dmb,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:59 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > John said to Arlo: > I think our dialogue would go better, Arlo, if I wasn't lumped in with the > bone-headed reactionary right. But perhaps that's partly my own fault for > not making myself more clear. I'll try and explain myself better. > > > dmb says: > I can certainly understand why you wouldn't WANT to be lumped in with the > bone-headed reactionary right, John. But as I pointed out already, your > anti-humanist stance was taken from an environmentalist who was writing > about humanism from a religious perspective. Jc: It would probably help if you based your criticism of an actual reading of the book, rather than cherry picking some antagonistic review from Amazon. I thought you were a professional? I did state clearly that Eherenfeld is an atheist but I explained his thinking a bit more clearly in my post to Arlo, that he did not advocate a return to the religious past. dmb: > You may not realize where this "ideas" are coming from but I recognize it. > I can smell your breath. You talk just like textbook for the Christian > homeschooling market. This 8th-grade text, America: Land I Love (A Beka, > 1994, 2006), has no doubts about who the bad guys are. And one of their > favorite punching bags was a pragmatist, a radical empiricist and a liberal > intellectual, very much like Pirsig: > > "By the early 1960s, the teachings of humanist philosopher John Dewey, the > father of progressive education, had permeated public education. Dewey was > a leader in the secular humanist movement, which put man in place of or > above God. Moral absolutes, such as those once taught in the McGuffey > Readers, were replaced by humanistic ideas such as encouraging children to > "follow their animal instincts" and to practice permissive "self > expression" in the classroom..." > > "As "progressive" educators removed godly values from the classroom, > America's youth became ripe for the spirit of rebellion that moved across > the nation in the late 1960s, opening the door to drug abuse and sexual > immorality. As discipline, dress codes, and moral standards relaxed in the > public school systems, test scores continued to decline." > > As you can see, these quotes from "America: Land I Love" is the same sort > of rightwing religion you're pushing. Their favorite "secular humanist" > punching bag (Dewey) very closely resembles Pirsig. This fact should give > you pause, rigid coyote. You talk like the enemies of Pirsig's friends. > What does that tell you about the relationship between your claims and the > MOQ? It clearly shows that your approach is fundamental hostile to Pirsig's > - and it shows that you are more or less oblivious about where your own > sympathies actually come from. > > > Jc: My sympathies are philosophical - Royce, James, Dewey, Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead and how Pirsig fits into this mainstream of American Philosophy. I mentioned that I had a philosopher staying with me these two weeks, didn't I? That we talk during the day and attend seminars in the evening? He came straight here from Denver, where he spoke at the annual meeting <http://american-philosophy.org/events/annual_meeting.htm> of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. That's not far from your neck of the woods, eh? Were you invited to present a paper? Did you have anything worthwhile to contribute to a professional audience? If not, I advise you to bear down a bit harder on your chosen profession and stop nit-picking criticism us amateurs. And stop chasing strawmen. dmb: Last Wednesday, John said: > Let's just call it "Humanism" because that's what I'm talking > about.eplacing Theos with Homo. From a Theism that is rejected by science, > weturn to human explanations for the world and the faith I'm talking > about,is faith in intellect. Faith in intellect is not > scientificallysupported. Didn't you read Pirsig's first book? > Jc: I'll point out once more the theme of below. that anti-theism in itself, is not a sound basis to build a constructive philosophy. What Eherenfeld was criticizing, in his own way, was SOM. But he didn't have anything positive to promote, he freely admitted he didn't - that more was needed. And then We read ZAMM where that "something more" was offered and viola. Here we are. But I suppose it's too much to ask you to consider what I actually say. All you seem capable of is blind reactionism. That's very sad. John > I read ZAMM in the context of analyzing a book, Arrogance ofhumanism< > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arrogance-Humanism-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195028902>,for > logic class. These ideas are Eherenfeld's not mine, except in thesense I > agree and adopted them long ago. This was part of G. Sessionsteaching > method - you got Eherenfeld's critique of Faith in Humanism - as athing it > itself - subject it to scientific scrutiny and you see that it'snot really > a scientific faith. > For instance, scientifically speaking, it's impossible to measure the > ageof the universe - except that you pretend time is uniform and absolute > tohuman perspective. You have to put man as the center of the universe, > tocome up with that - it's a religious teaching - some simple catechism > wegive to the kiddies. Not much different from Sunday school really. > But while we're on the subject, most of Eherenfeld's work was upon > theempirical evidence of how predictable human reasoning applied to the > actualworld in which we live, has "worked out" and he makes a dismal case > andeven more dismal predictions. I think his book was where I first > learnedabout global warming. Anyway, there's plenty of science to support > thefallacy of using science as a guide to the future. > And a very big problem, a genetic defect in faith in human reason, is > thatit explicitly excludes non-human nature. Since there is no more God, > it'sall ours and we can do what we want with it. Not Earthism. > NotEnvironmentism. Humanism. Thus applying merely human values to a > complexand interwoven environment is a very big mistake. > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
