Hi DMB, and in that first para, you in fact agree with what I suggested. The intended follow-up was to debate the standards of intelligent intellectual philosophical debate in our MoQ context, you start to do so by listing contributions you consider valid. Progress. So clearly not a strawman.
You don't need the "anti-intellectual slogans" response. As I have said when you see those, you are seeing a "reaction" to the narrow Context 2 view of intellect attempting to dominate Context 1 - a defensive reaction against the dominant ideology, as I also said. As Paul (and Levi Bryant) pointed out, neither view is awarded priority, and the defensive actions would be unnecessary if the dominant ideology simply recognised that it was. Again, as said many times, it's never been a matter of being "anti-intellectual" - simply a matter of restoring a balance of intellectual views across the contexts, not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate. Hence the reason the "Bo" debate keeps resurfacing. Bo had a point, he was barred for ignoring argumentation about his point. Ian On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
