From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 02:32:50 BST
The philosopher-philosophologist distinction was something I thought I understood when I read
about it in Pirsig but reading Matt's posts I am not so sure anymore. I think it needs
exploring. I am not exactly clear about Matt's or my position yet on it but Matt has made me
realize the distinction isn't as clear as I thought it was. For example, awhile ago it
was suggested people put their interpretations of others writings instead of just quoting
others but that never picked up. You praise DMB for helping to clarify Matt's idea but I
have to say when I read Matt's post most of them tend to be his writing. When I read many
of DMB's post they are 80% of quotes of others that I am supposed to piece together because
they "pop" to DMB. You directly experience the "pure popness" DMB feels or you are a
[insert the insult of the day] often without any explanation of what DMB thinks about
the quotes. So I had to laugh at when you put that Rorty quote talking about his piecing
together while praising DMB's style which is to me very fitting of that quote. Now I wouldn't
consider DMB or Rorty to be "unoriginal" when they are piecing. I know when I piece together
quotes I am putting some of my thinking in the piecing. But the piecing together process is
example where the distinction of philosophy and philosopholoy gets blurry to me. Another
thing when Marsha says I am not a philosopher. What the hell does that mean? you mean don't
think for yourself----according to the philosopher/philosophology distinction that how
somebody explained it one post? or you mean you haven't studied philosophy in school---but
again according to the distinction you don't need that to be a philosopher. So if you agree
with the distinction then why would anybody here say "I am not a philosopher" just because
they aren't in academia.
Now I am sure this is all crystal clear to you and pops pureness or purely pops to DMB but
sorry I have to admit the distinction is blurry to me.
Erin
Hi Erin et al.
To me philosophology is when the writing is very static and offers nothing original;
merely rote regurgitation of someone elses ideas without having made any real thought
as to the quality of those classifications. A lot like the activity which one is
expected to do in school. But that's not to say there is zero creativity in
philosophologists or in schools either, it is just that they won't admit to being
aware or are not aware (in the zen sense) to the creative qualitys' existence. I think
this is where the line should be drawn.
David
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 06 2005 - 12:13:16 BST