From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 21:57:00 BST
Matt wrote:
___________________
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?
___________________
Hi Matt. I think you are bringing to my part of this thread issues prior to
my involvement. Partly that is my fault, for I'm necessarily going off at a
tangent in not reading the entire thread.
I never intended to justify applying this distinction objectively to any one
or any group. I agree that reflecting is DQ in an intellectual way and what
may come out of that may, in fact, be the very same place one started if the
antithesis under consideration does not render a higher quality synthesis.
This reflecting and thinking (same thing), the putting together of claims
backed by good argument, is what constitutes the activity of philosophy. To
the degree one is doing that rather than accepting authority or opinion of
any kind without examination is the degree one is 'doing' philosophy.
Critical examination is a good descriptor, wouldn't you say? The more
critical it is and the more bias free it is the higher quality this
particular activity, no?
This distinction is most valuable for myself as a check to whether I've
carefully considered something or not. That is why I stated in my previous
post my argument would be a subjective one. As to applying this distinction
to others I do it all the time with individual arguments, posts, etc. A
quick check to see if someone is using authority for philosophical or
philisophological purposes is to ask them to explain the quote in their own
words (build their own argument). That will give a glimpse in to the level
of understanding of the person doing the quoting.
But to categorize someone in general in this way rather than just individual
arguments has got to be gross overgeneralization; rendering judgment it
seems to me for egotistical reasons rather than to point out an instance of
intellectual low quality. Pirsig did admit to this in ZMM when he was
reading philosophy voraciously to look for confirmation of his Quality idea.
Matt:
___________________
Well, a distinction is only as useful as when it's put to use. My
motivation
is wondering what's left to label "philosophology"?
___________________
Philosophology is the activity of the charlatan, the one who is clever with
rhetoric but lacks understanding. Philosophology is accepting the opinion
of authority without critical examination, w/o understanding, w/o making it
your 'own'. How can I make it any clearer? I do not have the background to
judge someone else's thesis for example and label it one way or the other.
But the distinction is very useful in aiding me maintain my own intellectual
honesty.
When others make claims one can start asking questions to zero in on their
understanding (aka Socrates). Through this critical inquiry into a position
one could label it way or the other I suppose, but not w/o the inquiry. The
value to another by this kind of labeling would be to motivate them to
further understanding (ie, higher intellectual quality) of their own
position. This can occur only through a dialectical activity of some kind.
W/o the activity I don't see how we can judge the level of understanding
another has about any opinion he or she may put forward. So, w/o
investigation I agree that labeling like this doesn't do much.
Creativity in a philosophical sense is critical inquiry. The product of
this process is understanding (intellectual static patterns of value).
History has nothing to do with it except as front-end input. The quality of
the process is not dependent on the quality of the input. Garbage in will
get trashed, good ideas will pass through. In both cases it is the same
process. What I see Pirsig adding is allowance for multiple truths,
multiple word games, multiple logical systems as all equally valid in their
own sphere of application as opposed to the one universal absolute truth
that was, in general, the goal of rational inquiry prior. Since this
process of philosophy can work in either an assumed 'one truth' paradigm or
in a 'multiple truth' paradigm we cannot label thinkers that have restricted
themselves to the 'one truth' paradigm as philisophological like Robin
wanted to do for they are still using the same creative intellectual
process.
Matt:
___________________
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.
____________________
See above concerning ending up where you started and what I think philosophy
is (my own definition, not one I looked up. Am I doing philosophy or
philosophology? ;)).
Matt:
___________________
What is an intellectual Quality experience other than the exchange of views
and reasons?
____________________
Understanding the views and reasons is higher Quality than a mere exchange
of information.
Matt:
___________________
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.
____________________
The history, the starting point intellectual static patterns of value we all
have, is grist for the mill, content only. Philosophy is a creative
process; it is the context for the history. Also, if we allow for intuition
to enter the picture (original thought or what have you) then there is more
going into the process than just the starting static patterns of value.
Quality / DQ might scramble the initial static patterns in ways unforeseen
by a mere machine-like analysis, don't you think? It is the insistence on
critical unbiased examination that moves us closer to DQ input IMO. The
more we accept opinion uncritically, the more we let our prejudices do our
analysis for us, the less originality / creativity will be in the output.
That is the value of the distinction.
What I meant by the MOQ's 'lack of history' is just lack of pedigree due to
age. I was not claiming Pirsig was free of history (static intellectual
patters of value) himself. My 'Wisdom Tradition' label is reserved for
philosophical / spiritual 'systems' that encourage growth towards Quality /
DQ, the 'best' of these systems providing specific doorways or training to /
for the Quality pre-intellectual experience. This is explicit in the MOQ
despite what other nits we may come up with. It's just that 'tradition' has
a connotation of honorable age that obviously doesn't apply to the MOQ yet.
Live well,
Steve
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 20 2005 - 22:16:27 BST