John, Again, isn't creativity a problem solving endeavor? -Ron
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:07 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not at all, Ron. > > >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> John, >> Ok, you feel creativity stands above excellence. But I ask, how is >> creativity set apart from problem solving? Isn't necessity the mother if >> invention? >> - Ron > I feel that creativity stands side-by-side with excellence. It's a > marriage, not a hierarchy. > > John > > > > >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ron, >>> >>> >>> Ron: >>> >>>> I think the main problem is the beginning assumptions about what >>>> The term "intellect " means, to you. >>> >>> Jc: I'm sure that's true. Just about any philosophic problem hangs on >> our >>> assumptions. >>> >>> Ron: >>> >>> >>>> Several definitions mention it as a faculty of the mind, a function of >>>> consciousness, the act of critical >>>> Thinking. >>> >>> >>> jc: The act of critical thinking comes closest to my view. Everybody >> has >>> a mind, but not everybody uses their intellect. >>> >>> Ron; >>> >>> >>>> But you by-pass those entries and hold to what interests you. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jc: What interests me Ron, is that "the act of critical thinking" is >> only >>> half the story. Why then does the MoQ make it seem like the whole >>> enchilada? >>> >>> Ron: >>> >>> >>>> That traditional misunderstanding, which is what it is, >>>> A traditional misunderstanding of the meaning of "intellect" handed down >>>> by the Greeks. That misunderstanding is objectivism. Robert Pirsigs >> project >>>> Is to correct this misunderstanding. >>>> That's why it's important to read Plato and Aristotle and understand >>>> The origin of the Greek meaning and tradition of intellect. The project >> is >>>> about the recovery of a tradition of thought before misinterpretation >>>> divided it. "Art is born when out of the many bits if information >> derived >>>> from experience there emerges a grasp of those similarities in view of >>>> which they are unified whole." >>>> Aristotle metaphysics book alpha. >>>> >>>> "Knowing in the truest sense concerns >>>> What is best in the truest sense. So intellect finds it's fulfillment in >>>> being aware of the intelligible. " >>>> >>>> "It is this better state that the divine has being and life, the self >>>> sufficient activity of the divine is life at its eternal best." >>>> - book Lambda >>>> >>>> To the Greeks knowing what is best >>>> Is the divine aspect of being. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> JohnC >>>>> >>>>> PS: By "respond" I mean without resorting to "because RMP said so". >>>>> Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something >> more >>>>> is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said. >>>> Ron: >>>> How else are we to tie into what we mean. This is a site dedicated to >> his >>>> work. >>> >>> >>> What I mean is, since I'm addressing a shortcoming in Pirsig's view, it's >>> nonsensical to respond with "but that's Pirsig's view". or "you don't >>> understand the MoQ" >>> >>> Look at the story - Phaedrus licked the daemon of objective intellect, >>> right? And this thing, that he hated, was in himself as well, right? >> That >>> which endlessly analyzes and examines critically. Then in Lila, he falls >>> back into, what he terms himself, "degenerate activity". (Matt 12:43-45) >>> >>> But the immorality was not doing metaphysics, the immorality was >>> enthroning intellect as the king of all static being. The reason I say >>> immoral is, because intellect was also doing the crowning. A king cannot >>> crown himself. There must be otherness, at the top level to avoid >>> recursion. >>> >>> Also immoral, because making the MoQ thus, allows intellect to bully and >>> rule over all other patterns, putting itself first and reifying itself, >> it >>> then kills all opposition and alternative thinking. It's too static. DQ >>> has been placed in the unobtainable ether where its inaccessible and we >>> don't talk about it anymore. My solution is to bring it down to earth, >> and >>> make artistic imagination the partner of intellect at the 4th level and >> not >>> only is that satisfying (there's no place for ART in the MoQ!!) it's a >>> logical solution because without imaginative conceptualization, there is >>> nothing to critically analyze. Intellect is good at selecting among >> given >>> ideas - but then where do given ideas come from? Not intellect, or >>> Phaedrus would have deduced how hypothesi arose. >>> >>> Thanks for hearing me out, Ron. >>> >>> John >>> 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 > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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
