dmb said to John:
Intellect has this problem and the idea is to fix it. Intellect is not the
problem, it HAS a problem. Instead of rejecting objectivity or subject-object
metaphysics, you're simply rejecting intellect.
John replied:
I assure you I have no intention of rejecting intellect. That's your straw
man, but it doesn't look anything like me. I'm arguing a philosopher on
philosophy forum on the meaning of intellect, for goodness sake! How much more
intellect-oriented can you get?
dmb says:
Your professed intention is contradicted by the next claim you make. When you
say "intellect's problem is when it values intellect above all," you are
bashing intellect as it is construed in Pirsig's solution space. The MOQ's
static hierarchy does put intellect above all other static patterns (with only
DQ being higher) and you're desperate to find a reason why that should not be
so. This complaint is not about what I imagine you must think. These complaints
are directed at the nonsense you type out explicitly and post in this forum.
And even if your arguments on the meaning of intellect were highly intellectual
- which they most definitely are NOT - that still wouldn't save you from
charges of anti-intellectualism. In fact, that's almost always how it works in
real life. People with advanced degrees and large vocabularies (who are almost
always right-wingers) write anti-intellectual books and articles. Because I
have google alerts for William James and John Dewey, I see examples of this
almost every day. There is absolutely nothing original about your attitude
toward intellect. It is really quite typical among religious and social
conservatives. Mention Dewey's theories of education to one of these guys and
watch 'em freak out. They think he's a commie atheist from hell. By contrast,
we have David Granger's Ph.D. in Education, which was published as "John Dewey,
Robert Pirsig and the Art of Living".
John continued:
...And speaking of anti-intellectual, who else has gone by that sobriquet, by
the way? Bergson for sure, and certainly William James whom he got it from. I
don't see how a guy like you Dave, can in all conscience condemn anyone as
anti-intellectual when your own twin heros, Pirsig and James, united under that
very banner.
dmb says:
That kind of anti-intellectualism is a very different animal - and I'm sure
your conflation of the two plays a big role in your many mistakes and confused
notions. In fact, in their shared stance against vicious intellectualism, James
and Bergson were doing battle against YOUR absolutist heros. 50 years later,
when that old idealism was dead and Positivism and early Analytic philosophy
dominated, Pirsig's battle was against SOM and the attitudes of objectivity,
both of which were epitomized by Positivism. But Pirsig's quest to show that
Quality is real began more than 50 years ago. Much has changed since then,
including a revival of pragmatism and a steep decline of positivism.
Ironically, it lingers today among philosophically naive scientists, like the
pop-neurologists you and Ian cite in this forum! These are just some of the
symptoms I can point to and just some of the reasons I can give to justify my
criticism. Your posts are consistently dripping with anti-intellectual
ism. It seeps out of your pores like sweat so that if I had to gumption, I
could do this all day, every day, and never run out of examples. But who's got
the time for that. Especially, since you refuse to be corrected by anyone about
anything.
dmb:
Instead of rejecting the corruptions of the church of reason, you're simply
rejecting the church of reason. That's the mistake.
John replied:
There are two differing terms, "rejecting". First of all, as a system, it is
highly valuable. I'm not advocating the elimination of the academy as an
institution. Who would preserve knowledge? But on a personal level, it's
not my thing. I can't really relate to submitting myself to a system of
thought which is fundamentally flawed - and that's the great preponderance of
present academia, right? But without intellect, I'd be screwed....
dmb says:
There you go again. You display your anti-intellectualism even while you are
denying it. Nobody said anything about eliminating the academy so that denial
is quite pointless and silly. Yet another evasion of the actual issues, which
is more sleazy than stupid. Even as you deny your rejection you say the academy
as an institution is "a system of thought which is fundamentally flawed". Do
you really not see how this is just one more symptom of being stuck in the
problem space? Are you really surprised that a statement like that would be
considered anti-intellectual? That's what my complaint is all about, statements
like that, which you continue to make just about every time you make any
statement at all. You're just dripping with this attitude. It's way out of date
and totally inappropriate for a MOQer.
And your continued use of straw men and other distortions adds a thick layer of
intellectual dishonesty to your tragic nonsense. It's a form of lying and
cheating, John. It's unfair, evasive, cowardly, immoral and very low quality
stuff. It's unbecoming in several different ways.
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
