Dan Flage's questionnaire #3

[Connie Barclay]

1. Name:  Dan Flage
 
2.   a. I was reminded of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value. 
      b. I learned that sometimes activities that appear to be only intrinsically valuable should not be shunned.
      c. I probably did more philosophy during the conference than I have done in the past ten years.  It reintroduced me to the value of simple conversation as a means to solving problems.
      d. There was quite a lot.  See #4.           
 
3.  Discussions among people who differed significantly in age was very pleasant.
 
4.   I was raised as a “good Calvinist.” In the Calvinist tradition, there is a strong notion of vocation.  As I understand it, it is the notion of one particular calling (with divinely instituted connotations).  One of my colleagues who is a far better Calvinist than I’ve remained or ever have been once said that teaching was not merely his job, it was his vocation.  In his case, I believe his vocation was teaching:  virtually his entire life revolved around teaching.  He was a superb teacher.  Perhaps there are some who have such a singular vocation.  As a result of the conference, however, I’ve come to believe that there are other models that apply to at least some of us.
      At one point Kent talked about the strands of twine making up a rope.  I believe that might be a good, non-Calvinistic model of vocation.  There are a large number of “callings” that overlap, that change over time, and, in many cases, of which one has no conscious awareness.  Some of these are primarily of intrinsic value in the sense that only the person pursuing the activity might find it valuable. 
      My primary research is in history of modern philosophy.  Most of the stuff I write is rather esoteric.  I try to work through various textual puzzles and come up with consistent readings.  I find it extremely satisfying to provide plausible answers to questions such as:  With what are the two principles in Hume’s Appendix to the Treatise inconsistent?  How does Berkeley know his own mind and the minds of others (the doctrine of notions)?  What is the nature of the Cartesian method and how is it played out in the Meditations?  Is there a reading of the opening thirty-three sections of Berkeley’s Principles of Human Knowledge that avoids the alleged inconsistencies and weak arguments most scholars find there?  What does Berkeley mean by ‘archetypes’?  What are Lockean natural laws and how are they known?  I’ve become enough of a Humean over the years to believe that this “feeling of significance” is probably a mark that the work is of some value.  It might also have some extrinsic value insofar as the work might be of interest to a (small) community of scholars.  If any of this is vocational, I tend to believe that it is limited to work on some of the “big questions,” that is, those that are both personally satisfying and of some value to the community of scholars.  (I’ve also concluded that scholarship that is merely an exercise in vitae-building is of no value:  I’ve done that too.)
      When teaching, one affects numerous people; some are significantly affected.  Since most of my classes are fairly large (30-50 students), one often has little knowledge of the effect one has.  I tend to believe that teaching is part of my vocation, but it’s one of those strands that are deeply embedded in the rope and only occasionally comes to the surface.
      There are other elements of one’s life that weave in and out of the vocational rope.  I have built (usually odd) bits of furniture for my church and the local Wesley Foundation.  I found the work “therapeutic”, and they usually found the result useful.  That might be part of my vocation.  I also bake communion bread, but that’s only to avoid eating cardboard communion wafers, so I doubt that is vocational (even if most members of the congregation prefer bread to wafers). 
 
5. The group and individual conversations were the heart of the conference.
 
6. Group discussions.
 
7. I believe introducing ourselves was important, but we might have spent a bit too much time on it.
 
8. It was a wonderful conference.  I really can’t think of ways it might have been improved. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Connie Barclay

Luther College

Vocation Program Administrative Assistant

700 College Dr.

Decorah, IA 52101

(563) 387-1327, fax (563) 387-2158

barc...@luther.edu

[simm...@luther.edu]

Thank you so much, dan, for these wonderfully helpful reflections. What a
joy it is to share this thinking and to know that we share common
struggles. I am grateful for your puzzling through modern european
philosophy, for your building beautiful and useful furnitures [slightly
different forms of furniture than those of modern philosophy], for your
baking of bread, for you. no doubt not everything should be considered
vocational. some of the strands are thicker, more prominent, more
enduring than others. but perhaps jean calvin would allow that brother
lawrence belongs to the community of believers and that his work in the
kitchen [and workshop and garden and study] are as important an expression
of his vocation as his work/service in the sanctuary. even if some of
these strands are but a-vocations, we know that vocational activity is
strenghtened by such avocational activities, just as creative work is
possible only insofar as we engage in re-creative play and our muscles are
toned as much by release as they are by flexing.
besides one never quite knows when some small puzzle will give way to an
important reframing of the big pictures we carry with us and/or dominate
our cultural landscape.
blessings to you as you provide blessings to us,
kent