[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

Aro:
Sure, the Academy is very static, moves slow, perhaps too much so at times, but it does this to protect itself from chasing every whim, every fad. To be otherwise would be chaos, syllabi and curriculums would change monthy, weekly, daily. And you could make a valid argument that, at times, good ideas (such as Pirsig's) have a hard time getting in. But, and this is crucial, they DO get it. It might not be on the timeline we'd like, but Ant's groundbreaking degree, and others who are moving the MOQ forward (even in indirect ways, by writing papers, by engaging students in discussions on its ideas, etc) will also ensure that the MOQ will not be kept down.

Ron:
It also ensures that it will statically latch and have a place among the groundwork layed
out by the Pragmatists. It may not catch on like wild fire, it may not revolutionize academia
but it sure won't  fade away.
I don't know why, but I felt intellectually offended by Bo and Platt in that statement.
I should apologize by virtue of my social values but my intellctual values dominate
and keep me
from it at the moment.

It's just frustrating when folks kill an idea based on social level values
 for no reason other than blind static prejudice, it's immoral. especially
after it had been intellectually explained why taking such a stance is immoral
and irrational from an MoQ perspective.

Ron, offended.

but I'll get over it.





________________________________
From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:36:12 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

[Ron]
By your rational if MoQ WERE to be taught in universities, it would STILL be considered SOM. HOW dumb is THAT?

[Arlo]
Its an inane dialogue built solely upon the demonizing of "the academy". Pirsig called this "just right-wing politics", and I think you'll notice, not oddly, that those who clamor the loudest for "right-wing" orthodoxy are also the first to demonize and vilify the University at every conceivable turn. Call it knee-jerk reactionism, or whatever you like, but don't expect it to have much value.


Believe me, as one who has worked for educational reform for many years, I don't idolize the Academy. There are many ways it can/should be improved. But none of that amounts to tossing the baby out with the bathwater (as it were), nor with simply squalking the idiotic rants of talk-radio, which amount to little more than "the academy is baaaad, mmmmkay". Platt, who is always so eager to jump on the "evil academy" bandwagon, does again this time forgetting that while the Academy may have rejected Pirsig's thesis initially, it was right-wingers who wanted to reject Pirsig himself as a "radical". While the Academy has moved slow to accept the MOQ, at least it has moved. Today's right-wing reactionaries are just as quick to denounce "radical perfessers" in the same zeal they denounced Pirsig. For them, the game has not changed one whit.

And while I expect these comments to draw nothing but the "Arlo is an evil Marxist, commie, socialist, fascist, terrorist lovin', freedom hatin', enemy of liberty acerdimic" as it always does, I just want to remind you, Ron, not to be put off by "arguments" based only in reactionary anti-intellectualism, or as Pirsig called it "just right-wing politics".

[Ron]
pretty fuckin dumb

[Arlo]
Yep. 
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/