I apologize for a belated response here, so I've taken the liberty of concatenating several posts into my expanded comments regarding the question "What is Philosophy?"

MF: "I asked eight questions above, to which do you refer?"

You asked one question, with a subset of amplifications. Yet by suggesting that a reply to the primary question somehow might follow the agenda of the subset, you inadvertently are creating the mental logical/mental/semantic (your choice) equivalent of a particle accelerator, wherein concepts are confined within the magnetic fields of a long circular tube. The circular construction of an accelerator is a fortuitous aspect of my simile :)

I link my perhaps awkward "simile" to your second response vis a vis "separations of power" and specialization:

MF "Can you clarify what you mean when you say the separations are 'arbitrary' and .. suit the 'convenience' of academia?"

Of course, the separations serve purposes - but "naming" follows etymological and cultural tradition. There is enormous momentum built into human institutions, whether they be ecclesiastical, political, linguistic. There is resistance, In the cliché,  to "re-inventing the wheel". And, of course (I am anticipating one possible response), the wheel is so efficacious one wouldn't re-invent it. One might simply levitate! Intimations here of the folly of words and naming when elevated to scriptural status.

MF:  RE: your answer

1. "When you use the word 'we' to whom to you refer"?

Yes, you do cause me some pause here. My automatic use of the conventionally referenced "editorial we" is challenged! Do I mean all participants in the process of human language and understanding, or do I mean (once again, the 'subset' issue) all persons who in some way define themselves as "philosophers" and, further, who participate in this forum. Briefly, I prefer the more inclusive sense of the "editorial we".

2. So are you right or are the analytic philosophers right?.   Or, perhaps a better alternative, are you both wrong in your language of exclusion?

Under the truncated conditions of this online dialog, I inadvertently provide the impression that I would exclude logic. ("Rather than obeying the rules of logic"). Creative insight first, and then afterwards, the hard work of testing internal consistency. Of course, ultimately, in all of the constructions generated here about the conditions under which we presume to be "philosophizing", there will be recourse to "logical analysis".

3. I am wondering what you mean by the "essence of curiosity" and  "coherent modality?"

If I were to have eliminated "essence of", I think that the naked term "curiosity" would have lacked that Platonic aura I attempted to provide. In my view, unmodified "curiosity" is part of investigative journalism, the explorations of a cat or child, etc. By adding "essence", I had  hoped to elicit "intimations" of a higher, or more primal, sort (yes, in some venues, primal and higher are opposite rather than apposite). After all, words do retain their evocative characteristics, even within the rigorous arctic of the discipline "we" are attempting to define. Perhaps a global warming effect here might have positive dimensions.

And so, to your final comment qua question:

 Is curiosity a sine qua non of all philosophical thinking? And if so, what type of curiousity is philosophical? (certain forms of curiosity obviously are not philosophical)..

I would agree with RM that creating distinctions between different kinds of curiosity seems futile.

But, RM adds the notion of curiosity as an "umbrella concept", which s/he suggests would be an unworkable unifying concept over all branches of philosophy. I agree, if "curiosity" is a concept. In my original post, I did use the expression "driven by" as the participial modifier for "essence of curiosity". In that sense, I am evoking a kind of psychological ground tone. There we have it for my own self-imposed conundrum regarding "curiosity". A person concerned with "philosophy" is not much different from a person concerned with string theory or perfecting a cinematic scene or seeking the Northwest Passage. 

further definitions as requested by MF:

coherent modality: "Modality" provides a more inclusive range of possibilities than "medium", which could be used as an adjunct concept following "coherent". And, in my way of thinking, "coherent" certainly includes "logical", but also could provide equal standing with the ways in which a poem can be coherent within its own metaphors, or images or disjunctures.

Nathan Holmes salvages a domain for the original question.  I would add that Wittgenstein in his later life, certainly traveled far from his original work within the parameters of logical positivism et al. And Mr. Holmes gives us a working model for academia.

Furthermore, Mr. Ichikawa adds (I paraphrase) . We may need to think about these questions, but we may not need answers. "Thinking about" allows a spacious realm within which to soar, while "answers to" would throw us into a sewing kit full of needles to be threaded.

I am resting my non-legal, illegal, and generically anarchistic case. I define my context as being akin to the world of English jurisprudence, not Roman or continental :)