[MD] Explanation and explanatory power

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to Ron:
If I surrender my thinking to you or your authority ("Scientist David Deutsch"), you might, indeed accuse me of a lack of critical thinking skills.  I have no use for a general consensus, and I choose whose words I admire: “Therefore, poets do not 'fit' into society, not because a place is denied them but because they do not take their 'places' seriously. They openly see its roles as theatrical, its styles as poses, its clothing costumes, its rules conventional, its crises arranged, its conflicts performed and its metaphysics ideological.” (Carse, James P., 'Finite and infinite Games')



Ron said to the "war woman" (Marsha):
To borrow a phrase, all your philososhical position consists of is running around saying ""you're not the boss of me!" ... You exhault killing all intellectual patterns yet praise critical thinking. This causes me to wonder if A: you do not understand one of the terms you are using. or B: You're such a vendictive asshole that it blinds you to the use of those terms so that your blind rejection of everything I say results in making you look like a mindless troll, thereby justifying being a mindless troll with quotes explaining that you are just a poet. ARE all poets mindless trolls thick with blind rage?  Are they just bitter confused people crying out for attention? ....[etc.]


dmb says:

That's pretty much how I see it too, as childish impudence, which probably surprises no one. In fact, Ron might have borrowed that phrase ("You're not the boss of me") from one of my recent posts to Krimel. Rather than simply repeat or add to these long-standing complaints, I'd like to say a few things about the meaning of a couple very harsh words, namely "asshole" and "troll". I recently heard an interview with a linguist wherein they examined the use and then defined the term "asshole". It's a very harsh word, obviously, but it does have a meaning and it does make reference to certain social realities, if you will. 



Clearly, the word "asshole" expresses disapproval of a person or their behavior. It's a little bit funny to characterize a dog or a little kid as an "asshole" because the term expresses contempt for a person's inability to respond properly to a situation. But we can't reasonably expect that kind of responsiveness from pets or toddlers. Calling them an "asshole" is not really criticism of such innocent creatures, of course, it's just a joke about our own unreasonable expectations. The joke is on the joke-teller. But it also says something about the meaning of the word "asshole". The term is used to characterize the words and deeds of adults who cannot (or will not) do what's normally expected of adults. We expect grown ups to understand the situation that they're in and respond appropriately. Grace is basically doing what's call for and doing it well. 



This is the basic idea behind the linguist's definition of "asshole". There are two main causes, he explained in the interview. The asshole is either oblivious or obstinate. The oblivious asshole cannot see what the situation calls for - because of ignorance, stupidity or neurotic self-absorbtion. The obstinate asshole can see what the situation calls for but refuses to respond appropriately - usually because this kind of asshole thinks the "rules" don't apply to him, thinks he's too special or too important to do what's appropriate to the situation. So the definition of "asshole" is a person who cannot (oblivious) or will not (obstinate) respond appropriately to the situation.



The linguist's definition is broad enough and general enough to describe what assholes do in any situation. But I was thinking that "troll" is a more specific kind of asshole, the kind you find on the internet wherever people are trying to have a conversation or express their views. A "troll" is a person who cannot or will not do what's appropriate in the ways of discussion or debate in cyberspace. They are assholes with a keyboard and a connection to the internet, as opposed to the assholes in grocery stores, on the highway, or whatever. Unlike their counterparts in the "real" world, the troll can hide behind fake names, multiple avatars, and the like. Studies show that this anonymity tends to make everyone a little meaner and sassier than they would be in a face-to-face situation (no big surprise there) but this effect is magnified in the case of assholes. Trolls don't just refuse to act right, they also aggressively misbehave. To the extent that they can read the situation, they actively and energetically interrupt, derail, highjack, and otherwise spoil the conversation. This usually involves tons of heated words and insults and sometimes nothing but. I'm no psychoanalyst but it seems to me that this kind of behavior is usually driven by the belief that it's better to be hated than ignored, i.e. they do it for the attention. They need attention so desperately that even negative attention will satisfy their hunger, or so they hope.



