Arlo said: The underlying question is, when social level rhetoric is used to assault intellectual patterns, is it immoral to finally combine intellectual response with a counter social-level attack? Or, in short, when one is assaulted with social-level anti-intellectualism is a solely intellectual response adequate? My answer, is no. Or to say it proverbially, one must fight fire with fire.
dmb says: Right. And I think it's pretty obvious that you're not describing a hypothetical "when". We are currently witnessing a social-level assault on intellectual values with the censored scientific reports on global warming being just one of many examples. I saw him on TV last night and learned that the guy who did the actual alterations had been the president of the national petroleum board (or some such thing) and has since left government for a top job at one of the big oil companies. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see what's going on here. The inventor of fascism described it as the collusion of corporations and government and said that fascism should be called corporatism. Money talks but you better watch what YOU say, Mister Scientist. We're also seeing an attack on the Bill of Rights that could very well undo our democracy. Domestic spying, a phony war, torture, intimidation of critics, etc.. Like Naomi Wolf's friend kept telling her, this was how Germany looked in the 1930's (see her talk "the end of America" on YouTube). This is a real fight and there is no way to avoid the social level if one wishes to oppose it. Like it or not, that just happens to be the location of the battlefield. Its gonna be fought in the media, in politics, around the water cooler and over a beer. This doesn't mean we can't fight for intellectual values. Going on 60 Minutes to tell the story is a case where intellectual values are being defended in the mass media, which is a social level institution. While he had enough class to refrain from calling people names, his story painted the administration as a bunch of liars who care about cash above all. And if that's the case, then isn't wrong NOT to say so? If that's the case, then aren't we morally obliged to say so? Can a person can be angry and make sense at the same time? Yes, yes, yes, even on TV, on the political stage or at the bar. Arlo said: The more aggressive social-level anti-intellectualism becomes, as in the case of repeated distortions and misdirection of intellectual responses and the repetition of socal-level assaults, one has to couple the intellectual-level replies with a social-level condemnation of the assault and rhetorical devices being used. And those who continually rely on social-level anti-intellectual rhetorical trickery, deception and distortion should not be surprised when an intellectual response is finally coupled with a condemnation of those tactics as "moronic". dmb says: It's perfectly legitimate to criticize or reject an argument for its lack of intellectual quality and the rhetorical tools are certainly part of the argument's quality. We could be very careful to avoid insulting the one making the argument but there is no honest way to avoid the obvious implication. One could even construe the demands of "civility" as a subtle form of censorship. While its true that people stop listening when things get too rough, that's more like a practical consideration about the effectiveness of aggressive rhetoric than it is a moral constraint or ethical rule. Anyone who can be persuaded by reason already knows that ad hominem arguments don't cut it. But they also know that immoral decisions made and uninformed opinions are held by immoral and uninformed people. This truism is unaltered by the fact that it may hurt somebody's feelings (or cost them money). That fact can even be used to defend intellectual values. By fighting the good fight, we can create a situation where people are embarrassed to believe in stupid things. Why shouldn't an adult be ashamed to admit that he believes the 9/11 attack was divine justice aimed at liberal secular humanists? That's about as cruel, stupid and anti-intellectual as it gets. Pat Robertson showed himself to be a moron when he said it and I can't think of any moral or intellectual reason why one shouldn't be able to say so. Arlo said: The Buddha may take the high road and meet such ongoing, despicable assaults with non-response, but for mere humans one finally has call a spade a spade. This may indeed be lowering oneself to the level of those who wield such tactics in the first place, but in the face of such anti-intellectualism there is little other recourse, I'm afraid. dmb says: Given the issues involved here, I think it makes much more sense to invoke Pragmatism rather than Buddhism. The conflict between social and intellectual values is about ordinary, everyday betterness. Its about serving the ongoing evolution of life. Its about what's right and what's true in this practical, historical moment. I think its no accident that the static levels are explained in terms of historical examples and political conflicts. Extrapolating from them is easy enough. dmb _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan 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/
