dmb,
> dmb says: > So intellectual control, in the end, means that people who think they're > smarter than everybody else, get to tell us what to do? > > John: It's my concern (ref. my recent post to Ant on Putin's power grabs) dmb: > What's funny here is that this is an example of the conflict that you've > denying. Your characterization of intellectual control fits the classic > definition of anti-intellectualism. It is a denigration and demonization of > intellectual values. You have expressed an attitude that is spoken or > written by some right-winger every single day of the week. This is what > conservatives in their campaigns for office, what the writers say in the > National Review and if you tune in to the Rush Limbaugh show today, chances > are good that you'll hear this same sentiment. > > Your statement fits the definition of anti-intellectualism quite neatly, > as Wikipedia shows: > > "Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, > intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision > of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and > contemptible. ...In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually > perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common > folk--populists against political elitism and academic elitism--proposing > that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of > the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher > education." > > John: Dave, obviously I'm in favor of intellectual pursuits, I'm engaged in one at this moment! But I don't think intellectual control is the panacea for the world's problems. Intellect for intellect's sake is just as ridiculous as society for social sakes. You have to be for something to thrive. Society is for increasing biological survival and intellect is for increasing social quality - freedom is also a social value, not purely an intellectual value alone. dmb: > Just as Pirsig says, anti-intellectualism only gets worse as we move right > on the spectrum from conservatism to fascism, Wikipedia notes: > > > "Anti-intellectualism is a common facet of totalitarian dictatorships to > oppress political dissent. The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured > anti-intellectualism as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's political > polemic, Mein Kampf. Perhaps its most extreme political form was during the > 1970s in Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, when > people were killed for being academics or even for merely wearing > eyeglasses (as it suggested literacy) in the Killing Fields." > > > This hostility to intellect is a very prominent feature of the conflict > between social and intellectual values. People dominated by social values - > including you, apparently, react negatively to intellectual values. They > are perceived as downright evil in some cases. I heard a right-wing > politician describe the theory of evolution as a Satanic lie, for example. > But usually, as Wikipedia explains and as you demonstrated, this > anti-intellectualism presents itself as a form of populist anti-elitism. > > Since the MOQ is an evolutionary morality, drawing distinctions between > the levels is very much like discerning north from south on a compass. You > need you be clear on the core concepts or such a tool will not just be > useless, it will send you in the wrong direction. In terms of the MOQ's > levels, I think you don't know which way is up. I think you are misusing > this tool quite badly, probably because you're bringing your own unexamined > social level bias to it. > > John: I would say that my recent discussions on the impossibility of competition between the levels is sharpening the distinction between them and your alluding to this competition as necessary is muddying the distinction. Let intellect be intellect and social be social. But for the nth time, I'm certainly not anti-intellectual. It's utterly ridiculous to draw that conclusion from my words. dmb: > Same thing is happening, I suppose, when you try to read the MOQ as theism > or try to turn DQ into some Hegelian Absolute. In any case, John: Again you completely ignore my words. Influenced by a talk at a Royce Conference, I completely abandoned Absolutism before I rejoined MD. Philosophy is best when it gets us to re-examine our pet beliefs. And I never was a Hegelian. As far as Theism goes, Religion and Philosophy are very different endeavors for Philosophy demands an open-mindedness that religion does not allow. It would be as foolish to carry a fervent Theistic leaning into a philosophical discussion as it is foolish to carry a fervent anti-theism. (Ayn Rand's biggest mistake, btw) dmb: it's a really rotten thing to do. You just want the MOQ to reflect your own > image, regardless of what Pirsig says or thinks. It's frustrating to talk > philosophy with people who have respect for ideas and can't be persuaded by > reason - and that's almost always the case with anti-intellectuals like > yourself. This really does strike me as immoral; fills me with disgust. > John: It's amazing to me how often you speak to me and project upon me your own failings. Because you certain wish the MoQ to reflect your own image and react strongly to any interpretation which you haven't already conceptualized. You are as closed to new ideas as any person I've encountered in religion. dmb: > > It's hard to be polite about it and honest about it at the same but I > guess I did alright, considering. > > > Nothing new there. You always guess you do alright. Me? I make mistakes all the time and am willing to consider them and change my tune. that's what keeps me so true. Gosh I'm cool. John 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
