That was certainly Pirsig's hope John - to throw down the gauntlet. But history shows it had the opposite effect - reinforced in Baggini's attitude to the subject.
Regards Ian On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM, John Carl<[email protected]> wrote: > Nah, nothing like a real gauntlet in your face to raise a reaction. > "Come out and fight you wussy academic philosophologists you!" > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ian Glendinning > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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<[email protected]> 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 < >> [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/ >> > >> 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/ >> > 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/ > 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/
