as perfectly reasonable: there are lots of >> topics that don't interest me (one might say: that I'm incurious >> about). However, the first formulation was, we might say, >> dismissive of that topic. And I don't take it that we need to dismiss >> everything that doesn't interest us, and further that dismissing is >> exactly not what one amateur does to another: dismissing is what a >> professional does when they find that something isn't relevant to the >> discipline. But amateurs have no discipline, and so seemingly >> should always take at most a non-dismissive non-interest in each >> others work. >> >> Also, I agree that many attempts to differentiate between pro and >> amateur are "so much cultural claptrap." However, that's why I take >> an interest in trying to find a better way to state those differences >> should they exist in a meaningful way. I'm not sure I've found any >> yet, and I don't take it that thinking about it is necessary for one to >> compose themselves as an amateur (i.e., I don't think it's necessary >> for an amateur to be interested in this particular topic). > > Dan: > > Well, that tends to go without saying... it isn't necessary for anyone > to be interested in any particular topic, be they professional or > amateur. Professionals tend to be very narrow in their focus, homing > in on their particular field of interest, while an amateur has the > luxury of examining many topics of interest. > > I don't care that the topic isn't of interest to Marsha or to anyone. > But I do wonder at her motives for answering my post and then > summarily dismissing me when I attempted to engage her in discussion. > If it isn't of interest, why bother me in the first place? I don't > really care if I get any answers at all to my posts... I'm unsure if > they're designed to illicit answers anyway. Most times I am merely > musing to myself and I share my writings in the hope that others may > find some small value there. Whether they answer or not is irrelevant. > If someone does answer, though, I do make an attempt to answer them > back if it seems called for. > > Anyway... > > Dan Marsha: My motive was simply to suggest a different point-of-view, without wanting to engage in the debate. When pushed a little harder by Dan, I rejected more adamantly. Marsha ___ 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
