[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

dmb:


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:49 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> dmb said to John:
> Intellect has this problem and the idea is to fix it. Intellect is not the problem, it HAS a problem. Instead of rejecting objectivity or subject-object metaphysics, you're simply rejecting intellect.
>
>
>
> John replied:
> I assure you I have no intention of rejecting intellect.  That's your straw man, but it doesn't look anything like me.  I'm arguing a philosopher on philosophy forum on the meaning of intellect, for goodness sake!  How much more intellect-oriented can you get?
>
> dmb says:
> Your professed intention is contradicted by the next claim you make. When you say "intellect's problem is when it values intellect above all," you are bashing intellect as it is construed in Pirsig's solution space.



Jc:  The way I see it, "intellect's problem is when it values
intellect above all," is my way of stating a logical problem.  Any
referent that points to itself is faulty.  It's like, cosmic logic,
man. Whether you call it a recursion or a circular argument, it comes
out the same - a bad idea.

dmb:


>
> The MOQ's static hierarchy does put intellect above all other static patterns (with only DQ being higher) and you're desperate to find a reason why that should not be so.



Jc:  I believe that the 4th level should value DQ; intellectually
focusing upon intellect itself, is a trap.  and also obviates an
entire aspect of human consciousness - the feminine/intuitive side of
thought.


dmb:

>
> This complaint is not about what I imagine you must think. These complaints are directed at the nonsense you type out explicitly and post in this forum.
> And even if your arguments on the meaning of intellect were highly intellectual - which they most definitely are NOT - that still wouldn't save you from charges of anti-intellectualism.


Jc:  I actually am, lol'ing.  I'm sure the logic of my position would
fail to save me from the charge of being "illogical" too.  Do you
listen to yourself dave?  What a twit you can be.

dmb:

> In fact, that's almost always how it works in real life. People with advanced degrees and large vocabularies (who are almost always right-wingers) write anti-intellectual books and articles. Because I have google alerts for William James and John Dewey, I see examples of this almost every day.


Jc:  I take it back, you're not a twit, you're a googletwit.

dmb:

>
> There is absolutely nothing original about your attitude toward intellect. It is really quite typical among religious and social conservatives. Mention Dewey's theories of education to one of these guys and watch 'em freak out. They think he's a commie atheist from hell. By contrast, we have David Granger's Ph.D. in Education, which was published as "John Dewey, Robert Pirsig and the Art of Living".
>
>
> John continued:
> ...And speaking of anti-intellectual, who else has gone by that sobriquet, by the way? Bergson for sure, and certainly William James whom he got it from.  I don't see how a guy like you Dave, can in all conscience condemn anyone as anti-intellectual when your own twin heros, Pirsig and James, united under that very banner.
>
> dmb says:
> That kind of anti-intellectualism is a very different animal - and I'm sure your conflation of the two plays a big role in your many mistakes and confused notions.


Jc:  Well, to be sure, my conflation of the two terms is due to the
fact that they go by the exact same symbolic sign.
Anti-intellectualism in the 21st century is spelled exactly the same
as in the 19th.  And if there is a crucial distinction, I wouldn't
mind if they were spelled out in clear English.    But until then, I
don't really, like, think I should  deal, with all this ad hominem
abuse, just because I'm questioning or confused on the evolution of
anti-intellectualism.


 dmb:

> In fact, in their shared stance against vicious intellectualism,



Jc:  Vicious.  I could show them vicious.  Vicious and viscous
simultaneously, who'da'thunk?  You are thick-brained and hostile, all
in one.  And why?  Nobody really knows.

 dmb:

> James and Bergson were doing battle against YOUR absolutist heros. 50 years later, when that old idealism was dead and Positivism and early Analytic philosophy dominated, Pirsig's battle was against SOM and the attitudes of objectivity, both of which were epitomized by Positivism. But Pirsig's quest to show that Quality is real began more than 50 years ago.


Jc:
Note to reader:  re-read the above statement again, out loud and use a
bratty six year old voice.
It's hilarious.

dmb:

> Much has changed since then, including a revival of pragmatism and a steep decline of positivism. Ironically, it lingers today among philosophically  naive scientists, like the pop-neurologists you and Ian cite in this forum!


Jc:

So first I'm into pop neurology, and on the other hand, Royce.  If you
understood Royce you'd see how ridiculous that is but on the other
hand, if you understood James you'd see how ridiculous that is too.
What have you been doing with your time, Dave, watching TV?

dmb:

> These are just some of the symptoms I can point to and just some of the reasons I can give to justify my criticism. Your posts are consistently dripping with anti-intellectual
>  ism. It seeps out of your pores like sweat so that if I had to gumption, I could do this all day, every day, and never run out of examples. But who's got the time for that. Especially, since you refuse to be corrected by anyone about anything.
>
>

Jc: or donald duck. It's also funny in a donald duck accent.
Do "dripping out of your pores like sweat" in a donald duck accent and
you'll have the basic gist of dmb's argument here.

I don't even wanna talk to you, dave.  What am I doing here then?

Sigh.  Love is a many splendoured thing.



> dmb:
> Instead of rejecting the corruptions of the church of reason, you're simply rejecting the church of reason. That's the mistake.

Jc: I don't want to reject the church of reason.  but if it's priests
won't be reasonable, what choice do I have?


>
>
>
> John replied:
> There are two differing terms, "rejecting".  First of all, as a system, it is highly valuable.  I'm not advocating the elimination of the academy as an institution.  Who would preserve knowledge?  But  on a personal level, it's  not my thing.  I can't really relate to submitting myself to a system of thought which is fundamentally flawed - and that's the great preponderance of present academia, right?    But without intellect, I'd be screwed....
>
>
> dmb says:
> There you go again. You display your anti-intellectualism even while you are denying it. Nobody said anything about eliminating the academy so that denial is quite pointless and silly. Yet another evasion of the actual issues, which is more sleazy than stupid. Even as you deny your rejection you say the academy as an institution is "a system of thought which is fundamentally flawed". Do you really not see how this is just one more symptom of being stuck in the problem space?



Jc:  Of course I'm stuck in the problem space.  The problem space is
the corporate-controlled government and academy that is driven by
SOMist greed.  It's all around.  Getting out of that problem space
takes a lot more work than just looking at your intellectual
belly-button and calling it all by a different name.

dmb:

>
> Are you really surprised that a statement like that would be considered anti-intellectual? That's what my complaint is all about, statements like that, which you continue to make just about every time you make any statement at all. You're just dripping with this attitude. It's way out of date and totally inappropriate for a MOQer.
>
>
> And your continued use of straw men and other distortions adds a thick layer of intellectual dishonesty to your tragic nonsense.


Jc:  I would like to use something better than straw man in my debates
with you dave, but alas, that's all I see.  Straw man stuffed with
abstract ideas and no real grasp of himself or truth.  Straw is about
the sum of it.  You know what it really is dave?  Actually, I think
you know what it is you offer.  why don't you share it with us.

dmb:

 It's a form of lying and cheating, John. It's unfair, evasive,
cowardly, immoral and very low quality stuff. It's unbecoming in
several different ways.

I agree completely,

JohnC