Main Entry: in·tel·lect Pronunciation: \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin intellectus, fromintellegere to understand — more atintelligent Date: 14th century 1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed 2 : a person with great intellectualpowers
Websters online No mention of the term "objective" > On Jun 1, 2014, at 2:41 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb, > >> >> 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. > > Jc: Tell me how any assertion that begins with "I'm a bit confused" > can be completely bogus. Are you claiming I know everything? > > Dmb: > > (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. > > Jc: it was a question, Dave, not an answer. A million copies sold > can still be a private language. Every book is a private exchange > between a reader and a writer. If the writer's terminology spreads to > the public, that's something that doesn't involve him. It involves > his readers. My personal experience is that nobody uses Pirsig's > terminology in my life except this space, and my friend Steve. So > that's why it seems like a private language. > > And everywhere else, intellectualism means objectivity. > >> >> >> 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. > > Jc: No, my problem is with translating the ideas of the MoQ, into the > real world where I communicate with loved ones and friends. To them, > advocating "intellect" as the highest level seems pretty self-serving > because you kind of have to be intellectually -oriented to even > conceptualize being that way and not many people are, or identify with > that term at all, and thus it just comes off as self-serving. Whereas > urging people to put creativity at the top of their "to-be" list, has > immediately good results. > > Dmb: > > 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. > > Jc: Well I'm open to cricitism, Dave. But you don't seem to get very > specific in your attacks, with which points of my thinking are > defective. You seem to treat everything I say as defective and myself > as defective and thus I can't really take your criticism too > seriously. > > I've said this before, affirm the good parts too, so that I know > you're thinking and not just reacting, and it would help our dialogue > a lot. > > Also to stop trying to lobby to have me ejected - admit that my input > is worthy in some way - even if it's a lesson in how to school the > ignorant - then I'll be able to perceive the value of your criticism. > > Dmb: > >> 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. > > Jc: Wait a minute, you haven't even admitted my right to be here, so > how can you pick apart my contribution? For a philosophy guy, you > sure aren't very logical. > > Dmb: > > 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. > > Jc: I see the irony and hypocrisy, and it's not funny at all. In > fact, its quite sad. > > >> >> >> 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. > > Jc: I'd say on the metaphysical level we're at here, it's refusing to > admit your own construction of the other. It's talking as if, your > own construction is real. At least that's the way I see it. I'm sure > you see it differently - a straw man argument is used by anybody who > doesn't worship the wonderfulness of your thought. or wait, maybe I'm > projecting there. > > > Dmb: > > And it's no accident that the straw man makers reconstruct the > opponent's position rather than respond to their opponents actual > statement. > > Jc: That's just the way it works, Dave. The question isn't whether > there is reconstruction going on. the question is whether its good > reconstruction, or bad. > > Dmb: > > 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. > > Jc: I realize that to you, philosophy is just copying and parrotting, > but I think creative intuition needs to be part of the process of true > philosophy. Even for apprehending the philosophy of another. Its > seems to me that you are so afraid of making mistakes, that you resent > some other expressing freely and wildly, because you'd like to, but > can't. > > Now I admit that's a construction. Everything I think, is > construction. But whereas I own my own construction, you think you > have some sort of absolute knowledge of "the way things really are" > What you've done is eliminated Objective Reality as a constraint, and > made your own opinion into a false god imitation of what has been > discarded by the MoQ. > > Dmb: > >> 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. > > Jc: Bizzare and Disturbing are rather hyperbolic descriptions in a > friendly philosophy discussion. Are they accurate? Really? You get > disturbed so much by me? You think I'm bizarre? (You should talk to > Tim!) These terms indicate to us all, that there is something a bit > off in your psyche Dave. I think you're telling the truth, you really > are disturbed. > > >> >> >> >> 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. > > Jc: What do you mean responsible? I own that I'm scatter-brained and > lazy and often shoot out thoughts without proper reflection. I feel > that correctives are built into the process and it takes all kinds to > build a good metaphysical society. > > Dmb: > > You are the one who is unwilling to listen and who refuses to be questioned. > > Jc: I admit I've been ignoring your posts for a few weeks. I was > discouraged and it didn't seem possible that we'd ever get anywhere. > John McC wrote a refreshing little post this morn, that made me see > the error of my ways. I'll start paying closer attention. > > Dmb: > > You are the one who makes it hard by evading and distorting every > criticism. Openness is something I've never seen from you, John. > > Jc: Open to specific criticisms, yes. Open to the idea that I should > just kill myself (leave the discuss) , no, not so much. I think > "open" is a two way street. I can't be open to your thoughts when you > slam the door in my face with your words. You gotta leave some space > in there for response or room for error on your own part as well. > > Dmb: > > 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. > > Jc: See? I can''t see how to engage with this at all. Every word > you speak, could also be applied to yourself, from my side. I am > engaging honestly with your criticism, I'm rejecting the part that > just goes "john is bad" over and over again and trying to hear > whatever actual textual criticisms you have and wondering "how long > has this guy been in grad school? And he still talks like this?" > > Geez. Doesn't give us much hope for the American Education system, eh? > > Damn, > > And I started out with such high hopes and a good feelings, too. > > 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 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
