Marsha said to Ron:
If I surrender my thinking to you or your authority ("Scientist David
Deutsch"), you might, indeed accuse me of a lack of critical thinking skills.
I have no use for a general consensus, and I choose whose words I admire:
“Therefore, poets do not 'fit' into society, not because a place is denied them
but because they do not take their 'places' seriously. They openly see its
roles as theatrical, its styles as poses, its clothing costumes, its rules
conventional, its crises arranged, its conflicts performed and its metaphysics
ideological.” (Carse, James P., 'Finite and infinite Games')
Ron said to the "war woman" (Marsha):
To borrow a phrase, all your philososhical position consists of is running
around saying ""you're not the boss of me!" ... You exhault killing all
intellectual patterns yet praise critical thinking. This causes me to wonder if
A: you do not understand one of the terms you are using. or B: You're such a
vendictive asshole that it blinds you to the use of those terms so that your
blind rejection of everything I say results in making you look like a mindless
troll, thereby justifying being a mindless troll with quotes explaining that
you are just a poet. ARE all poets mindless trolls thick with blind rage? Are
they just bitter confused people crying out for attention? ....[etc.]
dmb says:
That's pretty much how I see it too, as childish impudence, which probably
surprises no one. In fact, Ron might have borrowed that phrase ("You're not the
boss of me") from one of my recent posts to Krimel. Rather than simply repeat
or add to these long-standing complaints, I'd like to say a few things about
the meaning of a couple very harsh words, namely "asshole" and "troll". I
recently heard an interview with a linguist wherein they examined the use and
then defined the term "asshole". It's a very harsh word, obviously, but it does
have a meaning and it does make reference to certain social realities, if you
will.
Clearly, the word "asshole" expresses disapproval of a person or their
behavior. It's a little bit funny to characterize a dog or a little kid as an
"asshole" because the term expresses contempt for a person's inability to
respond properly to a situation. But we can't reasonably expect that kind of
responsiveness from pets or toddlers. Calling them an "asshole" is not really
criticism of such innocent creatures, of course, it's just a joke about our own
unreasonable expectations. The joke is on the joke-teller. But it also says
something about the meaning of the word "asshole". The term is used to
characterize the words and deeds of adults who cannot (or will not) do what's
normally expected of adults. We expect grown ups to understand the situation
that they're in and respond appropriately. Grace is basically doing what's call
for and doing it well.
This is the basic idea behind the linguist's definition of "asshole". There are
two main causes, he explained in the interview. The asshole is either oblivious
or obstinate. The oblivious asshole cannot see what the situation calls for -
because of ignorance, stupidity or neurotic self-absorbtion. The obstinate
asshole can see what the situation calls for but refuses to respond
appropriately - usually because this kind of asshole thinks the "rules" don't
apply to him, thinks he's too special or too important to do what's appropriate
to the situation. So the definition of "asshole" is a person who cannot
(oblivious) or will not (obstinate) respond appropriately to the situation.
The linguist's definition is broad enough and general enough to describe what
assholes do in any situation. But I was thinking that "troll" is a more
specific kind of asshole, the kind you find on the internet wherever people are
trying to have a conversation or express their views. A "troll" is a person who
cannot or will not do what's appropriate in the ways of discussion or debate in
cyberspace. They are assholes with a keyboard and a connection to the internet,
as opposed to the assholes in grocery stores, on the highway, or whatever.
Unlike their counterparts in the "real" world, the troll can hide behind fake
names, multiple avatars, and the like. Studies show that this anonymity tends
to make everyone a little meaner and sassier than they would be in a
face-to-face situation (no big surprise there) but this effect is magnified in
the case of assholes. Trolls don't just refuse to act right, they also
aggressively misbehave. To the extent that they can read the situation, they
actively and energetically interrupt, derail, highjack, and otherwise spoil the
conversation. This usually involves tons of heated words and insults and
sometimes nothing but. I'm no psychoanalyst but it seems to me that this kind
of behavior is usually driven by the belief that it's better to be hated than
ignored, i.e. they do it for the attention. They need attention so desperately
that even negative attention will satisfy their hunger, or so they hope.
