[MD] humpty dumpty

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb


On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:25 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Marsha said:
> Calling me 'anti-intellectual' and 'nihilistic' is an ad hominem attack not a legitimate argument or discussion.
> 
> dmb says:
> I've criticized your position as anti-intellectual and nihilistic many times and provided lots of explanations along with supporting textual evidence.

Marsha:
NO you have not!   Not ever!   

Normally you call me anti-intellectual and nihilistic, and say much you've just said.  You say you have in the past provided such evidence, but you NEVER have provided actual quotes or cited the posts.   Without evidence that I am anti-intellectual and nihilistic, there is not truth to the claim which makes saying so an ad hominem attack.  You have never even provided the MoQ definition of 'intellectual' so that I might thoughtfully explain my position or defend against the accusation.  Provide the definition and evidence.  That is a simple and sincere request; a request that all these many months you have evaded.  Without such evidence, it is an unsubstantiated accusation - ad hominem attack - a form of evil.   Provide the definition and evidence.


Marsha 






> If you think that's an illegitimate ad hominem attack, then you don't understand that concept either. I'm not saying your position is bogus because YOU are stupid or crazy or a Nazi but simply because it's at odds with the text, because it denigrates intellectual value and because it confuses and distorts the MOQ's concepts. This criticism might be unpleasant for you and might hurt your feelings but that doesn't make it illegitimate. That just means your ego is getting in the way of comprehending and/or accepting this criticism like a good sport. 
> 
> If you are sincerely interesting in addressing this criticism, then take a careful look at the argument and the evidence and do your best to respond to that. Ironically, your only response is to attack me personally as "evil". The case I made was intended to address some questions about the differences between concepts and the primary empirical reality, between static intellectual values and direct experience. Your views on THAT are at issue, not your social status or personality. 
> 
> You're not anybody, you say, and yet your status and your ego are far more important to you than the substance of the matter. Pirsig says "the ad hominem argument can be defined more clearly" by the MOQ as "an attempt to destroy the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status," which is "a lower form of evolution ..being used to destroy a higher form". That why it is considered evil in the MOQ. It violates the moral codes of the MOQ. But my criticisms of your anti-intellectualism and your empty nihilism are directed at philosophical confusions, conceptual mistakes, definitional errors and the like. Pirsig himself criticizes the Victorians and Nazis as anti-intellectual, as evil to the extent that they assert social level values to trump intellectual values. But my complaints about your position have nothing to do with social values or politics or anything other than your bad ideas. Period. 
> 
> 
> If you sincerely do not understand these complaints, then I don't see how you can ever address them, much less properly judge their legitimacy. I really don't know how to make the criticism any clearer than I already have and I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you anymore than I already have. If you can't discern the meaning of the term "intellectual" from the many Pirsig quotes about rationality, concepts, pragmatic truth, etc., then you're only providing more evidence for my complaints about your confusions and mistakes. 
> 
> What would you conclude if a person emphatically denied being anti-intellectual and, at the same time, denied knowing what "intellectual" means? It's like saying, "I have no idea what "time" means but it's evil to complain about my tardiness". It's just more nonsense and confusion.
> 
>