From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 00:25:03 BST
Matt,
If Steve saidFor me the distinction is obvious. Doing philosophy amounts to being ableto put together your own argument, doing philsophology amounts to recitingother people's arguments.
I say simply "correct" - original / creative philosophy is puttingtogether your own arguments, but from what, with what ?
From the historical remnants of everyone else's. Synthesised yes,created yes, but not magic'ed out of thin air.
Ian
On 4/13/05, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:> Steve, Erin, David H, Robin,> > This also didn't go through the first time I sent it this weekend, so I've> also chopped this one into two.> > Steve said:> For me the distinction is obvious. Doing philosophy amounts to being able> to put together your own argument, doing philsophology amounts to reciting> other people's arguments. It doesn't matter that the problem addressed by> the argument is a perennial problem addressed by many published intelligent> others, or that your argument is based on your accumulated experience which> includes reading all those other guys. Philosophy is a creative endeavor of> a higher order than 'mere' scholarship. It is the same as original> composition compared with plagiarism.> > MOQ has been depicted as warmed over Zen combine with some pragmatism, etc.> All that doesn't matter. What matters is Pirsig thinking it out and> experiencing it on his own, even if the end concepts are similar in some> respects to
other Wisdom Traditions. It is this internal struggle that> generates Quality.> > Matt:> I think this misses the point of both Pirsig's argument and my argument.> Sure, I absolutely agree that philosophy is in some respects a personal> endeavor in which you struggle with your own inner demons, but in other> respects its an interpersonal endeavor in which you try and bring everyone> to a higher state of wisdom. But nobody simply recites somebody else's> arguments. A well-worn argument is always being used in a slightly> different context, and so will always be a little different (and sometimes a> lot different, until you bend it so out of shape it becomes a new argument).> > Since we already have strictures against plagiarism, let's ask this> question: what if somebody did just recite somebody else's arguments (given> proper citation and the like)? What if they recited them and the other> person couldn't respond adequately to them? What then? It seems to me that> you're highlighting a choice betw!
een wisd
om (denoted by the successful> argument) and cleverness (denoted by the creative self-reliance) and> choosing cleverness. This seems to me to be wrong. This is why I suggest> thinking of arguments like tools. Why invent the wheel all over again when> you can just pick it up and modify it for your own purposes? In the end,> you're still being clever by the modifications and adjustments. As this> goes on, though, eventually somebody's going to throw you an argument that> you have no tools handy for. Then you create your own argument. To me, it> all depends on what's demanded of you. Why throw out the Wisdom Traditions> when some of the stuff is still working? I mean, Pirsig does it all the> time. Is he a philosophologist?> > You say "it is this internal struggle that generates Quality." But I would> ask you to reflect on this "internal struggle." What is it? In Pirsig's> terms, it's the interplay of static patterns. What we call a "person" is> nothing more than an aggregation of static patterns.
These static patterns> are the unconscious history of humanity, as Pirsig calls it in ZMM, "the> whole train of collective consciousness of all communicating mankind." (Ch.> 27) This is Pirsig owning up to the contingency of life. So when somebody> comes at you with a low Quality static pattern/argument, why not just whip> at him a higher Quality static pattern/argument? It's right there, why not> use it? And if you're successful, the other person will be at a higher> level of Quality. But, again, what happens when you are faced with an> argument that you see as low Quality, but you don't know how to defeat it?> Well, either, upon reflection, you accept it as high Quality or you invent a> higher Quality argument then was previously available to the train of> mankind. This is what Pirsig would call responding to Dynamic Quality.> > So, in the end, I think your distinction, Steve, between clever creativity> and mindless repetition isn't so obvious. As you say, a historian could> point out that "!
your arg
ument is based on your accumulated experience which> includes reading all those other guys," which includes pointing out all the> predecessors to your clever, "new" argument. I think, ultimately, the> distinction breaks down as a way of distinguishing between philosophers and> non-philosophers. Upon reflection, most of the newness doesn't last and in> the end, if you line up historically conscious philosophers with> non-historically conscious philosophers and see which side created more> clever new tools to advance wisdom, I doubt you'd find that the> non-historical side had more. My guess is that the breakdown would be> pretty even. And if you push this historical/non-historical,> repetitive/clever distinction too far, eventually you'd eliminate the entire> field of entries because, as I've repeated and Pirsig's repeated, we all> receive our history lessons when we are socialized into being human beings.> If you pushed the distinction too far (as you'd have to to get it to say> anything about who is and
who isn't a real philosopher), you wouldn't be> able to construct _any_ argument, let alone a new one, because you'd have no> basic tools of construction—like language.> > continued....> > Matt> > _________________________________________________________________> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee(r)> 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> >
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 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 01:44:38 BST