Hi Arlo, On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in Philosophy. > However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are considered > philosophies. > > [Arlo] > Again, I'm at a loss for any other 'degree' that's so denigrated as a degree > in philosophy. If I told you I had a PhD on the ideas of Charles Peirce, > would you say this makes me adequately versed in Biotechnology? If I told > you I read a few books from Barnes and Noble on biotechnology, does this > place me on equal footing with you and your PhD?
[Mark] I find a degree in proper Philosophy to have been an accomplishment, I do not denigrate it. I am saying that biotechnology is a philosophy. As such, it can be used to expand other philosophies. I do not think that the isolation of various degrees into silos has any validity. I have no footing; I am useful for certain things, nothing more. Perhaps you would be useful in biotechnology, I have no idea. > > Your problem seems to revolve around a 'blind acceptance' of whatever a PhD > says is 'right', and I think every PhD I know would agree with that. But > while not all knowledgeable people on a topic have PhDs, its fairly certain > that all PhDs are knowledgeable on their subject. Indeed, what IS a PhD but > a demonstration to the community that you understand not only the very broad > field of your study, but also the nuances and critical minutia that often > escape the layperson? I do not think this is a problem of mine. I am simply making a point. What a PhD says is not "right", it may be useful to some. My having a Ph.D does not put me above anyone else, since that is history. One cannot use the past to elevate oneself in the present. Only ones actions from moment to moment matter. Knowledge can be used, nothing more. A Ph.D does not demonstrate anything if it is not put to some use. Words are inconsequential to actions. In terms of nuance, you are simply pointing towards languages and their description of things. Yes, I have a vocabulary that I have learned. If I spoke Arabic (for example) I would provide nuance to the Arabs. But what does that prove? The nuances in metaphysics should be wide open, otherwise we remain stuck, in my opinion. > > Have we hit a point where we say someone who has devoted the better part of > their life to reading and understanding a philosophy has no more insight > into that than someone who glanced through "Plato for Dummies"? When I want > answers to how the heart works, you can bet the first people I turn to are > the people who have made their life's effort to understanding and studying > the heart. Are they the ONLY ones who understand the heart? No, but this is > far different than saying that everyone's opinion about the heart has equal > merit. I certainly do not see any tipping point being evoked here. What I am saying is no different than what has been said in the past. Metaphysics and Knowledge are two different things. Certainly one can express Quality by reading Plato for Dummies. When Pirsig wrote ZMM, he did not have the same "education" that academic philosophers had. Yet, what he wrote had great impact. Merit is in the eyes of the beholder. I would certainly go to a good heart surgeon if I needed treatment. I would find higher Quality in such a person if I was presented with that choice. However, he could screw up and that would be my fault, I would never sue somebody for my mistake. Otherwise I would join the ranks of the Victims rather than the Responsible. Backk to your search for an expert that you would go to. If you want understanding on how to think about Reality, who would you go to? What educational criteria are you looking for? > > That is what 'degrees' allow us to recognize, and I don't understand why we > so easily say an degree in biotech makes you an expert on biotech, or a > degree in neurosurgery makes you a skilled neurosurgeon, or a degree in > accounting makes you a knowledgeable accountant, but a degree in philosophy, > at best, is irrelevant to your understanding of philosophy, or at worst an > actual IMPEDIMENT to understanding philosophy. First of all, philosophy is a creation in all of its fields (yes, biotech and physics included). There is nothing to understand, only something to create. So, I am not sure what you mean by "understanding of philosophy". Are you speaking of philosophical history? Philosophy has many parts which include biotech, psychology, sociology, positivism, epistemology, etc. If understanding is simply a matter of learning the rules, then it is a dead philosophy. If one has learned certain tools one could be more creative, but this is not always so. If people consider my knowledge useful, then they hire me. If my "expertise" is not useful, then they do not. If I simply followed the "rules" in biotech, I would not be too useful in novel research. Science is not like a row of dominos where everything falls into place if one follows the rules. If understanding is an ability to use tools which I have gained, then the emphasis is on ability. Ability does not stem from learning, it is a direct expression of Quality through Will. > > I don't want people to blindly listen to what I say because of my degree in > Instructional Design, I want people to recognize that my degree in > Instructional Design precisely prepares me to have insight and skills that > are rooted in experience, devotion, effort and a strong understand of > instructional design. Otherwise, what's the point? Why get a degree at all > if it either means nothing or actually means LESS