[Horse previously] Neither myself, DMB, Ron, Arlo etc. etc. wish to denigrate DQ or subsume it within Intellect.
[IG] Clearly no-one wishes to denigrate DQ, but wishing and acting are different things. [Arlo] I share Horse's frustration with this. Expecting (and demanding) intellectual quality in a philosophy forum is not a denigration to Quality, but a respect and appreciation of Quality. In the same way that crafting a rotisserie or performing a tea ceremony or fixing a motorcycle are all improved by Quality-informed activity (as opposed to, for example, the sloppy mechanics in ZMM), intellectual endeavors also have a beauty, and one that resonates from the characteristics Pirsig identified (see, "logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation".) [IG] This is where I ring the "straw man" bell. [Arlo] Ian, you "ring the straw man bell" more than any person here. And in nearly every instance you use it its pretty much just a device to avoid criticisms and argument. [IG] Ah, therein lies the rub. Unreasonable depends on your definition of reason. [Arlo] "Reason" is a shared set of intellectual expectations. All communities negotiate a somewhat nuanced understanding of 'reasonableness' (in terms of contribution), but I'd say that Horse is *by far* more tolerant and unrestrictive than any other philosophy moderator I've come across. Apart from a handful of people, for example, nearly every person on this forum would not last a week on the Peirce or Foucault lists that I also belong to. Not. One. Week. [IG] I think the real problem is those confusing MoQ-Informed Intellect with GOF-SOMist Intellect. Allowing their love of intellect to kill Quality - as ever the truer path is the one of balance. [Arlo] These two sentences are disjointed. You write them as if one naturally informs the other, but they are completely different ideas. As such, I'm responding to them individually. [IG] I think the real problem is those confusing MoQ-Informed Intellect with GOF-SOMist Intellect. [Arlo] So far, the only people evidencing this confusion is the SOL-informed crowd, and its derivatives. [IG] Allowing their love of intellect to kill Quality - as ever the truer path is the one of balance. [Arlo] This is kind of absurd. Its almost akin to condemning a painter who desires to paint a beautiful painting as allowing their love of paint to kill Quality. What I see in Ant, DMB, Dan, Horse and others who struggle towards high intellectual quality is, first and foremost, the idea that the Buddha rests just as comfortably in the ideas of a metaphysical treatise as on the canvas of a painting. As I see it, while they are trying to craft a beautiful intellectual pattern, while others seem to think that throwing globs of paint on their work is somehow necessary 'balance'. Their "love of intellect" is no different than a "love of motorcycle repair" or "love of rotisserie building" in that there are good ways to do it and bad ways to do 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
