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

[david buchanan]

djh said to dmb:
...I love how you think that values are 'vague'.  They're the whole thing dmb! Not this dialectical truth which you seem to be holding so tight onto.  ...I further love how you think that I'm 'anti-intellectual' when I've been in an intellectual discussion with you for over a week now.   ...it seems you just continue to want to have a dialectical argument with me.  It seems it doesn't really matter what you accuse me of so long as you can prove some aspect of what I say is 'incorrect' (according to the logic resulting from what you already know) then that's all that matters.  This is how dialectic works - You have your own understanding of how logical things are and if - what someone else says is contrary to that logic - then attacking them on this lack of logic is what's important.  Values, what's good - be damned  - let's find the dialectical truth!   Dialectic  --- the usurper of all that is good….



dmb says:

Yes, we are having a conversation, which is otherwise known as a dialogue. And yes, I'm complaining about your contradictory claims. You say that you do value intellectual, for example and yet at the same time you also reject the most basic intellectual standards. In this paragraph, for example, you've equated our conversation to Plato's dialectical method. You also condemn the demands of logic and consistency and opposed them to "values". This illustrates my point quite neatly; like Marsha, you are confusing the disease with cure. You're misusing Pirsig's complaint about Platonism and SOM against the MOQ's intellectual values. You are treating the MOQ's intellectual values as if they were the disease and not the cure.

Logical consistency is not the ONLY thing that matters, of course, but it is one indispensable test of truth. Further, this "truth" is pragmatic rather than fixed and eternal. And even more importantly, this kind of truth is NOT separate from values but is rather the most highly evolved KIND of static quality. See, by mis-diagnosing the disease and failing to distinguish it from the cure, you just end up treating anything intellectual as the problem.

Rejecting Plato's dialectical method does NOT mean rejecting debates and discussions in general. Rejecting Platonism does NOT mean we should also reject arguments or disagreements. Rejecting SOM does not mean we should also reject definitions, logic, empirical evidence. This is just a ham-handed case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You say that you're not being anti-intellectual but then you also condemn intellectual in all sorts of ways, even going so far as to say that anyone who shows up here to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics should know that they are going to be doing something inherently degenerate. As I see it, these positions are totally at odds with your denials of anti-intellectualism. In other words, these positions are the particulars that form the basis of my "accusation". These positions ARE anti-intellectual and they are a result of confusing and conflating the problem with the solution. I'm not saying that you have hate in your heart, or whatever. I'm just talking about the words you put into our debate. 

I'd guess that you don't understand these complaints for the same reasons that you make this anti-intellectual mistake. You don't see how your positions amount to anti-intellectualism, apparently, and anti-intellecutalism is not your intention. But that's where the confusion and inconsistency has led you. 

Pirsig says in chapter 8 of Lila:"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The MOQ satisfies these." 



The MOQ rejects Platonism and it rejects SOM and yet, AS YOU CAN SEE, the MOQ still considers logical consistency to be a test of truth, a test that the MOQ passes without becoming its own enemy.


Think about it. Why would any philosopher be okay with logical inconsistencies? When is it ever cool to be contradictory or confuse one concept with another?


The trick is to be clear about what Pirsig is actually rejecting and what he's NOT rejecting. Thus the metaphors; disease vs cure, problem vs solution, bathwater vs baby, etc. Anti-intellectualism results from a failure to comprehend the difference. Your complaints (logic=SOM, debate=Platonism) demonstrate that failure.

As Franz the SNL weightlifter used to say, "hear me now and believe me later".