dmb, Why don't you start a philosophical thread instead of whining? No one is stopping you.
Marsha On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:44 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
