Ian wrote:
...Yes it's a philosophy discussion group - but it is not a discussion group
necessarily confined by the standards of existing philosophical academe.
Arlo said to Ian:
Well, no one's expecting abstracts and reference lists. And we're fairly lax
about inline citations. And I don't remember the last time I saw a post
critiqued for not abiding by the APA or MLA Style Guides. And, I'm fairly
certain we don't begrudge posts that violate the structure of how most academic
articles and papers are written. But since when did coherence and logic, and
articulating well-thought out positions become something that 'confined' a
forum dedicated to philosophy? I am currently going back over Granger's book,
and its pretty evident that he spent a lot of time and care building something
both artistic and coherent, something that abides by the most basic
intellectual qualities. These are GOOD things. ...
dmb says:
Right, Ian's point certainly smells like a straw man to me. No problem with
Owen Barfield and Levi Bryant's speculative realism is fine. No complaints
about academe when talking about Dawkins' memes either or, in Marsha's case,
any number of Buddhist scholars. But a long list of anti-intellectual slogans
are arbitrarily trotted out whenever it's convenient for them. Not only is this
anti-academic attitude inconsistently applied to Nietzsche, James, Dewey,
Stuhr, Seigfried, Granger, Hildebrand or any academic pragmatist I've cited in
this forum, these guys will even use this anti-intellectual stance to dismiss
Pirsig quotes! This use of anti-intellectualism is not just incorrect,
arbitrary, inconsistent, and incoherent, it's not even honest. I think it's
self-srving nonsense and it's downright obscene.
Arlo said to dmb:
.... As I see it, both are active all of the time. We should not be "in context
one" or "in context two", but we should be in "context" talking about the value
of Quality in both lights. For example, even though Pirsig would say the
motorcycle-as-object as no primary reality, I think he'd say that if you were
going to ride it, then taking the time to maintain it well, to understand it,
to take the the time to do it good. I think the same can be said of philosophy.
No one is arguing for scientific objectivism (this is absurd), arguing for
intellectual quality is NOT arguing for 'reificiation' or subject-object
primacy, or any such thing. Philosophy is just like that motorcycle. No one is
making you ride it. No one is making you maintain it. But if you choose to
ride, and if you choose to do the maintenance, then I think it will carry you
further if you take the time to do it right. Just jumping onto a motorcycle and
repeating "this motorcycle is an illusion", and calling th
e people discussing repair and maintenance "static" or "context two" is a
fool's journey.
dmb says:
Exactly right, I think. The motorcycle is a system of concepts worked out in
steel and Pirsig's stance toward philosophy is just like that. We can
acknowledge the fact that both are humanly constructed, acknowledge the highly
plastic nature of these creations, and deny there status as a primary reality.
But that has nothing to do with whether or not the bike parts are all in
working order. That is irrelevant to the precise way that the MOQ's concepts
all fit together to make one coherent whole. In either case, that's what
maintenance work is all about. How is it possible to converse with anyone who
thinks that Pirsig rejects basic standards like clarity and precision? Isn't it
just absurd to suppose that excellence in thought and speech can be achieved
without such things? I think Ian's point has no merit whatsoever and in fact
reveals a very extreme and bizarre position. It's pure drivel.
I totally agree with Arlo here. Pirsig "took the time and care to craft a
well-argued, coherent metaphysics" and "the point of this forum to CARE about
philosophy," and to carefully examine Pirsig's ideas in particular. To use
mysticism and meditation as a excuse to evade the substance of those ideas is
just as insulting to mysticism as it is to ideas. It's obscene.
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
