Tickled me that this “Wisdom Research Network” initiative, associated with the Wisdom Research programme at Chicago University, is now in 2008 called the “Arete Initiative”.
Chicago >> Arete
>> Pirsig >> Quality
>> Values >> Maxwell >> Wisdom
>> Rayner >> Inclusionality >> Fluid >> Dynamic Quality …
… is it just my mind that works this way ?
[Post note. Apparently not …
I see Pirsig picked-up on the Chicago education thread (see comment referring to a Robert Birnbaum interview with story writer Joseph Epstein, Jew to Jew as it were.)
Bob refers to this quote :
… like a lot of serious booksellers, he was a failed Ph.D. He was a failed Ph.D. in philosophy from Chicago. A student of guy named Richard McKeon who left corpses all over the city. Pascal would not have gotten his Ph.D. from McKeon. Aristotle wouldn’t have. Nobody. He was a miserable character and he made it so hard for everybody. It’s like you and I trying to get a Ph.D. from Martin Bormann.
Understandable given Bob’s legendary relationship with McKeon (see ’60 to ’63 in the Timeline). My favourite is in the next paragraph :
… I have come to think that a good student is not that impressive a thing to be. A good student can tell you seven reasons for the Renaissance. Big fucking deal. [laughs] He can tell you that materialism is naturalism. Because in order to have naturalism you have to have three things that satisfy materialism and so on. I sensed, in my crude kid way, this really wasn’t where the action is.
How true. Actually the interview is a good read … much on the “church of reason” in education and on “education in culture”. Can see why Bob liked it. Wise words.
PS .. and Arete ? Bob uses this Greek term for “excellence” in his thought processes of arriving at his Metaphysics of Quality, and his boat in the book Lila, he named “Arete”.]
Is Wisdom Scientific?
From the link:
“…wisdom is currently overlooked as a topic for serious scholarly and scientific investigation in many fields.”
And it should stay that way. This is scientific vapor-ware. That’s $2 million pissed in the pot.
And a little further down:
“[Discussion forums] aim to initiate the level of interdisciplinary collaboration required of rigorous, scientific investigations on the subject of wisdom.”
Would it be too presumptuous of me to forward the guess that masquerading as a science is what landed the funding? Good luck with those discussions!
Oh and it’s Richard’s birthday today. Happy Birthday Richard!
The quote says “scholarly AND scientific” … not just scientific.
The other quote adds “interdisciplinary collaboration” to the scientific rigour.
Something you will never understand in your cynical (nay, sarcastic) attacking mode.
If you and Richard continue to have nothing constructive to say Glenn, I will be blocking your comments.
Don’t throw stones, Ian. Your posture on science funding as not being scientific (which I agree with) was not only negative but a reaction to something that was never claimed. A strawman point.
But (and this is important), when I question the scientific nature of wisdom (something, by the way, I didn’t “infer” but is explicitly stated more than once in the link you provide), I am suddenly charged with having ‘nothing constructive to say’ and threatened with censorship. I can see you are annoyed with my attitude, since Wisdom Research is near and dear to your heart, but I find the notion of “serious” academics treating wisdom as science LUDICROUS, and quite worthy of cynicism and sarcasm! $2 million is being spent on an oxymoron, and I am supposed to be quiet about it?!
Ian, THIS IS A CROWNING EXAMPLE OF MISAPPLIED SCIENCE, and misapplied science is the raison d’etre of your bleeping blog!! This should be a hot topic for you! You should be on this like feathers on tar!
But what do you do? You stress the ‘scholarly’ and ‘interdisciplinary collaboration’ and make a sideshow of my attitude. I suggest that if you don’t wish to address my point head on and yet stay faithful to your Wisdom friends, you would be best served not to comment further.
Look, on the other thread, the strawman point was “admitted” **had** I been arguing with what Osborne had said. You still miss my point that the impied simplified message in the press quoting it (the meme) was the object of my comment, and that that implied logic was “real” – you even subscribed to it in your own statements, even though you deny that.
