[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

dmb,

>
> John replied:
> I am a bit confused about how intellect can be the 4th level, when intellect is by definition - the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. And while I can see using the term to mean something different than "objectivity", I wonder if that's a good move, in the end, since words with private definitions don't communicate well.
>
> dmb says:
> That's a completely bogus argument because Pirsig's terms are nothing like a private definition.

Jc:  Tell me how any assertion that begins with "I'm a bit confused"
can be completely bogus.  Are you claiming I know everything?

Dmb:

 (millions of copies sold) And a dictionary's use of the term
"objective" certainly doesn't justify your misinterpretations of
Pirsig nor does it address my criticism. Your response is a very weak
and transparent deflection - as usual, John. It's an evasion, not a
answer.

Jc:  it was a question, Dave, not an answer.  A million copies sold
can still be a private language.  Every book is a private exchange
between a reader and a writer.  If the writer's terminology spreads to
the public, that's something that doesn't involve him.  It involves
his readers.  My personal experience is that nobody uses Pirsig's
terminology in my life except this space, and my friend Steve.  So
that's why it seems like a private language.

And everywhere else, intellectualism means objectivity.

>
>
> John said to dmb:
> ...And one other thing, it seems silly to have defend myself from charges of anti-intellectualism, simply because I question our use and understanding of the term.  I doubt there's any activity more intellectual than questioning what intellect is.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Instead of addressing the actual criticism, you've fabricated a very silly one. I've given you a whole batch of very specific reasons but questioning our use of the term is NOT one of them. Your mistake is that you can't distinguish SOM from the intellectual level of the MOQ.

Jc:  No, my problem is with translating the ideas of the MoQ, into the
real world where I communicate with loved ones and friends.  To them,
advocating "intellect" as the highest level seems pretty self-serving
because you kind of have to be intellectually -oriented to even
conceptualize being that way and not many people are, or identify with
that term at all, and thus it just comes off as self-serving.  Whereas
urging people to put creativity at the top of their "to-be" list, has
immediately good results.

Dmb:

You treat rationality itself as if it were the problem, rather than
the defect that the MOQ was built to repair. You can't tell friend
from foe or the baby from the bathwater. It's just sloppy, careless
thinking.
>

Jc:  Well I'm open to cricitism, Dave.  But you don't seem to get very
specific in your attacks, with which points of my thinking are
defective.  You seem to treat everything I say as defective and myself
as defective and thus I can't really take your criticism too
seriously.

I've said this before, affirm the good parts too, so that I know
you're thinking and not just reacting, and it would help our dialogue
a lot.

Also to stop trying to lobby to have me ejected - admit that my input
is worthy in some way - even if it's a lesson in how to school the
ignorant - then I'll be able to perceive the value of your criticism.

Dmb:

> And yes, of course you SHOULD have to defend your claims and assertions - just like any other decent human being who cares about intellectual honesty and fairness. Why do you think you're above all that? Your contempt for this practice is bizarre.

Jc:  Wait a minute, you haven't even admitted my right to be here, so
how can you pick apart my contribution?  For a philosophy guy, you
sure aren't very logical.

Dmb:

It's definitely one of the things that makes you look so profoundly
anti-intellectual. Even as you deny your anti-intellectualism, you are
putting on display and flaunting it most conspicuously. Do you really
not see the irony and hypocrisy? It's really quite hilarious.

Jc:  I see the irony and hypocrisy, and it's not funny at all.  In
fact, its quite sad.


>
>
> John said to dmb:
> Why is it [straw man] the most common fallacy?  I'd say it's because in order to argue a point, we have to reconstruct the opponent's position and usually we  do it wrong.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Well, no. A straw man is the deliberate distortion or fabrication of an opposing view.

