dmb, You said to Ian,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anti-intellectualism, on the other hand, is quite real. It has a long > history. It is a central feature of fascist regimes and has found many > various expression in American history. Sure, As described in Lila: "From World War II until the seventies the intellectuals continued to dominate, but with an increasing challenge - call it the "Hippie revolution," - which failed. And from the early seventies on there has been a slow confused mindless drift back to a kind of pseudo - Victorian moral posture accompanied by an unprecedented and unexplained growth in crime. Of these periods, the last two seem the most misunderstood. The Hippies have been interpreted as frivolous spoiled children, and the period following their departure as a "return to values," whatever that means. The Metaphysics of Quality, however, says that's backward: the Hippie revolution was the moral movement. The present period is the collapse of values. The Hippie revolution of the eighties was a moral revolution against both society and intellectuality. It was a whole new social phenomenon no intellectual had predicted and no intellectuals were able to explain. It was a revolution by children of well-to-do, college - educated, "modern" people of the world who suddenly turned upon their parents and their schools and their society with a hatred no one could have believed existed. This was not any new paradise the intellectuals of the twentieth century were trying to achieve by freedom from Victorian restraints. This was something else that had blown up in their faces" dmb: > To dismiss such a concern as a bogus debating tactic is to ignore many > pages of Pirsig's work, whole chapters even. > > If there is a good reason to think the criticism is unfounded, that's one > thing. But anti-intellectualism is one of the most salient features of the > conflict between social and intellectual values, personally, culturally and > politically. If you have something intelligent to say about that, Ian, I'd > be glad to hear it. But I think your drive-by arguments aren't hitting any > targets and they're very unbecoming to you. > J: Maybe Ian is just trying to be succinct. I'm willing to spend more time murdering your position than a mere drive-by spray of bullet points. . In fact, Pirsig's post above, stabs your words in the heart. He says that sometimes anti-intellectualism is good. You prat on about fascism as anti-intellectual but there's a very intellectualized attempt at social control going on there. Freedom is key. Freedom to think whatever you want to think (intellectual) AND do whatever you want to do (social) but when intellectuals want to be in control, anti-intellectualism is moral. 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
