Thank you for sharing your comments, and it is nice to hear from a fellow philosophy instructor. There are a number of good ways to teach philosophy, and we each need to develop a pedagogy that works for us and our students.

I understand your concern about "X's explaining Y to students..." It is a stumbling block I am aware of in my own teaching and was very aware of in writing my book. It took me years to develop my curriculum and textbook, and I freely admit it is my perspective on philosophy. It is, though, a perspective developed from the experience of teaching philosophy to people who aren't majoring in the subject, and usually never will. So my primary motives have been to make philosophy accessible and meaningful to them and their lives.

So, you are spot in in saying that we become a living text for students, and that is a great phrase for it. I fully embrace the concept and now have a good term for it. Thank you for that.

I also agree with you that the ivory tower problem is one of institutionalization. And definitely agree with you when you say "I am able to distinguish mere technique from the heart of real philosophy."

Circling back to what I think is where we might disagree, is the question of whether a textbook of X's explanation of philosophy is an addition or a hindrance for students. One way I suspect we have different circumstances is that for the last five years, I have taught Intro in an asynchronous online format, so I don't get to have that personal classroom interaction with students. I can't employ the method of discussion as I would prefer. I tried for awhile to just give my students materials materials on our online courseware system, Blackboard. It seemed to be a problem of students not taking it as seriously as they could and should. Then I published it as a textbook, adding much more material, and I noticed a huge increase in student engagement. The attitude change to having a textbook they have to buy and read has made a big difference.

On a totally different note--I thought your name was familiar, and now I remember why. In March of this year I had an e-mail discussion with Michael Zimmerman about my article on UFO phenomena, https://medium.com/p/c7a57ce14f4e, and he recommended contacting you about your UAP studies society. since, he said, we had similar interests. I confess that suggestion fell by the wayside amidst everything else I had going on, but UFOs/UAPs is a subject I am keenly interested in as a philosopher, so it is good to make contact with you, and would enjoy hearing more about your society.