[MD] Changes in 2011

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
...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. And yet that's exactly what the so-called "misfits" do, some of them have been 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. ..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. That 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. It's just about dealing with childish bullshit that should never exist in the first place. What a drag.

Tim replied:
 haha. I, for one, am a fan of children.  Therefore, I am quite glad that there is childish bullshit to deal with - and knowing that so long as there is man he will have childish bullshit with which to deal.  Do you really think that QUALITY (Quality's Quality) is to be found somewhere in the arena of philosophy?  To be sure, there is quality to philosophy, but it is because it relates to us, children.  Grow down!  Jackass :)  At least keep this in mind if you should come to despair over the aimlessness of the 'purely' intellectual pursuits.  And sure, go ahead, find this out for yourself, that's probably best, but at least consider a little humility now: though I might not be able to prove it to you, now, we noise-makers (not 'misfits') might have something that you will value in the end.


dmb says:

If you're glad to deal with childish bullshit and have no problem with the repeated violation of common standards of intellectual decency, then you probably don't care much about philosophy. I don't see much point in discussing philosophy with people who don't care about such things. 

The point, Tim, is that having an alternative point of view and being intellectually dishonest (or incompetent) are two completely different things. In a context like this, a well argued and well supported alternative view is a very exciting thing. A point of view held contrary to reason and evidence is one of the very worst things. That's what's infuriating about these so-called misfits.

John persists in pushing the theistic notions of Absolute Idealism, despite the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been presented to him many times.

Platt persists in pushing free-market capitalism in particular and political conservatism in general, despite the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been presented to him many, many times. 

Marsha persists in equating the intellectual level with SOM and reification, despite the fact that Pirsig's explicit comments to the contrary have been presented to her many, many times and despite the fact that her formulations are logically impossible.

These are not simply alternative points of view. These positions have been maintained in the face of evidence that would and should convince any reasonable person. As I see it, these people have demonstrably proven that they are not reasonable. And that means there is no way to conduct a meaningful conversation with them. Why would such a person be interested in joining a discussion group in first place? I'd guess they're motivated by loneliness or something. It certainly doesn't appear to motivated by any real interest in what Pirsig says. Pirsig told Platt directly and explicitly, for example, that his position not only failed to reflect a proper understanding of the MOQ but actually UNDERMINED the MOQ. But Platt doesn't care about that and he still maintains that contrary view ten years later. That's basically the same view that Marsha clings to as well. And just about everybody who does understand the MOQ has taken their turn trying to explain and convince them. Nope. Not an inch. You wanna talk about the lack of humility? Platt and Marsha think they know better than anyone and it doesn't matter if you're the original author or if you've produced a Ph.D thesis or written a book on the topic. Intellectual competence means nothing. To them, the use of evidence is just some kind of contemptible, illegitimate reliance on "authority".  That's who "the man" is, by the way. "The man" is just authority in general, the system, the status quo.