From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 20:07:46 BST
Mattman, Robin and all other crime fighters:
Matt said to Robin:
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. However, I thought we were in an
dialectical argument, exchanging viewpoints, arguments, evidence,
interpretations, etc. If you bring up something from the history of
philosophy to contextualize your point, I would think it warranted for my
riposte to contest that context if I think its wrong. If I'm making it
sound as if you "just read a book," its because what you say resonates in
the history of philosophy and part of my style is to point out those
resonances. If it seems like I'm "throwing another book" at you to "prove
you wrong," that's because, after setting up the resonations in the history
of philosophy, I can make my own point in that context and then make the
complete circle back to what you said and make my point directly applicable
to you. That's an issue of style.
dmb says:
There is a scene in the film SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE where Rosie O'Donnel and
Meg Ryan are watching an old black and white tear-jerker from the 1940's. As
I recall it, Meg complains that its not a very accurate depiction of love.
And Rosie says something like, "Oh, but its not really about LOVE. Its about
love IN THE MOVIES."
Along the same lines, Robert McKee, my screen-writing guru, says the problem
with today's screenwriters is that they know everything about screenplays
and almost nothing about life. As a result, the scripts they produce have a
phony quality. Their ideas about movies come from other movies and not from
their own experience.
You see what I saying?
Suspend all your ideas about the distinction between natural and historical,
between philosophy and philosophology, between creativity and scholarship
and all that other business. As I see it, these issues are only making it
hard for you to see a very simple point; Philosophy is supposed to be about
life and if your philosophy is about philosophy then it is not about life.
And I see this same problem across the board. I love art, but I hate
paintings that are ABOUT PAINTING. I hate poetry that is ABOUT POETRY. I
hate music that is ABOUT MUSIC as well as movies ABOUT MOVIES. And this is
what I mean by my complaints about what you post here. I get the distinct
impression that your philosophy is ABOUT PHILOSOPHY and has very little to
do with what's in your heart. It doesn't come from your life so much as from
the books you've read.
You see what I saying?
This is what I mean when I complain that it lacks substance. Its got no
heart.
And I would also repeat the complaint that by focusing on the distinction
between philosophy and philosophology in the way you have, you've missed the
point of what Pirsig was doing in that chapter. Namely, he is discussing
originality as a warm up to doing something original. I mean, if there are
any philosophical works on the nature of insanity I would very much like to
know where to find them.
Thanks,
dmb
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 23 2005 - 20:53:33 BST