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 <[email protected]>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/