What do these conceptions of "asshole" and "troll" mean in this particular
situation, in this discussion group? The point and purpose of it are clear
enough. It's the first thing Horse says in the Charter and Rules: this "mailing
list exists to provide a general and free-ranging forum for the discussion of
Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality". There are rules against abusive
behavior and such but that should go without saying, especially in a philosophy
forum - as opposed to a forum dedicated to talking about politics, sports,
celebrities or whatever. The rules that strike me as most relevant to this
situation are the first two; 1) You must first read LILA, at the very least,
and 2) all topics and discussions must be relevant to the MOQ, to Zen and the
Art, or to LILA. That more or less defines this situation, right? We're all
here to discuss Robert Pirsig's philosophy. That's the point. That's the
purpose. Nobody is required to be here but if you sign up and then send posts,
that's what you're supposed to be doing.
If we are going to ask ourselves what is (and what is not) appropriate to this
particular situation, then these basic parameters seem like a reasonable way to
describe what the situation actually is. I think we can safely say that a
"troll" is anyone who refuses to read Pirsig's books or refuses the basic
demand for relevance. Rule number 4 extends this demand for relevance to the
way we reply to each other. 4)" Members should reproduce only the relevant
parts of any previous message to which they are responding." It's not just a
waste of data storage space, reproducing the irrelevant parts (or failing to
reproduce relevant parts) is sloppy and unfocused - both aesthetically and
intellectually. It might even suggest that the poster doesn't see what's
relevant and what isn't. And failing to reproduce the parts that are very
conspicuously relevant - such as disputed textual evidence or any contentious
claims - is certainly what a troll would do. In this situation, it is never
appropriate to delete or dismiss relevant evidence or to criticize claims that
nobody actually made. In this situation, knowing what's relevant is crucial to
knowing what's appropriate.
And the presumption here is that people will not just be accurate about who
said what, this is also connected to truthfulness in a different sense, one
that you can't really see on the page per se but can be read between the lines,
so to speak. Good conversation also involves a certain kind of internal
honesty. It's no accident that communication and community are related words.
Conversations quickly break down in the absence of things like trust,
sincerity, openness, a willingness to be persuaded by evidence and reason, the
courage and maturity to fairly address criticism, and the integrity to take
responsibility for any claims and statements. Critical thinking skills are very
important but this moral dimension is absolutely critical. The ad hominem
attack, which is famously bogus, is a kind of diversion. It attacks the
messenger in order to attack the message, which is the real target of the
invalid argument. But that old trick is hardly the same thing as criticizing
specific instances of dishonesty. In that case, the messenger's behavior is the
target of the criticism and the message itself could be quite secondary or even
irrelevant.
Suppose you make a case (presenting evidence and giving reasons) against
somebody else's claim. Instead of defending their claim against this criticism,
they reply by simply saying that they disagree or by simply saying don't care
what you think. That's the end of that. It's just a refusal to cooperate with
the rules of the forum in which made the claim. This is certainly NOT
appropriate to the situation. It's like playing chess. You don't have to.
Nobody is making you play against your will. You're free to play any game you
like or none at all. But if you go to a chess club, sit down in front the chess
board and start making moves, then you have tacitly agreed to play chess. To
make your moves and then suddenly declare that the rules of chess do not apply
to you, is certainly what we mean by "troll". Such behavior is so hostile to
the main purpose of a discussion group that use of the terms "troll" and even
"asshole" are only fitting. It's an oblivious or obstinate refusal to do what's
appropriate to the situation.
Ever notice HOW Marsha refuses to do what's right in this situation? As we see
at the top of this page, her response to Ron's post on the importance of
"critical thinking skills" characterizes the issue in oddly paranoid terms. To
seriously consider his criticism, as Marsha sees it, is to "surrender" to Ron,
to "surrender" her thinking to the "authority" of scientist David Deutsch. "I
have no use for a general consensus, and I choose whose words I admire," she
said. And then she quoted admirable words. “Therefore, poets do not 'fit' into
society, not because a place is denied them but because they do not take their
'places' seriously. ..." I don't think we have to read between the lines much
to see what Marsha is implying; she's better than you, see? She's a poet
whereas you are merely a thinker. Thinking involves all that stupid static
stuff like definitions, she thinks. Words are cages and she won't be trapped by
them. Intellectual values are of no importance to special people like Marsha.
She's above all that, see? That wouldn't be so bad if she was saying this at
the poetry club or at the meditation club but she is constantly implying this
self-agrandizing nonsense in a philosophy discussion group. That's like going
to the chess club, making a few illegal chess moves and then telling all the
players in club what stupid game chess is. What's the right word for that sort
of behavior? Yea, you guessed it.
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
