[MD] Intellectual honesty

[John Carl]

dmb:

>
>
> 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?


John:

You do realize that Bradley's philosophy was called "Absolute Idealism"?  So
this time and last time we're discussing the same subject.

dmb:


> 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.
>

John:

It seems to me that you're pointing to the quantity of denigration vs. the
lone enthusiasm and saying that there's more denigration than enthusiasm.

But my point is that his thinking clearly shows a progression toward the
enthusiasm - the enthusiasm occurs last - and thus the conclusion of
enthusiasm is more significant than earlier denigration based upon mere
connotation of the word "absolute".  But really, what is Quality, if not an
Absolute Ideal?


dmb:


>
> 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.



John:

see above.

dmb:

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.
>
>
John:

I believe I could say the exact things to you, that you say to me.  From my
perspective, you come to the discussion with such an obvious axe to grind,
and interpret any counter-evidence to your beloved anti-theism in an
entirely derogatory manner, but with an attitude of such superiority and
personal denigration that I really don't have much  hope of attaining to any
positive interaction.

dmb:



> 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.
>
>
>
John:

Thanks for the illustration of my point. Anyway, you started it.



> Tanks but no tanks,
>
> dmb
>
>
Fine.  The same place we always end up.  I'm used to it by now.  To me it
seems that I made some good points here, which means you'll flounce off and
refuse to deal with them.

That's not what I'd term "intellectual integrity".  So back to the point
which started this discussion - heal thyself, oh physician.

john