Ron, You speak my heart too, with this thread.
> What is alarming is this attitude is growing and has not been identified Jc: My old friend Ellul did define it in his 1980 work, _Humiliation of the Word_ He blamed it on the proliferation of image-oriented media, which is a much quicker and easier way to communicate but alas, it doesn't teach us how to carefully analyze and think. He predicted the problem getting worse and worse and that is definitely where we are at today. And you gotta wonder, is this next generation going to be able to read the classics in philosophy at all? Very few can today, and it's just getting worse, year by year. Ron: and > more > concerning it is a popular position in education and becoming more so due to > what > economist Thomas Sowell calls : > “By encouraging, or even requiring, students to take stands where they have > neither > the knowledge nor the intellectual training to seriously examine complex > issues, > teachers promote the expression of unsubstantiated opinions, the venting of > uninformed > emotions, and the habit of acting on those opinions and emotions, while > ignoring or > dismissing opposing views, without having either the intellectual equipment > or the > personal experience to weigh one view against another in any serious way” > Educators are creating a culture of pseudo intellectualism in this way which > it > passes off as critical thinking skills and thoughtful analysis. Jc: yeah, I got a big gripe against teachers. It definitely takes time out of one's day, to answer questions about the meaning of things and so teachers mostly hate budding philosophers in the classroom. It detracts from the agenda and slows down the system and modern teaching is all about the system, nowadays. Ron: > > But is anti intellectualism a traditional > American value? > Sowell argues that America was founded on a culture of anti intellectualism > and can be understood In these historical terms: > “American anti-intellectualism can be traced to the early Colonial era, and > that > wariness of the educated upper-classes is understandable given that America > was > built, in large part, by people fleeing persecution and brutality at the > hands > of the educated upper classes.” > From this historical perspective we can gain an understanding of the current > political climate. > Jc: It's true, and shows how all social movements are basically reactionary but I believe there's a huge distinction between anti-intellect, and anti-intellectual"ism". Intellectualism is the holding of intellect as the highest value. Intellect is half of our human thought process and if we throw intellect out the door, we are terribly lopsided and in a "dark ages" of some sort or other. Ron: > in The New Purchase, or Seven and a Half Years in the Far West (1843), the > Reverend Bayard R. Hall, A.M., said about frontier Indiana: > "We always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and, hence, > attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; > since, unhappily, smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally > coupled, and [like-wise] incompetence and goodness." > Jc: Well, you can see his point there. who wants to be ruled by a smart politician? And I think there is a character of American self-worth, that hates to be made to feel stupid. Thus the social denigration of the smart kids. Ron: > Is anti intellectualism considered in modern America as a traditional > American value As “American” as apple pie and Mom? > > I think this explains a lot about why > It is run into so often on the MD, > Why Pirsig and MOQ are often interpreted as anti intellectual > And usually interpreted this way by > Americans. > Jc: Sure, especially ZAMM. It had the reputation of a kind of hippy manifesto, in pop culture. Ron: > However it brings to my mind the question of anti intellectualism in > Native Culture as it would seem to me that it does link to the distrust > Of Whites and how does this square > With the root expansion of rationality? Jc: That is a good question, Ron. The indians were intellectual in their reasoning and their counsels, but the europeans were not just sophisticated, they were unethical in their dealings. The used intellectualism unethically and the MoQ brought back morality into the equation. Because if you think about it carefully, you can't have intellect without morals. Truth is a moral concern, as much as a factual. Ron: > Do these values weigh so heavily that > People are unable (or unwilling) to see the epiphany? So deep that the > redemption and expansion of intellectualism is lost on this bias? > Have they become so invested in > This value that it defines who they are? > > It might seem so. > > The hook inZMM seems to be baited > With anti intellectualism which often > Gets swallowed whole. People forget these books are stories with the plot > Evolving and the message delivered at the end of the journey. They identify > so much with the character > Phaedrus that attacks the academe > That they willingly over look the conclusion. That Academic hating Phaedrus > is their champion. That > David fighting Goliath and they can not let that traditional value go > because It feels so right. > Jc: Well, that sounds like my shoesize and truly, I think the system of the academy has warped many a beautiful and searching soul. So there is that truth, in Phaedrus's experience but on the other hand, he certainly drew a rough hand in Mckeon - probably the worst example in America, ever and there are many wise and beautiful souls who overcome the assholery and reside in the Academy - so you can't judge by mere appearances, either way. Whether you're a professor or a dropout, quality is morality more than ability. Ron: > How does one make an intellectual > Appeal When the skill set has been > Bred out? Jc: yikes! You put your finger right there on the button, for sure. I have no idea. I don't think its possible. Ron: How does one make a rhetorically convincing case when > The author himself has failed to drive > The point home? > Jc: We say "clinging to SOM" but it could easily be said "clinging to self" because that's the heart of the energy which keeps SOM so strong - subjective self-love. How do you talk somebody out of self-caring? I don't think you can. Love can't be argued, really. I know, I've tried. But it can be awoken. Love is awoken with love. 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
