From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 01:16:28 GMT
Matt;
My position is pretty well laid out in "Philosophologology," of why I think
the history of philosophy as an armory as opposed to a tomb, an arsenal of
live ammo as opposed to an archive. So, if you want to have a conversation
about this, why don't we start there? What don't you like?
Hi Matt,
Avoiding a discussion (conversation) of ideas is not anywhere near what I
intend to get across here. The opposite is what I intend to get across. For
one to develop her own philosophy, it requires an ability to 'Think', and I
feel that is the only ability required.
I spent some time with dropouts trying to get them back in school. The
success, or lack of, would be too long a story to get into. What I found
when talking with these students who had been encouraged by the school
system to drop out, was that these were brilliant young minds -- the world
may never benefit from as they were reduced to thinking they were too stupid
to attend school. I also worked with some students with disabilities the
school system accepted as brilliant enough to manage straight 'A's who
didn't have a clue, unless it was 'Told' by the teachers. It is my belief if
you got together a group of the straight A students, and a group of the
dropouts in a philosophical discussion, the straight A students would come
away looking like a deer frozen by a car's headlights.
One point you offered about Art Appreciation I remember, and as I stated, I
felt what you wrote was quite good. It still didn't persuade as I remember
in Art Appreciation a young lady who had most likely painting since 3rd
grade, or maybe even earlier being told she knew nothing about art by the
professor, while I was praised and graded for my abilities by the professor,
but I couldn't put together a piece of art if my life depended on it. The
reason for discrepancy was explained as I was highly involved in the
discussions, even though I disagreed with most of what the so called 'Art
Instructor' offered; she found it to be a sign of knowledge about the
subject. Art is not a subject; it is a talent; IMHO a natural born talent.
I find too often here, when I offer my opinions of the nature of the world,
I am classified as you just did with 'Positivist', as opposed to my actual
thoughts being considered for what they are; 'Thoughts.' These thoughts are
offered, as I have suggested a few different times, for opposing opinions,
as it is through the opposing opinions that I am able to hash through these
thoughts, and come up with some form of temporary understanding. To me, this
is what philosophy should be about.
To me, philosophy should not be viewed as some classification of some
philosophical master(s) of the past. This goes against the idea of Dynamic
Quality; a development of a Quality Philosophy you can call your own.
I have read Plato and Hegel, Descartes, Kant, James, Russell, Bergson, or
Shakespeare and Shaw, etc., and all were great philosophers. Everyone should
read them, along with other great works like "A River Runs Through It,"
which I offered earlier was so touching that it sent amateur fly fishers out
to the streams to the point there was no room to light a fly. I feel
philosophy should be offered in the early grades in school (except they'd
probably screw that up too:), and/or encouragement should be given to bring
in your 'Own' thoughts, and as opposed to try to see how it might pass the
test of some master of the past, see how it might pass the test of a
dialectic discussion with some not-so-masters of the present.
The important point is, you can learn a lot from these masters of
philosophy, but these masters of philosophy do not 'Teach' philosophy, any
more than they were taught philosophy. For them to become great masters,
they had to 'Learn' their philosophy; they had to think on their own terms.
They were not concerned with academic excellence, but with creative
excellence; creative philosophy; Dynamic philosophy.
Were most of these great philosophies not developed more because they
dis-agreed with the philosophies of the past?
I am not an 'ism', 'ist', or 'ian'. I read the books, and then returned them
to the library, along with their authors. They are in some way connected,
but don't think I am so smart I could remember what they all said. I could
look them up on Google, and quote them as if I did, but then I would not be
true to my own philosophy; that of a 'Know-nothing' philosopher.
Sorry this got long, and I didn't even answer your concerns, or reread our
essay and discuss it. I guess that's just the way I am. Once again, Sorry,
but I didn't see a need to address it when I read it. If I get a chance to
do so later, I'll see if I think it would help.