than having one? Yes, if you want to convince people of your preparedness, at least to get in the door, then certainly evoke your experience. However, you will have to maintain that recognition with reasons outside of your degree. A degree allows others a starting point from which to choose who to listen to. However, if I were to speak of the intricacies of biotechnology, you would not know if I was saying anything useful. Certainly my degree should not force you to accept what I say. If what I say results in something for you, then perhaps you will continue to listen. What Pirsig wrote resulted in something for me. > > [Mark] > As such, I can consider myself free of any "educational bias" on the subject > much in the same way that Pirsig was. > > [Arlo] > See, what other field would you say such things about? Do you want a surgeon > that free of "educational bias"? A car mechanic? What about an accountant? > If you were developing an online course, do you want someone free of > "educational bias" on the best designs? Let me say, that I am "biased" in biotechnology. I am constrained by the tools that I have, and the instruments that are currently available. However, I seek to expand such tools. With metaphysics, that is, the presentation of Reality, the constraints become more restrictive. For, what is the actual use of presenting Reality? There is a big difference between applied knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Many many more theories are thrown out in the formal sciences than persist. Do you know how many theories are being generated every day? Once a theory appears to be useful, it is applied. You can try different theories on how to extract a stripped screw from a motorcycle. Perhaps you will find one "outside" of your education. The disciplines you present are useful trades. The impact of philosophical thought is not immediate. Let me ask you this: What kind of artist would you buy a painting from. Would it be one who has gone through the rigorous training in an educational facility, or would it be one who's paintings you like (assuming you have that choice)? What kind of philosopher do you find appealing; is it one with a formal degree in philosophy, or is it someone like Pirsig? > > This is not to fail to recognize that many professionals (surgeons, > mechanics, accountants, professors) can succumb to tunnel vision to various > degrees. But like with all fields, mastery of the structure is what enables > creative and critical thinking to emerge. Pirsig was NOT free of > "educational bias", he was a master of it, the MOQ emerged out of a lifetime > of devotion to reading and understanding a large swath of interdisciplinary > research and writing, with an eye towards a singular goal... developing his > metaphysical ideas. Yes, I agree. There is a balance between mastery of a subject and freedom from such structure. The same is true in science. Structure can diminish creativity. Many of the revolutionary thinkers were free and creative. I am not sure what Structure you are referring to with Pirsig. It seems to be the lack of structure that brought out the best in him. Education is different from experience. Pirsig's metaphysical ideas were not a direct result of his education, and I would even say that his ideas arose despite his formal education, possibly due to his lack of acceptance of such education. My ideas in biotechnology are also metaphysical as I have explained before. Much education in science destroys looking outside of the box for answers. It is important to recognize that. > > Does the academy make all the right decisions about what it accepts as > theses and what it does not? No, of course not. But I firmly believe the MOQ > would be much stronger had the University of Chicago accepted his proposal. > Not because the process homogenizes, but because the process strengthens the > organism. Challenges, rebuttals and 'attacks', when they have to responded > to make good arguments all the better. No one should expect to go through a > PhD without encountering some antagonism. Nearly every committee I've seen > has a member who is 'hostile' in some way to the idea. The idea is that this > strengthens the thesis, and I believe it does just that. Yes, I agree. This is a good example of education winning out over creativity. However, the destructive potential of what Pirsig was proposing to the entrenched academics in Chicago was too much for them. Nobody likes it when the rules are changed, especially those Ph.D.s who are resting on their butts because they are "recognized", and have not had a creative thought in years. > > The Academy is not perfect, and it has its flaws, and many times those in > 'cutting edge' areas feel the whole institution is laboriously sluggish, but > the process itself is a micro-study in the balance between static and > dynamic quality. Too static (which many feel it is) and good ideas (like > Pirsig's) can take a while to gain entry. Too dynamic (which, I'd say, many > also feel it is) and it just becomes nothing but sensationalism and whim. Yes, however I would say it is out of balance. The static is overwhelming. This is why Pirsig seeks to reverse the current mechanistic trend and go back to a balanced approach. There is nothing wrong with whim, it is Quality in action. Forget your education, what do you want to do right here, right now. Surprise yourself. > > I think we agree more than disagree. All written is my humble opinion of course. Cheers, Mark > > 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
