[MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

[Ian Glendinning]

That's a great contribution John, I'd forgetten that question was
explicit in the Baggini interview.

... except for one minor thing ...

Clearly Pirsig says he wants others to criticize and raise his game
(and in my experience he is genuine in that), but at the time,
branding those others as somehow inferior philosophologists clearly
had the opposite effect (as in fact you might expect).

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:28 PM, John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, Matt, and all,
> Last night or the night before while clicking through archives and links and
> what-not I came across this interview, with the following insight into the
> question:
>
>
> BAGGINI: I like the idea of “philosophology” as opposed to real philosophy.
> And I am sure that one of the main trappings of academic philosophy is that
> it encourages the former rather than the latter. But I'm not sure the
> distinction is as neat as you present it, and this is what I think serves as
> an obstacle to the reception of the MOQ.
>
>
>
> PIRSIG: No, it isn't neat, since most philosophologists also philosophize
> and most philosophers also philosophologise.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Let me grant that you've successfully "fuzzed-up" the distinction
>> between philosophy and philosophology that Pirsig and others would
>> like to keep distinct.
>
>
> So from my reading of this quote, the distinction was "fuzzed-up" even
> before Matt.  It was intended as a fuzzy distinction by its creator.  Pirsig
> also talks about doing philosophology himself, but his primary orientation
> is as philosopher who is a half-assed philosophologist, rather than the
> other way around.
>
> How this relates to the debate is the distinction is not who we are, it is
> in what we do -   In the moment I can do philosophy or I can do
> philosophology.  There is a clear distinction,  in the moment of doing,
> which is not fuzzy.  Which one I am, is determined by which one I am doing.
>  And it changes.
>
>
>>
>> You've said that Pirsig wants us to keep this distinction because it
>> frees him from the criticisms of academia. Can you see any other
>> purpose for which this distinction could still be useful?
>>
>
> Well I don't agree with that "reason" as Pirsig's.   He plainly wants the
> criticisms of academia.  I mean, who wouldn't?  I can't imagine anything
> more exciting than waking up and finding academia criticizing me.
>
> BAGGINI: Your alter-ego Phaedrus is the epitome of the lone philosopher. He
> doesn't ignore other philosophers completely, but he doesn't have
> well-informed fellow philosophers to push him and test him, and he develops
> his own philosophy mostly independently from that which has gone before. I
> would suggest, however, that he makes the opposite error of the
> philosophologists he seems to feel superior too: they spend too much time
> rehearsing the ideas of others, but he underestimates the extent to which
> others can help us to raise our game and think better.
>
>
>
> PIRSIG: Any time others want to help me raise my game and think better, I'm
> all for it. The problem has been that those academic others who should be
> engaging the Metaphysics of Quality have remained silent for 31 years in
> contrast to the response of the general public.
>
>
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>