[MD] Intellectual honesty

[david buchanan]

Dear John:

This is the hardest letter I've ever had to write.

Just kidding.

As I see it, you're doing the same thing again. Pirsig's enthusiasm for Bradley? And last time it was Pirsig's endorsement of Absolute Idealism? You are selectively using Pirsig's comments as evidence for your thesis. But the fact is, he denies the comparison twice in Lila and his comments in the annotations are mixed. Sometimes he sees similarities and he finds them exciting but he also distances the MOQ from the positions Bradley is staking out. What you've done is ignore the two denials in Lila and the all the negative comments on Bradley and use one of the positive comments to conclude that Pirsig has enthusiastically endorsed Absolute Idealism, which just so happens to serve the agenda you've always had. How handy, this form of reasoning is you have, my dear.

This is a form of intellectual dishonesty. You can't simply dismiss all the comments against it and then expect to come to a reasonable conclusion. A reasonable person who wanted to make a plausible case would take all the comments together as a whole and examine that with the MOQ as a whole. It would be totally plausible to make a case for how and why the similarities are interesting or something. But to begin by concluding that Pirsig's comments constitute an enthusiastic endorsement simply isn't plausible. The evidence as a whole shows that Pirsig's "enthusiasm" for Absolute Idealism has to be weighed against Pirsig's criticisms and denials of the same. That is a matter of simple honesty. This is not moral high-ground. Not unless you're a very low person. This is just basic stuff and you won't or can't do it. 

And that's why I'm not interested. I think you just don't know how to play by the most basic rules, not to mention the fact that you're so rude and insulting about it all. 


Tanks but no tanks,

dmb



> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:42:30 -0700
> From: ridgecoyote at gmail.com
> 
> John said to dmb,
> 
>  Childish?  Sure, gleefully so.
> Incoherent?  Coherence is dependent upon the hearer.
> Insults without substance?  Insults without substance are easily shrugged
> off.
> 
> Seems to me the real issue is you don't even know where to begin.
> 
> Try a brick.
> 
> 
> If that's too difficult for your academically-oriented brain, then focus on
> the one true question I've been asking, how do you reconcile Pirsig's
> enthusiasm for Bradley with James'  denigration of  him?
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:48 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
> >
> > John:
> >
> > See, this is why I'm not interested. First you try to "invite" me with
> > insults. Then you tell me to get off my "high-horse" while also saying you
> > agree with the "moral high ground". To cap it off, you make some vague
> > accusation of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
> >
> >
> > You're being childish, incoherent and your insults are without substance.
> > Plus I find it very hard to believe that you even understand your beloved
> > Absolute Idealism, which is a dead philosophy.
> >
> >
> > Why in the world would I be interested in having THAT conversation? Sorry,
> > but I think it would be a pointless waste of time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5