[MD] philosophology

[david buchanan]

Pirsig said:
"I think this conclusion ["SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same."] undermines the MOQ, .... It is like saying that science is really a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of comparison is what I have meant by the term, “philosophology.” It is done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but only to classify it so that they don’t have to see it as anything new. ..I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes."


Dan commented:
Now, here I understand Robert Pirsig as saying in order to begin forming an understanding with the MOQ we need to put aside what we know in favor of what we do not know. That doesn't necessarily mean we must forego the studying of other philosophers (even though I pretty much leave that to the scholars here) but rather leave off with the classifying of what the MOQ has to say in comparison with what has been said.



dmb says:

Comparing one thinker to another is not the problem. Original thinking is better than comparative analysis and that's what separates a philosopher from a philosophologist but that doesn't mean that philosophology is evil or whatever. Pirsig compares and contrasts all kinds of thinkers throughout both his books. He draws a contrast between his Quality and Hegel's Absolute and Plato's Good, for example, and says Plotinus and Eckhart are his favorite mystics. He was impressed with the number of fits and matches he found in James's work. He compares his Quality with the Tao and his philosophy agrees with the perennial philosophy, Zen Buddhism, philosophical mysticism, pragmatism, radical empiricism. I don't suppose anyone could be foolish enough to believe we should avoid  such comparisons (except Marsha, apparently) or foolish enough to believe that such comparisons are not illuminating and/or clarifying (except Marsha, apparently). Besides, if one wanted to present an original philosophical work, why would anyone want to present it in an internet discussion group? A forum like this has its own kind of dynamism anyway; it's a place where you have to respond to whatever comes up and otherwise think on your feet. It's almost like a living conversation and that should be enough to keep things from getting too static. The problem with philosophology, as you can see from Pirsig's comments, is the dismissive, undermining, subordination of the MOQ by those who "classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything new." That's what he said in Liverpool too, where he objected to the philosophologist who would dismiss the MOQ for saying what's already been said and doing what's already been done. This kind of classification is not done for the purpose of illuminating or clarifying the MOQ but rather the opposite. It just puts the MOQ is a pigeon hole, slaps a label on it, puts it in a drawer and forgets about it. This is done, Pirsig says, "by people who are not seeking to understand what is written". 

But more specifically, the problem that's getting politely smacked down is this "insight" that Marsha shares with Platt and Bo (the view that says "SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same").


Dan:
Yes there is that, sure. From what I gather, Bo's 'insight' was so completely incongruous with the MOQ that it was given short shrift in the Lila's Child annotations. [...] This type of thinking undermines the MOQ. And yes, they, like others here, were very good at picking and choosing selective quotes to bolster their opinions even to the point of claiming Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics.    What I find both sad and frustrating is that Robert Pirsig has directly addressed these concerns and yet so many people continue to find ways to ignore it. And no, I am not jumping on the 'pick on Marsha' bandwagon in saying that though I do think her continued support of Bo's 'insight' tends to put her in a somewhat dubious light.



dmb say:

Yes, that just blows my mind. What kind of person can ignore that? If the author himself tells you directly, by name, that you are mistaken and you still don't take heed, you are either an epic genius or you're just very unrealistic, if not delusional. 

But again, notice the language that Pirsig uses to describe the correct relation between SOM and the MOQ. "The MOQ is in OPPOSITION to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that system which it OPPOSES sounds like a dismissal.  ..I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it OPPOSES." He says it three times. You can't equate the MOQ's intellectual level with the very thing that the MOQ opposes. That's the formulation that undermines the MOQ, not to mention intellectual quality in the MOQ. 

The textual evidence for the wrongness of Bo's "insight" could hardly be any clearer. Even a philosophologist can see that much.