dmb said:
...In a place like this, ignoring contrary evidence and evading questions is a
very serious problem. It's a violation of decency and fair-play. It's not
honest. That kind of behavior is the mark of very low intellectual quality. And
yet that's exactly what the so-called "misfits" do, some of them have been
ignoring and evading for many years now. The problem seems to be plain,
old-fashioned incompetence, not that they have a "different" point of view.
These misfits don't fit into a philosophical discussion group because such a
discussion can not function without answering questions, saying what you mean
and honestly facing up to the relevant evidence. A conversation just can't work
without these basic standards of decency. ..As I see it, the participants who
conduct themselves this way, year after year, really don't belong in a place
like this regardless of the topic discussed. That kind of behavior would spoil
ANY kind of philosophical discussion and if they ignored evidence
and refused to answer questions in a court of law they'd be cited for
contempt or laughed out of the courtroom. I mean, in some contexts it is
literally against the law to do what they do here every day of the week. As I
see it, Horse's contention is that this behavior interferes with the main
purpose of this forum and I don't see how anyone can doubt that. On some days
there is nothing but noise and interference so that decent conversation is
completely shut out. It's just about dealing with childish bullshit that should
never exist in the first place. What a drag.
Tim replied:
haha. I, for one, am a fan of children. Therefore, I am quite glad that there
is childish bullshit to deal with - and knowing that so long as there is man he
will have childish bullshit with which to deal. Do you really think that
QUALITY (Quality's Quality) is to be found somewhere in the arena of
philosophy? To be sure, there is quality to philosophy, but it is because it
relates to us, children. Grow down! Jackass :) At least keep this in mind if
you should come to despair over the aimlessness of the 'purely' intellectual
pursuits. And sure, go ahead, find this out for yourself, that's probably
best, but at least consider a little humility now: though I might not be able
to prove it to you, now, we noise-makers (not 'misfits') might have something
that you will value in the end.
dmb says:
If you're glad to deal with childish bullshit and have no problem with the
repeated violation of common standards of intellectual decency, then you
probably don't care much about philosophy. I don't see much point in discussing
philosophy with people who don't care about such things.
The point, Tim, is that having an alternative point of view and being
intellectually dishonest (or incompetent) are two completely different things.
In a context like this, a well argued and well supported alternative view is a
very exciting thing. A point of view held contrary to reason and evidence is
one of the very worst things. That's what's infuriating about these so-called
misfits.
John persists in pushing the theistic notions of Absolute Idealism, despite the
fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been presented to him
many times.
Platt persists in pushing free-market capitalism in particular and political
conservatism in general, despite the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to
the contrary have been presented to him many, many times.
Marsha persists in equating the intellectual level with SOM and reification,
despite the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been
presented to her many, many times and despite the fact that her formulations
are logically impossible.
These are not simply alternative points of view. These positions have been
maintained in the face of evidence that would and should convince any
reasonable person. As I see it, these people have demonstrably proven that they
are not reasonable. And that means there is no way to conduct a meaningful
conversation with them. Why would such a person be interested in joining a
discussion group in first place? I'd guess they're motivated by loneliness or
something. It certainly doesn't appear to motivated by any real interest in
what Pirsig says. Pirsig told Platt directly and explicitly, for example, that
his position not only failed to reflect a proper understanding of the MOQ but
actually UNDERMINED the MOQ. But Platt doesn't care about that and he still
maintains that contrary view ten years later. That's basically the same view
that Marsha clings to as well. And just about everybody who does understand the
MOQ has taken their turn trying to explain and convince them. Nope. Not
an inch. You wanna talk about the lack of humility? Platt and Marsha think
they know better than anyone and it doesn't matter if you're the original
author or if you've produced a Ph.D thesis or written a book on the topic.
Intellectual competence means nothing. To them, the use of evidence is just
some kind of contemptible, illegitimate reliance on "authority". That's who
"the man" is, by the way. "The man" is just authority in general, the system,
the status quo.
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/md/archives.html
