Hello everyone On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
Dan: Yes, we agree then. That's really my whole point... it is okay to criticize... even necessary, but when the criticism becomes destructive rather than constructive, then the whole purpose of discussion is lost. It becomes a "I know you are but what am I" type of exchange rather than an intelligent discourse raising valid (or even not so valid) points to elucidate and enlighten each other as to our varying philosophical outlooks on not only Robert Pirsig's work but life itself. >dmb: > 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? Dan: Yes it is. I admit I have problems with Marsha's "style" as well. She is one contributor who doesn't really seem ready to engage in a proper discussion but not the only one, that's for sure. I don't know where complaining has ever done any good though. It is kind of like Bo and his antics... all the complaints seemed to do was to stir the pot. dmb: There are many such examples. It would be wrong NOT to complain about that 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. Dan: Or maybe a big fist app that would spring out of the monitor and pop the perpetrator in the nose? That might work... dmb: 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? Dan: And there is nothing wrong with being brutally frank if it is in the realm of constructive criticism that moves the discussion along. When I read something that I don't quite understand, I look it up.That's a great thing about the Internet. You can find out just about anything you want to know. And yes, it does irritate me when others don't seem to do likewise. Instead of an intelligent discussion, I get bullshit like: Oh but I have a PhD or I have a Masters degree. Why should I care about that when the contributor cannot even string two sentences together properly? >dmb: > 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. Dan: Abraham Lincoln used to do the same thing early in his career as a lawyer and politician. He wrote extensive (using a pen name) articles ridiculing his opponents in very cruel and lurid fashion. One of those opponents found out it was Lincoln writing the articles and angrily challenged him to a duel (that's what they did in those days... go out into a field and shoot at each other). Lincoln couldn't back down without losing face. He had to fight. So, since it was his choice, he chose to duel with sabers rather than pistols. And he even took saber lessons before the duel. But on the day of the duel, the seconds for each party stepped in before the men could actually fight and put an end the whole affair. Lincoln wrote how he learned his lesson and never again used such destructive criticism against anyone. Even during the Civil War, when his generals openly disobeyed him and prolonged the war, he didn't criticize. Instead, he wrote scathing letters to them and put them in a drawer of his desk, never to be sent. Only after his death did historians find out about that. That's what the draft folder is for, right? Dan 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
