dmb,
> dmb says: > John, you totally missed Ron's point. The "problem space" is SOM, the > problem addressed by the MOQ, not anti-intellectualism. Even further, the > criticism is that your anti-intellectualism is connected to your failure to > get out of the problem space. That is to say, you keep attacking intellect > here in the MOQ discussion group as if it were SOM, as if it were still the > problem. Jc: I am a bit confused about how intellect can be the 4th level, when intellect is by definition - noun: *intellect* 1. the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. And while I can see using the term to mean something different than "objectivity", I wonder if that's a good move, in the end, since words with private definitions don't communicate well. I also, as I told Arlo, see the 4th level as a dualism. I told Arlo it had to do with ontological reasons but that was wrong, on further reflection. I should have said epidemiological but it's easy to get those mixed up, from "moq-space" since from a certain idealistic viewpoint, they mean the same thing. And one other thing, it seems silly to have defend myself from charges of anti-intellectualism, simply because I question our use and understanding of the term. I doubt there's any activity more intellectual than questioning what intellect is. dmb: > In fact, you just did it again in your reply to Ron. Nobody is attacking > the "heartspace" or anything like that. The guy who made that "wrong move" > is just your own straw man, one of the most common fallacies. > Jc: why is it the most common fallacy? I'd say it's because in order to argue a point, we have to reconstruct the opponent's position and usually we do it wrong. dmb: > You still haven't dealt with that criticism and you continue to make that > same mistake over and over again. I sincerely wonder why you don't seem to > care about that. I think that kind of carelessness is bizarre and > disturbing. > > Jc: I think your labeling it that way is bizarre and disturbing. Misunderstandings and carelessness are common as dirt - which is why we can only have a dialogue if there is openness and willingness to question and listen. Which is hard to do when rancor and accusatory tone is the dominant attitude. > > > Ron said: > What good is freedom when you are too stupid to make good quality > intellectual decisions? Is being a slave to biological patterns truly > leading a life that's free? > > John replied: > I'd settle for good social decisions. Quality intellect is rare. > > > > dmb says: > Is somebody making a case for the freedom in biological values? I hope > not. That would be lame. I wonder what a good social decision looks like > without intellect doing the deciding. Isn't that what it means to have a > society that's guided intellect rather than tradition? > Jc: I think you're right on there. Society and biology aren't really free because they're constrained by limits. Only intellect can be truly free. This is a new realization that came to me from our dialogue here. I like realizations. dmb: > > One point really worth stressing, I think, is that we can never discern > the difference between good ideas and bad ideas without intellect. > > Jc: I agree. dmb: > One of the objections sometimes raised (against an intellectually guided > society) is that some ideas are bad ideas. Intellectual static patterns of > low quality should be trumped by social patterns, they might add. But, > again, we can never discern the difference between good ideas and bad ideas > without intellect. That's what we mean by intellectual values. It's not > that we're supposed to love every idea just because it's an idea. It's the > quality of the idea that matters, of course, and that's why we're supposed > to care about things like clarity, coherence, consistency with the > evidence, honesty, precision is the use of words and the relations between > concepts. These aren't arbitrary demands or oppressive rules used to > squelch dissent or anything like that. They are just some of the most > common marks of intellectual quality. Jc: No argument there. That all makes sense. dmb: Ideally, you want to raise this to an art form and those will be some of > the likely ingredients. The art of rationality requires intellectual > quality and > then some. You gotta, gotta have it - even if it's not enough all by > itself. It's time to re-integrate the passions, the "affective domain of > man's consciousness," Pirsig says. Likewise, James says our best ideas will > be produced by thinkers who use ALL of their faculties. That's intellect in > the solution space, which is not to be confused with SOM (or with that mean > and cruel community college teacher who didn't like you). > > > Jc: grin. Altho a humorous gibe, that didn't happen. Most teachers liked me in my school days. And my philosophy teacher told the whole class once that I got this philosophy even better than HE did, which embarrassed the heck out of me and might have over-inflated my ego, but it certainly wasn't cruel. I don't hate the academy, Dave, I do worry about it though. Revolution starts with education. But today, I'm helping my wife with her art class at grade school. I'm going to mix the concrete for the kids to make stepping stones. We'd let them mix the concrete, but concrete is a tricky thing and it's better to let the old craftsman do that, so that the young artists can express themselves with the impressions they make and those impressions will last. There's a powerful metaphor in there somewhere, but I am too rushed to make it. Thanks, 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
