[MD] Misunderstandings are driven by what we value not by the logic we use.

[David Harding]

> Ian said:
> Interesting that David H's point (highlighted in the post title) is still ignored in the ongoing mix of logic and ad-hominem rhetoric. Especially ironic given the clue in the quote offered in response.
> 
> 
> dmb said:
> The point is still being ignored? That's not true. Arlo and I both recently disputed and criticized that point at some length. (Ironically, your accusation is predicated on your ignorance of these recent exchanges.) As the archives can show you, it was not ignored so much as it was defeated and rejected.
> 
> As is shown in the very terms "intellectual values" and "intellectual quality", the MOQ rejects the notion that intellect is separate from values. In the MOQ, this is the highest level of static quality, the most highly evolved level of static values. And basically, I think it's just a cop out. I don't think there is any good reason to suggest that we don't need to care about intellectual values in a philosophy forum. It's totally preposterous.

djh :
'As the archives can show you' dmb there is a post of mine from last Friday awaiting a reply in the "Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic - Finding agreement, Quality and beauty in the world." thread. In that thread I disagree with your incorrect characterisation of my argument and agree with what you presented in the limited scope of your counter argument.  In the process I explain why there is *more* to intellectual values than the logic we use..

Also, I can see that here you're again incorrectly characterising my argument as 'intellectual values don't matter'. Intellectual values do indeed matter - that's my point. It's that intellectual values are not driven by the logic we use - but by what we (culturally - personally)  value. If you want to understand someone's argument the place to start is with what they value - then look at the logic they use - not the other way around.

If you can't show someone something better - then all you've done is called them a name. You haven't solved anything.  It's the values which folks have not so much the logic they follow.  As I explain in this discussion - Dan isn't *logically* wrong by continually emphasising that experience is *only* DQ.  But is it any good?

“If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.” - RMP