Ant McWatt comments:
...Dave Buchanan and John Carl are talking past each other. They are talking
about different things with the same name and is an error observed by Northrop
in his "Logic of the Sciences & Humanities" book from 1948. Anyway, Dave is
using the MOQ definition of "intellect" (i.e. the symbolic manipulation of
symbols that we find in mathematics, the English language etc.) while John is
using the SOM traditional definition of "intellect" as we find in US
conservative radio chat shows etc.
dmb says:
Yes, John is using the SOM definition of "intellect", as opposed to the MOQ's
construction of it. This is what Arlo calls the "problem space" and the
"solution space" respectively. This is also what I often refer to as the
disease and the cure or some other medical metaphor, following Pirsig's
metaphors in ZAMM.
While anti-intellectualism is very popular in the right-wing media, it seems
that John is merely relying on the ordinary dictionary definition of
"intellect," making a special point to include the idea of objectivity in that
ordinary definition. But of course dictionaries aren't a very good source for
the purposes of metaphysicians or ontologists. I tried to correct John about
this already, about a week ago, but apparently he just doesn't care. Here's
that part of the exchange, from May 30:
-----------------------------
dmb said to John:
...The "problem space" is SOM, the problem addressed by the MOQ, not
anti-intellectualism. ...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 replied to the same comment from Ant:
No, Ant. I'm not a conservative and Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I'm
taking your very words - the (logical) manipulation of symbols that we find in
mathematics, the English language etc.) and that is the definition of intellect
that I'm using. Because logical manipulation of symbols presupposes the
symbols, but the active imagining of symbols, the creation of symbols, is not
part of that definition. And I don't think it should be. Imaginative
conceptualization is more in the realm of art, than intellect and that's why I
see the top floor of the MoQ being more suited to the inclusion of art, than
intellect alone.
dmb says:
You see how he works? He denies the criticism but then goes on to re-committ
the very error just denied. It's like a cleverly written parody of stupidity.
"I am not stuck in the problem space," John insists, "I just think intellect is
uncreative and unimaginative and so we have to find a way to include art in the
intellect." After a brief pause, and a false of epiphany, John declared, "I
think I'll call it 'the art of rationality,' because we need a new, spiritual
rationality!" "I'm a genius. I'm a maverick. I'm way ahead of my time. Why
aren't you squares glad to have me and my brilliant creativity around to save
you from your squareness!?"
Like dmb, Ant McWatt also tried to correct John's mistake:
,,,Bergson and James are certainly "intellectuals" as defined by the MOQ.
Whether or not, they are "intellectuals" as defined by Rush Limbaugh et al is
of no relevance to the ontological categories provided in the MOQ.
John replied (sort of):
Sure, but they were "anti-intellectual" as defined by their own words.
dmb says:
Yes, they referred to themselves as "anti-intellectual". But if you think that
their views are comparable to the anti-intellectualism of the knuckle-dragging,
bible thumping, climate change deniers in the right-wing media, then you most
certainly don't understand HOW they used that term. Their philosophical views
are simply not comparable to your attitude toward intellect. In fact, their
brand of anti-intellectualism was aimed at your Absolutist heros! When James
and Bergson complained about "vicious intellectualism" or "vicious
abstractionism" they were complaining about Royce and Bradley and guys like
them. Pirsig rejects Hegel and Plato for the same "anti-intellectual" reasons.
The ordinary right-wing version of anti-intellectualism, by contrast, is the
kind that put Pirsig on a list of subversives.
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