What do these conceptions of "asshole" and "troll" mean in this particular situation, in this discussion group? The point and purpose of it are clear enough. It's the first thing Horse says in the Charter and Rules: this "mailing list exists to provide a general and free-ranging forum for the discussion of Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality". There are rules against abusive behavior and such but that should go without saying, especially in a philosophy forum - as opposed to a forum dedicated to talking about politics, sports, celebrities or whatever. The rules that strike me as most relevant to this situation are the first two; 1) You must first read LILA, at the very least, and 2) all topics and discussions must be relevant to the MOQ, to Zen and the Art, or to LILA. That more or less defines this situation, right? We're all here to discuss Robert Pirsig's philosophy. That's the point. That's the purpose. Nobody is required to be here but if you sign up and then send posts, that's what you're supposed to be doing. 



If we are going to ask ourselves what is (and what is not) appropriate to this particular situation, then these basic parameters seem like a reasonable way to describe what the situation actually is. I think we can safely say that a "troll" is anyone who refuses to read Pirsig's books or refuses the basic demand for relevance. Rule number 4 extends this demand for relevance to the way we reply to each other. 4)" Members should reproduce only the relevant parts of any previous message to which they are responding." It's not just a waste of data storage space, reproducing the irrelevant parts (or failing to reproduce relevant parts) is sloppy and unfocused - both aesthetically and intellectually. It might even suggest that the poster doesn't see what's relevant and what isn't. And failing to reproduce the parts that are very conspicuously relevant - such as disputed textual evidence or any contentious claims - is certainly what a troll would do. In this situation, it is never appropriate to delete or dismiss relevant evidence or to criticize claims that nobody actually made. In this situation, knowing what's relevant is crucial to knowing what's appropriate.



And the presumption here is that people will not just be accurate about who said what, this is also connected to truthfulness in a different sense, one that you can't really see on the page per se but can be read between the lines, so to speak. Good conversation also involves a certain kind of internal honesty. It's no accident that communication and community are related words. Conversations quickly break down in the absence of things like trust, sincerity, openness, a willingness to be persuaded by evidence and reason, the courage and maturity to fairly address criticism, and the integrity to take responsibility for any claims and statements. Critical thinking skills are very important but this moral dimension is absolutely critical. The ad hominem attack, which is famously bogus, is a kind of diversion. It attacks the messenger in order to attack the message, which is the real target of the invalid argument. But that old trick is hardly the same thing as criticizing specific instances of dishonesty. In that case, the messenger's behavior is the target of the criticism and the message itself could be quite secondary or even irrelevant. 



Suppose you make a case (presenting evidence and giving reasons) against somebody else's claim. Instead of defending their claim against this criticism, they reply by simply saying that they disagree or by simply saying don't care what you think. That's the end of that. It's just a refusal to cooperate with the rules of the forum in which made the claim. This is certainly NOT appropriate to the situation. It's like playing chess. You don't have to. Nobody is making you play against your will. You're free to play any game you like or none at all. But if you go to a chess club, sit down in front the chess board and start making moves, then you have tacitly agreed to play chess. To make your moves and then suddenly declare that the rules of chess do not apply to you, is certainly what we mean by "troll". Such behavior is so hostile to the main purpose of a discussion group that use of the terms "troll" and even "asshole" are only fitting. It's an oblivious or obstinate refusal to do what's appropriate to the situation. 


 Ever notice HOW Marsha refuses to do what's right in this situation? As we see at the top of this page, her response to Ron's post on the importance of "critical thinking skills" characterizes the issue in oddly paranoid terms. To seriously consider his criticism, as Marsha sees it, is to "surrender" to Ron, to "surrender" her thinking to the "authority" of scientist David Deutsch. "I have no use for a general consensus, and I choose whose words I admire," she said. And then she quoted admirable words. “Therefore, poets do not 'fit' into society, not because a place is denied them but because they do not take their 'places' seriously. ..."  I don't think we have to read between the lines much to see what Marsha is implying; she's better than you, see? She's a poet whereas you are merely a thinker. Thinking involves all that stupid static stuff like definitions, she thinks. Words are cages and she won't be trapped by them. Intellectual values are of no importance to special people like Marsha. She's above all that, see? That wouldn't be so bad if she was saying this at the poetry club or at the meditation club but she is constantly implying this self-agrandizing nonsense in a philosophy discussion group. That's like going to the chess club, making a few illegal chess moves and then telling all the players in club what stupid game chess is. What's the right word for that sort of behavior? Yea, you guessed it.