From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 16 2005 - 22:43:12 BST
Steve,
Steve said:
My whole argument applies only to the 'creative' descriptor. I agree that
attentive or inattentive to history probably cuts across the first
descriptor like you suggest, and that can lead to confusion. I am taking
Pirsig's point in kind of a holistic way, rather than focusing on just the
one passage. This is keeping in the spirit of the argument as opposed to
technical correctness.
Matt:
Then I wonder how you apply the distinction at all. I think the spirit of
Pirsig's philosophy obliterates any attempt to make a distinction between
philosophy and philosophology. If you are just talking about creativity and
"what goes on in one's psyche subjectively during this or any process," then
I wonder how you apply it. Who's being static in their thinking and how
would we tell? It seems to me that when people reflect and think through an
issue they pretty much go through it in a way that would count as "dynamic."
Some people may simply listen to someone else they consider an authority
on a subject, say philosophy, and then simply follow along with what they
say without really thinking about it. That happens, but then I don't think
we'd really say they reflected and thought through an issue. So how can
label an entire cross-section of philosophers as not reflecting and thinking
through issues?
Steve said:
Of course nobody 'simply' recites somebody else's arguments. When you say
this Matt you're moving from the crisp distinction of the definition to
example that will, of course, muddy the point. When we do this I have to
wonder about motive. We can move from formal to informal with any argument,
but are we adding to understanding or simply trying to undermine a
legitimate issue?
Matt:
Well, a distinction is only as useful as when its put to use. My motivation
is wondering what's left to label "philosophology"? Who are we labeling
philosophologists? People who don't think for themselves? If we say that,
I think we'd pretty much have to limit that to freshman Phil 101 students,
most of whom who are lazy and/or don't really care about the subject
material. Professional philosophers in any respectable institution all
think for themselves. If they didn't, they wouldn't be there. The
profession _wants_ people who think for themselves and they try and make
sure that they only give their best jobs to those people.
I think the main thing holding us back is an understanding of what the
activity of philosophy is besides argumentation. You say, "It is the degree
to which the activity affects one's static
patterns that moves an intellectual activity closer to philosophy or
philosophology, the two black & white extremes. The arguments used, whether
from an outside source or completely original, and the labeling of these
static patterns of thought as good or poor quality, has little direct
bearing on the Quality experience itself and so are irrelevant." The first
statement makes it sound as though its only if you change your static
patterns that you are doing philosophy. But this doesn't make sense. You
are only supposed to change your static patterns if you've found (or made)
something better. Change for the sake of change can't be good. The second
statement makes it sound as if there is something other than the activity
than argumentation. But I don't know what that is. Arguments are the
reasons for this or that static pattern. In fact, arguments, reasons, are
the static pattern. There's nothing else to the static pattern than a set
of concepts, defined in a certain way, and used in a certain way, which is
what makes up an argument. What is an intellectual Quality experience other
than the exchange of views and reasons?
Again, you're entire effort to apply the distinction again seems to rely on
cutting a difference between the "scholar," i.e. someone who knows something
about history, and the "philosopher," who doesn't. But if you're focus is
on the creativity descriptor, you've equivocated at the exact moment of use,
at the exact moment in which you want to apply it to somebody. In you're
second reply, it seems to me that you've reaffirmed my suggestion that the
philosophy/philosophology distinction _needs_ to conflate creativity and
inattention to history to work. You say, "Pirsig's MOQ deserves to be
labeled a 'Wisdom Tradition' rather than mere metaphysics despite its lack
of history," but I think that grossly ignores all the history built into
Pirsig's philosophy. Pirsig is _not_ inattentive to history, but his
argument about the philosophy/philosophology distinction would seem to
require it for him to be a philosopher.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 : Sat Apr 16 2005 - 22:46:28 BST