dmb said to John:
...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.
John replied:
I am a bit confused about how intellect can be the 4th level, when intellect is
by definition - 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.
dmb says:
That's a completely bogus argument because Pirsig's terms are nothing like a
private definition. (millions of copies sold) And a dictionary's use of the
term "objective" certainly doesn't justify your misinterpretations of Pirsig
nor does it address my criticism. Your response is a very weak and transparent
deflection - as usual, John. It's an evasion, not a answer.
John said to dmb:
...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 says:
Instead of addressing the actual criticism, you've fabricated a very silly one.
I've given you a whole batch of very specific reasons but questioning our use
of the term is NOT one of them. Your mistake is that you can't distinguish SOM
from the intellectual level of the MOQ. You treat rationality itself as if it
were the problem, rather than the defect that the MOQ was built to repair. You
can't tell friend from foe or the baby from the bathwater. It's just sloppy,
careless thinking.
And yes, of course you SHOULD have to defend your claims and assertions - just
like any other decent human being who cares about intellectual honesty and
fairness. Why do you think you're above all that? Your contempt for this
practice is bizarre. It's definitely one of the things that makes you look so
profoundly anti-intellectual. Even as you deny your anti-intellectualism, you
are putting on display and flaunting it most conspicuously. Do you really not
see the irony and hypocrisy? It's really quite hilarious.
John said to dmb:
Why is it [straw man] 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 says:
Well, no. A straw man is the deliberate distortion or fabrication of an
opposing view. And it's no accident that the straw man makers reconstruct the
opponent's position rather than respond to their opponents actual statement.
Haven't you noticed how I almost always keep the other guy's words right there
on the page when I do this? You should too because it's so much easier to make
shit up when you don't. And, dude, you make shit up all the time. Straw men are
an addictive habit for you, apparently. And it's not just an invalid mode of
argument. It's lying and cheating. Period.
As I said several times, 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.
John replied to that charge (sort of):
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.
dmb says:
Hey, it is you refuses to be responsible for your assertions and claims. You
are the one who is unwilling to listen and who refuses to be questioned. You
are the one who makes it hard by evading and distorting every criticism.
Openness is something I've never seen from you, John. My tone is a response to
your stubborn refusal to engage honestly with the criticism. This bullshit is
so steady and habitual that I sincerely wonder if you're just incapable of
being honest in this respect.
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
