Horse said to Ian:
Whether you (or others) like it or not moq_discuss was set up as a philosophy
forum to discuss a particular subject. In order to do that properly it is
necessary to be able to understand how write coherently and be able to string
together sentences that are consistent and coherent. Unfortunately, some on
this list are incapable of doing so and make appeals to various nonsensical
excuses to justify their sloppy efforts. ...I'm not expecting every person on
this list to be an academic philosopher with a string of titles after their
name but I do expect every person that contributes to be able to put together a
coherent argument, or at the very least to be able to recognise one when it's
in front of their nose. ...
dmb says:
Exactly. Thank you.
The most disturbing thing about this sort of anti-intellectualism is the
transparently self-serving attempt to turn incompetence into some kind of
virtue. And it works the other way around too. It is a self-serving attempt to
make basic intellectual competence into some kind of evil trap. It's ridiculous
and preposterous. Drivel and gibberish are not things to be proud of and
conceptual clarity is nothing to be ashamed of.
Ian said:
Clearly no-one wishes to denigrate DQ, but wishing and acting are different
things.
Horse replied:
Would you care to show me where either myself, DMB, Dan, Arlo etc. are
denigrating DQ? We are not and snide comments such as this do little to help -
this says more about your state of mind than it does about ours.
Likewise, Arlo replied:
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".) [AND] ...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.
dmb says:
Right, the whole project begins with Pirsig's efforts to prove to his students
that they could recognize Quality in a piece of writing. He is the rhetorician,
the champion of excellence in thought and speech. In such a context, it's
totally absurd to suggest that incoherence, inconsistency and/or illogic is
anything other than bad thinking and bad speech. Arlo is exactly right, I
think. There are artful mechanics and there are hacks just as there are artful
thinkers and hacks. It probably goes without saying, but mystics and hacks are
two completely different things. DQ, mysticism, and Buddhism are NEVER EVER an
appropriate response to accusations of incoherence, inconsistency or illogic.
That is just a cheap cop out and it fools nobody but fools.
Similarly, Horse said to Ian:
However, using something called a 'DQ perspective' or claiming to be a mystic
in order to trash intellect is also immoral within an intellectual environment.
[AND] You shout 'straw man' or 'SOM' or 'you're killing my DQ, man'
inappropriately whenever you have little else to argue with. The inappropriate
use of DQ in a sentence - 'DQ perspective', 'DQ thinking' etc. - just shows a
lack of understanding of the MoQ especially where this is used to justify
sloppy thinking. If you can't see that then the fault lies with you.
dmb says:
Yes, and it just so happens that Ian's next line serves as a good example of
this kind of evasion. "Unreasonable depends on your definition of reason," Ian
said."Pirsig and MoQ attempts to widen GOF-Intellect beyond the simple,
classical concepts". This is not only a super-lame excuse and a lazy evasion
(laced with the condescending implication that Horse's objections are based on
concepts to simple and too old fashioned), it also happens to be exactly wrong.
I mean, as Pirsig explains it "reasonableness" is just a vague sentiment under
SOM but in the MOQ it is as real as rocks and trees.
As I understand it, the MOQ says we are morally obliged to be reasonable. From
Lila, Chp. 24:"What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague,
amorphous soup of sentiments known as "human rights." You were also supposed to
be "reasonable." What these terms really meant was never spelled out in any way
that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were just supposed to cheer for them.He knew
now that the reason nobody ever spelled them out was nobody ever could. In a
subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning. There is
no such thing as "human rights." There is no such thing as moral
reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else.This soup of
sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be straightened out by the
Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually
the moral code of intellect-vs. -society, the moral right of intellect to be
free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel;
trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent—these "human rights" are
all intellect-vs.-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality these
"human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical
basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a
lower level of life. They are for real."
Arlo said to Ian:
"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.
dmb says:
Exactly. I'm on the moderating committee of a philosophy forum where the rules
are quite simple; be philosophical or be gone. And there isn't much debate
about what that means because people who are interested in philosophy can
usually see that kind of Quality or lack thereof. When someone unprepared or
insincere tries to fake it, the lack of quality is pretty obvious to everybody
on the committee. Some on the committee have Ph.D.s, but there is also a high
school drop out and everything in between. Same deal. Not. One. Week.
Ian said:
I think the real problem is those confusing MoQ-Informed Intellect with
GOF-SOMist Intellect.
Arlo replied:
So far, the only people evidencing this confusion is the SOL-informed crowd,
and its derivatives.
dmb says:
Yes, and that confusion is tangled up with their sour-grapes brand of
anti-intellectualism. The SOL-informed crowd (i.e. Marsha) have confused the
disease with cure in all sorts of ways, as we just saw in the case of Ian's
inversion of "reasonableness". It's really quite outrageous when step back and
just ponder the broad outlines of what goes on here. You'd think it was some
kind of joke but it's not. People actually have the audacity to join a
philosophy discussion group and then proceed to denigrate and dismiss reason,
definitions, logic, coherence, consistency, truth theories, philosophy,
philosophers, and philosophical discussion itself. C'mon. That is desperately,
thoroughly and aggressively anti-intellectual. It's no coincidence, of course,
that this anti-intellectual stance is built upon a bunch of incoherent
nonsense.
Ian said:
Allowing their love of intellect to kill Quality - as ever the truer path is
the one of balance.
Arlo replied:
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.
dmb says:
Yes, and there is explicit evidence to back up your point.
"To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of the
landscape, INSEPARABLE from it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in the
middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without seeing this
figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha
that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely.
...About the Buddha that exist independently of any analytic thought much has
been said - some would say TOO much, and would question any attempt to add to
it. But about the Buddha that exists WITHIN analytic thought, and GIVES THAT
ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS DIRECTION, virtually nothing has been said, and there are
historic reasons for this. But history keeps happening, and it seems no harm
and maybe some positive good to add to our historical heritage with some talk
in this area of discourse." (ZAMM 83, emphasis is Pirsig's)
Thanks,
dmb
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