Wolff
>From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: RE: MD Further comments to Matt
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:33:53 -0600
>
>Hey Wolff,
>
>Wolff said:
>Yes, "telling' is Quality, but believing without independent and critical
>thought is not. Can you not know Quality without the benefit of someone
>pointing to it with words from the past?
>
>It would seem to me everyone knows Quality. If you arrive at this Quality
>on your own, and learn to think in terms of Quality, then you are much
>better prepared to place Quality in your everyday decisions. If you learn
>Quality from someone else, and ask how this someone else would think in the
>event you needed to make a Quality decision, How can you know?
>
>Matt:
>It seems to me that you are using the wrong weapon to fight me. If Quality
>is as ubiquitous as Pirsig says it is, then you need a more pointed tool to
>go from "all we are is experience/values" to "believing without independent
>and critical thought is not [Quality]," which was my point before.
>Because, based on the ubiquity of Quality, believing without independent
>and critical thought _is_ Quality, it just happens to be low Quality from
>most well-thought individuals.
>
>Luckily, Pirsig does happen to provide you with a handy weapon to beat me
>with that I think would be appropriate: call me a philosophologist.
>Actually, I'm surprised you haven't yet. Part of what I call Pirsig's
>"philosophical individualism," which is what I would say you are defending,
>is his attack on the professionals. He fashioned the epithet "technician"
>to beat them with in ZMM and "philosophologist" to beat them with in Lila.
>I haven't commented on his use of "technician" in ZMM, but I have disputed
>his use of "philosophologist." I don't think it works for what he wants.
>
>For instance, you feel the need to defend the desire of thinking for
>yourself, but where I have I ever said otherwise? I don't dig around in
>the history of philosophy to parrot out some trivia. I use them as
>weapons. One can think of the history of philosophy is an arsenal of
>weapons. You go back and take what is applicable to your time and
>situation, and what isn't you leave. Intellectual historians (which is
>basically what Pirsig is accusing professional philosophers of being) might
>not like it, but that's why I, nor the professional philosophers, are
>intellectual historians.
>
>I feel like I detect something like the flavor of "philosophy as a natural
>kind" in your discourse, but I'm not really sure. I'm really just not sure
>what you're rebelling against in my writing. You say you've read
>"Philosophologology," well, what in there makes your hair stand on end?
>The whole point of philosophy is to have a conversation. Or at the least,
>the whole point of the MD is to. You say it didn't change your view, which
>means you must have a different point of view. What is it? What
>substantive differences do we have? You say, "it seems I have my own way
>of looking at things without pointing toward someone else's isms, ists, or
>ians," but that's not a substantive difference, that's a difference in
>style, in weaponry. If it _were_ a substantive difference, it would land
>you in the same company as the logical positivists, who thought philosophy
>and the history of philosophy were two _very_ distinct subjects.
>
>Part of what I detect in the "we are all (specially) connected to Quality"
>camp that detests some of my views is an air of anti-conversation. After
>all, if we are all connected to Quality, that we all need to have a rugged,
>American individualistic outlook, we all need to make it on our own, make
>decisions on our own, then why would you need conversation? Why would you
>need to talk to anybody, ask their opinion, weigh opinions, have arguments?
> If we are all specially attuned to Quality or Dynamic Quality, then why
>have an argument? You'll just know which position has high Quality.
>
>This seems to me to be a very dangerous idea. You brought up the danger of
>the Jonses in one of your replies, but it seems to me that if you aren't
>having a conversation, you are in much more danger of drinking the
>kool-aid. Why is conversation so good? I think the odds are much higher
>of you coming out with a high Quality position or opinion after having a
>conversation than in lieu of one.
>
>My position is pretty well laid out in "Philosophologology," of why I think
>the history of philosophy as an armory as opposed to a tomb, an arsenal of
>live ammo as opposed to an archive. So, if you want to have a conversation
>about this, why don't we start there? What don't you like?
>
>Matt
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 01:23:03 GMT