Ian said to dmb:
Can't understand your reason for an MoQ101 statement of the bleedin' obvious?
You even confirm that was your point. ...The biggest straw man conceivable, to
even suggest any MD reader could think otherwise. Let's have something
constructive.
dmb says:
I can understand why you'd be upset, Ian, because you are definitely one of the
anti-intellectuals that does "think otherwise". In many way and on many
occasions you have equated all kinds of careful thinking with SOM and even
condemned the use of precise definitions as "a feature of SOMist thinking". For
example,...
Last August 19th Ian said to Arlo:
"Now, I'm not deliberately "equating" SOMism with objective definitions, but
even in your re-statement includes ".... objective, scientistic, definitional
logic .... is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression" - so clearly there
is a strong relation/dependency between subjects / objects / relations having
logically workable definitions, and SOMism."
Because Arlo had complained about Ian's mistake to Ian:
"The problem is, to go all the way back to the beginning, is that you want to
equate 'coherence' with 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist' (along with
definitional and logical), and this is a misuse of the term 'SOM'."
On August 15th, you seemed to suggest that coherence and valid arguments are
some kind of "choking dogma":
Ian said to Arlo:
"In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns ....
one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid
argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern."
Because Arlo had said to Ian:
"Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free
oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns."
January 10th you seemed to be saying objectivity is equal to the "philosophical
academe agenda" (whatever that is).:
"Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem intent
on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some objective
subject-object dialectic. ..For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I
respect their rights to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is
this agenda subsuming the whole art & rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which
only flourishes without the overly objective shackles."
You have been spewing this kind of confused drivel for very long time. You even
like to suggest that applying "academic" standards would kill the MOQ and that
I am the murderer. Your anti-intellectualism is actually quite aggressive and
personal:
January 10th Ian said Dan:
...And why I say as carefully (caringly) as I can to DMB (the champion /
paragon of aiming to get MoQ on a serious academic footing) - 'Careful Dave,
you're killing the MoQ in the process.' "
And on the 31st of January, Ian was agreeing with John's hair-brained
anti-intellectualism:
John said: ...I think our society operates according to a philosophy that has
SOM as it's metaphysical basis.
Ian replied:
But, I think John you were also trying to get at not just that it "operates"
that way, but that it does "necessarily so". I think it does necessarily do so
for basic linguistic reasons - whether we think of the patterns as
socio-cultural-intellectual, they involve humans sharing ideas about reality,
subjects about objects. We necessarily operate in language "as if" our
metaphysics was SOMist, but that doesn't stop us actually holding that it isn't
- and having15 years of fun mis-communicating with each other on MD."
dmb says:
At this point, you've almost claimed (with some hedging and equivocation) that
any speech (in our language) is necessarily SOMist. As far as I can recall,
Ian, you have never had a clear idea about SOM or intellect. As far as I can
tell, your mission in life is to undermine every attempt to clarify the very
thing that makes you so consistently anti-intellectual.
So the 101 lesson does not attack a straw man but rather anyone who misreads
Pirsig's work as anti-intellectualism, and this certainly includes you, Ian.
You're one of the worst offenders, actually. I could find many, many more
examples wherein you treat any kind of conceptual clarity as feature of SOMist
thought. That's exactly what the essay disputes. I don't know if this
anti-intellectualism is just an easy mistake to make or if it originated with
one bad interpreter and then spread like a virus. (Probably from Bo's equation
of intellect and SOM.) Either way, this nonsense has become an epidemic in this
forum and I think that is very sad.
Sadly, this 101 lesson is not at all obvious to you. If it were obvious you
wouldn't continue to be so wrong about SOM and intellect. If it were obvious,
we would have a whole freaking tribe of anti-intellectuals in the MD.
How about if you put your ego on the back burner for a while, Ian. And honestly
engage with the ideas because this lesson is for you, among other people.
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
