dmb said to Dan:
...But what concerns me far more than whether or not that correction hurt their
pride or bruised their feelings (Isn't that just stuff that grown-ups have to
deal with?), what concerns me is the way both of them totally ignored the
actual content of Pirsig's correction and they have both tenaciously held onto
that defiance to this day.
Dan replied:
Yes, I know. Actually there are a number of contributors here who've done the
very same thing. I chalk it up to the fallibility of human nature. Many, if not
most, people are so set in their ways and belief systems that they will never,
ever change or evolve into a better and more knowledgeable person. We can
condemn them or just take it as a matter of course and go on with our own
pursuits.
dmb says:
Yes, it's true that most people see no reason to alter their views. Generally
speaking, it would be presumptuous and arrogant to go around telling people
they're wrong about this or that. Personally, I get irritated by people who
come to my door with the intention of informing about God's love or who I
should vote for. BUT, this is a philosophical discussion group, a self-selected
group of people that have supposedly agreed to an open exchange of views simply
by virtue of being here. To resent criticism in a place like this is like
getting angry that there is sand at the beach, faith in the churches or
gambling in the casino. It's not just okay to criticize each other's views and
assertions. It's essential. When criticisms are answered with resentment and
anger instead of an answer of substance, the issue has been evaded and the
discussion process has been short-circuited. And why? Pride. Because saving
face means more than making sense, apparently. That's what really gets my
goat, these ego driven evasions. That's when I get hostile - precisely
because it's so totally destructive. It utterly frustrates and wrecks the
possibility of having a philosophical debate.
Let me give you just one concrete example of this ruinous nonsense. Recently,
instead of answering a piece of criticism with any kind of real answer, Marsha
deflected the criticism with childish mockery; she altered the names in one of
my paragraphs so that it was directed back at me. Then Steve, apparently not
recognizing it as mockery, accused me of evasion for failing to answer Marsha's
criticism, as if that altered paragraph made any sense as a criticism of my
views and as if she had a real knock-down point. Can you imagine? You see your
own paragraph in front of you, altered so that it's criticism OF you instead of
BY you, and (even though you haven't even seen it before} people are smugly
calling you names for failing to answer this powerful point. Meanwhile, of
course, it was my criticism of Marsha's views all along and that's what was
never answered. Come on. That's outrageous bullshit, isn't it? There are many
such examples. It would be wrong NOT to complain about th
at kind of behavior, again, because it is so destructive to the purpose of
this place. I wish we had a bullshit cop and a penalty box, I really do. And
let's not forget that nobody has a right to be here. The world is a big place
and there's room in it for all kinds. But isn't this supposed to be a place
where one should fully EXPECT to have their claims and assertions challenged?
So what if those challenges are brutally frank? It's well within the
philosophical tradition, you know?
There was an English pragmatist at Oxford by the name of Schiller. You might
say he was William James's bulldog and man was he ever vicious. James asked him
repeatedly to tone it down. Schiller was a riot. He published a fake journal to
make fun of the Absolutist like F. H. Bradley and Josiah Royce. He'd write fake
articles by "F.H. Badly". James, on the other hand, maintained friendships with
Bradley and Royce despite their disagreements but in private letters he openly
talks to his friends about how he intends the take the scalp of their Absolute,
how is going to destroy their Absolute. Hume said the work of his rivals should
be committed to the flames and if you've ever read Nietzsche you know he is
flinging zingers on every page. Zingers fly back and forth between academic
philosophers too, in the published journals. Yea, the tone is civilized and
it's all grammatically correct and properly footnoted but it's a real fight all
the same. As long as it's a fair fight, people
very much enjoy the debate and find it quite exciting. As you can imagine,
childish mockery simply doesn't get published - and rightly so.
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