The “collaboration” (ie synthesis) is a key focus of mine, as opposed to interminable negative (analytic) challenging – not to the exclusion of critical analysis and debate – but life’s too short.
OK, Reset.
You have to admit your opening comment here was 100% sarcastic attack.
I’d also point out that **you** ended the previous thread(s) with “Bye”, not me.
However, I have no problem “questioning” the scientific nature of wisdom or otherwise – my agenda as you note – but you appreciate that’s as much to do with narrow / broad working definitions of science as much as it is wisdom, and they both need a “conversation”. I wanted to come back to you on that very point in the other comment thread too – where you ignored my working definition of science explicitly re-iterated for the purposes of that post.
But I’m not planning to argue with a sarcastic attacker. When wrestling with a pig in sh*t you quickly realise the pig is enjoying it. Got it ?
Ian says to Glenn: “But I’m not planning to argue with a sarcastic attacker. When wrestling with a pig in sh*t you quickly realise the pig is enjoying it. Got it ?”
Glenn says to Ian: “Now get this. Keep your insults to yourself”
Ian, one more time! Whether it’s Osborne or the press quote or my own statements which you say illustrate your point, it makes no difference. In no way was the implication made that funding is scientific, or put your other way, that ’scientific funding is a scientific decision, for scientists, because it’s scientific’. It’s as simple as that. It’s not a matter of me missing your point. It’s a matter of your point having no justification. And since you said you already understood the clarifications I made in #13, there was apparently no misunderstanding and so nothing else to discuss. As far as I’m concerned the matter is closed.
Why are you asking me about my opening statement? Your wisdom friends say wisdom is a scientific subject. Why don’t you ask *them* if *they* are being sarcastic?
Ian, I didn’t ignore your working definition of science. That is presumptuous. I can’t comment on something I don’t know about. If you show me where you put it I will take a look at it.
Well you’ve raised the bar as far as personal attacks go. Of course I will have to weigh that when considering furthering discussions with you. Have a nice day!
I don’t need to ask them if they are being sarcastic.
They are not using your kind words
“scientific vapor-ware”
“$2 million pissed in the pot”.
“masquerading as a science is what landed the funding”
“Good luck …. ! (exclamation mark)”
“Happy Birthday Richard …. ! (exclamation mark)”
You are no longer welcome.
You don’t like what I’m telling you and how I’m telling you, but you know in your gut I make a point that is quite damaging to Wisdom Research. It makes you question the, well, wisdom of this bunch, and once that is questioned the whole edifice collapses.
So what now? Are you going to brush me off and go your merry way like Horse and Ant did, or are you going to take what I had to say and do some serious soul searching?
I don’t expect you to publish this on your blog. It’s a ‘kill the messenger’ kind of thing. I understand.
Good luck to you.
I have no problem with your questions or even your points, and no problem with “critical analysis” in the context of being constructive. My problem is with your motives and insulting sarcasm.
You have made no point “damaging to wisdom research”. You made points which you intended / expected / hoped / believed would be damaging to wisdom research …. back to motives again.
I’ll continue addressing the points in my blog as I have done for seven years so far.
Wisdom Research Network, like Friends of Wisdom, like MoQ, like MoQ.Discuss, like science, like my blog, like your Loggins project … is flawed, just like any human endeavour. Big deal. Simply pointing that out is a no-brainer, a given, not worth wasting brain cells on. Being constructive is harder.
Ian – is this the post you were referring to ?
Yes that’s right Sam.
Bob responded privately with some thoughts, and included this public link & Joseph Epstein quote about Chicago … and you know who …
http://www.identitytheory.com/interviews/birnbaum122.php
“JE: Truman was, like a lot of serious booksellers, he was a failed Ph.D. He was a failed Ph.D. in philosophy from Chicago. A student of guy named Richard McKeon who left corpses all over the city. Pascal would not have gotten his Ph.D. from McKeon. Aristotle wouldn’t have. Nobody. He was a miserable character and he made it so hard for everybody. It’s like you and I trying to get a Ph.D. from Martin Bormann.”
Enjoy your holiday BTW Sam ?