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

[david buchanan]

djh said to dmb:
... All I'm saying is that when discussing something intellectual with someone who doesn't value similar things to you *or* isn't interested in logic- a logical discussion with them is pointless.  It's tiring watching you two go at one another when you're both talking from different values..  Until you discuss those values - then things will go nowhere..
... To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it presumes ill intentions of the person who misunderstood.   That's all well and good to casually throw around such wild emotive alligations - if your goal is the truth - but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to accuse someone of bad intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the cause of disagreements in intellectual discussions?   This just speaks to my larger point about values and dialectical discussions.   Speak to folks values - then you'll change their mind and things will get better - but not before..


dmb says:
That sounds like an attempt to be fair and diplomatic - until you stop to think about what this actually means. Aren't you basically asking me to put aside my concerns with logical inconsistencies and straw man arguments and focus on their personal values instead? As I see it, this is degenerate. We don't want social level values to rule in a philosophy forum, right? We don't want to turn every discussion into an ad hominem attack or squelch criticism and debate because it makes people feel "accused". This forum was not built to be a group therapy vehicle or a social club, but to discuss the metaphysics of Robert Pirsig. It's not okay to be contradictory, intellectually dishonest, evasive, or anything like that. According to the MOQ, I think, violating these standards is the intellectual equivalent of sin and wrong-doing. It's sleazy the way infidelity is sleazy on the social level. It's a despicable betrayal of the values about which one has made promises, either explicitly or implicitly. It's totally worthy of criticism and I find it disturbing that we can't get agreement on this stuff. These are just the A-B-Cs of intellectual values. 


djh said to dmb:
You start off by saying that Marsha can't have personal values which alter her sense of intellectual quality because she's intellectually "nowhere".  Then you go on to explain how her different values affect her sense of intellectual quality. 

dmb says:

Well, I said the title character, Lila, is "intellectually nowhere". That's what Pirsig says about her. That's how Pirsig paints her. And the point is to dispute your contention that people like Marsha aren't being illogical but rather they just have a different sense of intellectual quality. I'm saying that this is NOT how it works. As the title character illustrates, some people have NO sense of intellectual quality. It's not a matter of difference, but absence. Not an alternative vision, but mere blindness. Actual differences are not just acceptable, they're exciting, and totally worthy of consideration. No problem, but that's not even close to what is going with Marsha. I think her anti-intellectualism is a transparent attempt to turn her own inadequacy into a virtue. She foolishly uses Pirsig's attack on SOM against anything that involves intellect, including the MOQ's intellectual values in particular and Pirsig's metaphysics in general. It's quite the train wreck. 


djh said to dmb:
Marsha clearly values intellectual quality enough to come on a philosophical discussion board.  That's more than some. She's also taken a course in logic too. That's even more than some.. So I don't think she's 'intellectually nowhere'.  She just doesn't value the intellectual level *very* much.. Especially one of those things which governs the intellectual level - called logic.  Why is that? Because her own personal values *have* altered her own ideas about truth and logic..   In fact, specifically, I think it's her extreme value of DQ which has her trying to incorporate it within static things which are *not* DQ such as logic and the intellectual level.  Why else would she continually insist that static patterns *change*?



dmb says:
Well, that's the problem. How is it NOT the height of hypocrisy to read the philosophy books, join the philosophy group and then proceed to dismiss and denigrate everything about philosophical books and discussions? 

I think it's quite obvious to everyone that Marsha doesn't value intellect and loves DQ. Why is that? Does it really matter why? If we knew exactly why Marsha "interprets" the MOQ in such an anti-intellectual way, would that knowledge somehow make logical contradictions into something legitimate? I don't see how that could be true. To describe intellectual patterns as ever-changing is NOT a legitimate alternative. The logical incoherence of her statements should be a huge red flag telling you that something went wrong. We know it's a bogus point of view because Pirsig tells us repeatedly that static and Dynamic Quality are both necessary. To cling to DQ all by itself is to cling to chaos, Pirsig says.  Marsha's hatred of the intellect is not just logically inconsistent, it's immoral. 

What I find so disturbing about your contention, David, is the way it asks us to put intellectual values aside, as if they were optional, as if one can just take it or leave it. This is an outrageous betrayal of Pirsig's project, which is to expand and improve the intellect, to formally incorporate DQ into the operations of intellect. Marsha's anti-intellectual nonsense does nothing but undermine this forum and the work we're here to discuss. I think this is fully worthy of contempt, deserves to be criticized and it pains me to see anyone make excuses for this behavior. You'll never convince me that Marsha's attitude is some kind of virtue or that she is representing some legitimate alternative. It's just a clever, ego-boosting way to hide her intellectual inadequacies. It allows her to portray herself as deeper and more profound than mere intellectuals. You know, she doesn't give a bunny's butt about William James or truth or logic - because she "meditates" and has cats. 

It's ridiculous.