[MD] Changes in 2011

[John Carl]

Ok dave, I probably shouldn't take any of this personally, because to do so
is definitely a "self-aggrandizing characterization".  But hey, if a guy
can't aggrandize his self, who's gonna do it for him?  Besides, after just
posting Pee Wee Herman dancing to the Rolling Stones there's no way I can
now avoid the  "incorrigible heroic misfit" label.


On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> dmb says:
> That's really what it's all about. Ironically, the most inflexible and
> incorrigible participants respond to these complaints and criticisms by
> portraying themselves as heroic misfits fighting "the man". Clearly,
> "misfit" is self-serving and self-aggrandizing characterization is a
> distorted version Pirsig's ideas about the role of the contrarian in
> cultural evolution.
>


Where do you see the distortion?  Where do you draw the line between
degenerates and messiahs, perfessor?  Admittedly,  a discussion group such
as this one is going to be highly problematic, for in a way, we're all
contrarians in cultural evolution or we wouldn't be here.  That's just the
natural outcome of a normal response to Pirsig's work, if you ask me.   But
if you've got any insight into how to make this crucial distinction, I'd
sure love to hear it.

dmb:


>
> I think there is nothing heroic about incorrigibility. In a place like
> this, ignoring contrary evidence and evading questions is a very serious
> problem. It's a violation of decency and fair-play. It's not honest. That
> kind of behavior is the mark of very low intellectual quality.


John:

Dude!  "That kind of behavior" is exactly the kind of behavior you've
engaged in for years!  Ignoring contrary evidence and evading questions is
your main technique in discussion.  Perhaps that's why you are such an
expert.  But don't be quite so hard on yourself dave, sometimes it's more a
matter of intense insecurity than "very low intellectual quality".  At least
if by "very low intellectual quality" you mean intelligence.  If you mean
the immorality of sophistry - making the weaker argument appear strong
because you're propping up some social pattern of self, then I agree
completely.

dmb:



> And yet that's exactly what the so-called "misfits" do, some of them for
> ignoring and evading for many years now. The problem seems to be plain,
> old-fashioned incompetence, not that they have a "different" point of view.
> These misfits don't fit into a philosophical discussion group because such a
> discussion can not function without answering questions, saying what you
> mean and honestly facing up to the relevant evidence. A conversation just
> can't work without these basic standards of decency.
>

John:

Well here, I can't take it personally anymore, because I'm always willing to
face up to answering questions and "the relevant evidence".  Furthermore, I
always say what I mean.  Sometimes I change my mind later, but hey, that's
just life.  If we never questioned ourselves or doubted our previous
formulations, that'd be  true "incorrigibility".

dmb:


>
> As I see it, the participants who conduct themselves this way, year after
> year, really don't belong in a place like this regardless of the topic
> discussed. They kind of behavior would spoil ANY kind of philosophical
> discussion and if they ignored evidence and refused to answer questions in a
> court of law they'd be cited for contempt or laughed out of the courtroom. I
> mean, in some contexts it is literally against the law to do what they do
> here every day of the week. As I see it, Horse's contention is that this
> behavior interferes with the main purpose of this forum and I don't see how
> anyone can doubt that. On some days there is nothing but noise and
> interference so that decent conversation is completely shut out. This post -
> like almost every post lately - is about nothing philosophical and it's not
> even interesting. It's just about dealing with childish bullshit that should
> never exist in the first place. What a drag.
>
>

John:

Dave, for years I've cried out, begged and pleaded for some decent
conversation with you and it's always ad hominen attacks and derogatory
evasions that I get in response.  So I'll take your complaint here as a Mea
Culpa and a resolution to go forth and improve.  Let's resolve in the New
Year to creating some decent conversation and philosophical inquiry into
politics of Value.

I agree completely.