[MD] Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig

[david buchanan]

David M and Matt:

David M said to DMB
>That sounds a fair appraisal to me.
>When you go to school, take a look at phenomenology
>post-Heidegger, maybe start with Merleau-Ponty because
>there are close connections between Pirsig and
>phenomenological attempts to describe experience as it
>is and without SOM assumptions. Pirsig can offer a
>good map, the phenomenologists have been exploring
>the territory without its help. See some of the phenomenology
>stuff here for example: http://consc.net/people.html#causation

dmb says:
I wonder if you can say something specific about that connection. You've 
made this sort of suggestion several times, but its always quite vague. 
Don't get me wrong. There's no reason to think Pirsig's work can't be 
compared to or at least contrasted with other Western thinkers. But my own 
brief investigations in that direction haven't been very encouraging. And it 
seems there is a certain tension between the philosophological wish to 
locate the MOQ within the history of philosophy and the ability of our 
resident philosophologists to fulfill these hopes. I mean, you and Matt and 
several other posters have the kind of background for this sort of map 
reading, but it seems nobody is doing it. Why is that? Around here, instead 
of presenting illuminating comparisions we tend to get various attempts to 
mix the MOQ with hostile and anti-thetical ideas. As I understand it, the 
MOQ doesn't mix with the dogmas of theistic religion nor postmodernism 
nihilism.

And why is it that nobody wants to follow Pirsig's clues and compare the MOQ 
to Plotinus, Lao Tsu or Northrop. A good look at William James and the MOQ 
would probably be helpful too. If I may toot my own horn, I've tried to 
bring comparable thinkers and ideas to the table about a gazillion times 
with lots of quotes and detailed explanations. But the philosophologist 
among us seem to trade in names, labels and lots of arbitrary categories, 
none of which means anything to those of us who aren't philosophologically 
minded. It sure would be nice to see some coherent and detailed explanations 
from someone who really knows the history of philosophy. It sure would be 
nice to see some appropriate and relevant comparisons, to see some real 
connections instead of what we usually see around here, which is the 
cramming of sqare pegs into round holes and other forms of intellectual 
vandalism.

Don't get wrong, Dave. I know you were just trying to encourage me and point 
in a helpful direction. Its just that I'm frustrated by the general lack of 
substance and relevance in the philosophological approach to things. So far, 
in this forum, I don't think anyone has actually demonstrated the value of 
this approach. As we all saw in the interview with JB and in my months-long 
discussion with Matt, philosophology seems to be the way to go if one's 
point and purpose is to avoid the substance of the matter at all costs. 
Maybe that's why Baggini didn't bother to ask Pirsig how his MOQ compared to 
Plotinus, Northrop or Lao Tsu, because that would have brought him 
dangerously close to a meaningful conversation, God forbid,  about Pirsig's 
ideas.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963