Jc:  I'd say on the metaphysical level we're at here, it's refusing to
admit your own construction of the other.  It's talking as if, your
own construction is real.  At least that's the way I see it.  I'm sure
you see it differently - a straw man argument is used by anybody who
doesn't worship the wonderfulness of your thought.  or wait, maybe I'm
projecting there.


Dmb:

And it's no accident that the straw man makers reconstruct the
opponent's position rather than respond to their opponents actual
statement.

Jc:  That's just the way it works, Dave.  The question isn't whether
there is reconstruction going on.  the question is whether its good
reconstruction, or bad.

Dmb:

 Haven't you noticed how I almost always keep the other guy's words
right there on the page when I do this? You should too because it's so
much easier to make shit up when you don't. And, dude, you make shit
up all the time. Straw men are an addictive habit for you, apparently.
And it's not just an invalid mode of argument. It's lying and
cheating. Period.

Jc:  I realize that to you, philosophy is just copying and parrotting,
but I think creative intuition needs to be part of the process of true
philosophy.  Even for apprehending the philosophy of another.  Its
seems to me that you are so afraid of making mistakes, that you resent
some other expressing freely and wildly, because you'd like to, but
can't.

Now I admit that's a construction.  Everything I think, is
construction.  But whereas I own my own construction, you think you
have some sort of absolute knowledge of "the way things really are"
What you've done is eliminated Objective Reality as a constraint, and
made your own opinion into a false god imitation of what has been
discarded by the MoQ.

Dmb:

> As I said several times, you still haven't dealt with that criticism and you continue to make that same mistake over and over again. I sincerely wonder why you don't seem to care about that. I think that kind of carelessness is bizarre and disturbing.

Jc:  Bizzare and Disturbing are rather hyperbolic descriptions in a
friendly philosophy discussion.  Are they accurate?  Really?  You get
disturbed so much by me?  You think I'm bizarre?  (You should talk to
Tim!)  These terms indicate to us all, that there is something a bit
off in your psyche Dave. I think you're telling the truth, you really
are disturbed.


>
>
>
> John replied to that charge (sort of):
> I think your labeling it that way is bizarre and disturbing. Misunderstandings and carelessness are common as dirt - which is why we can only have a dialogue if there is openness and willingness to question and listen.  Which is hard to do when rancor and accusatory tone is the dominant attitude.
>
> dmb says:
> Hey, it is you refuses to be responsible for your assertions and claims.

Jc:  What do you mean responsible?  I own that I'm scatter-brained and
lazy and often shoot out thoughts without proper reflection. I feel
that correctives are built into the process and it takes all kinds to
build a good metaphysical society.

Dmb:

You are the one who is unwilling to listen and who refuses to be questioned.

Jc:  I admit I've been ignoring your posts for a few weeks.  I was
discouraged and it didn't seem possible that we'd ever get anywhere.
John McC wrote a refreshing little post this morn, that made me see
the error of my ways.  I'll start paying closer attention.

Dmb:

You are the one who makes it hard by evading and distorting every
criticism. Openness is something I've never seen from you, John.

Jc:  Open to specific criticisms, yes.  Open to the idea that I should
just kill myself (leave the discuss) , no, not so much.  I think
"open" is a two way street.  I can't be open to your thoughts when you
slam the door in my face with your words.  You gotta leave some space
in there for response or room for error on your own part as well.

Dmb:

 My tone is a response to your stubborn refusal to engage honestly
with the criticism. This bullshit is so steady and habitual that I
sincerely wonder if you're just incapable of being honest in this
respect.
>
>

Jc:  See?  I can''t see  how to engage with this at all.  Every word
you speak, could also be applied to yourself, from my side.  I am
engaging honestly with your criticism, I'm rejecting the part that
just goes "john is bad" over and over again and trying to hear
whatever actual textual criticisms you have and wondering "how long
has this guy been in grad school?  And he still talks like this?"

  Geez.  Doesn't give us much hope for the American Education system, eh?

Damn,

And I started out with such high hopes and a good feelings, too.

John