dmb,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb said: > These [social and intellectual] are discrete and sometimes conflicting > levels of values. This distinction is on full display in the history of > the 20th century, as Pirsig explains in some detail. Fascism and > fundamentalism are essentially reactionary, anti-intellectual movements. > > > > John replied: > Mussolini was anti-intellectual? Seemed to me he was bent upon > eliminating earlier mythic foolishness that impeded progress. Much like > yourself. And I don't recall fundamentalism being a big deal back when > Pirsig wrote Lila. Much less ZAMM. Show me the reference and I'll kiss > your arse. > > > > dmb says: > Pucker up, pal, because the textual evidence clearly shows that you are > mistaken. Pirsig uses exactly the same words (anti-intellectual and > reactionary) to describe fascism and he describes the fundamentalist > opponents of evolution as "religious fanatics and ignorant Tennessee > hillbillies" J: Ah yes, those guys. Still going strong too. All right, here you go, bend over and.... *smooch* dmb: > and "church bigots" who were defending "the old static religious patterns > of the past." Bill Nye the science debated a creationist just the other > day. I mean, this conflict continues to this very day. This is not some > trivial point about obscure philosophical abstractions. It's about the > world we're inhabiting right now. J: Yes. But I'd like to point out something I said to Andre, that actually intellectual patterns do not compete with social. they analyze, quantify and objectify. But intellectually-oriented individual make up societies too, and those more intellectual social patterns compete with religious-oriented social patterns. As I said before, the levels are discrete, not competitive. dmb: > I think it's important to know which end is up so you can be on the right > side of this conflict. It seems pretty clear to me that you are not, John. > Your not-so-covert theism and your anti-intellectual attitudes give you > away as a person dominated by social values. Maybe your pride is served by > blurring the lines, pretending there is no conflict between them, the this > is a tremendous disservice to anyone who's interested in the MOQ. > > J: I get that you don't get me. I've gotten that for a long time. An interesting phenom in itself and one we ought to look at intellectually. But it's hard to argue with a religious zealot and you are so religiously devoted to your own views it's hard to even hear the word "intellectual" come from you. 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
