[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

Ant,

> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> OK, I've been following most (if not all of the posts in this thread) and I
> can now see the basic problem in this discussion (as with many so-called
> philosophical "disagreements") which is that Dave Buchanan and John Carl are
> talking past each other.  They are talking about different things with the
> same name and is an error observed by Northrop in his "Logic of the Sciences
> & Humanities" book from 1948.
>
> Anyway, Dave is using the MOQ definition of "intellect" (i.e. the symbolic
> manipulation of symbols that we find in mathematics, the English language
> etc.) while John is using the SOM traditional definition of "intellect" as
> we find in US conservative radio chat shows etc.
>

Jc:  No, Ant.  I'm not a conservative and Rush Limbaugh is a big fat
idiot.  I'm taking your very words -
 the (logical)  manipulation of symbols that we find in mathematics,
the English language
etc.) and that is the definition of intellect that I'm using.  Because
logical manipulation of symbols presupposes the symbols, but the
active imagining of symbols, the creation of symbols, is not part of
that definition.  And I don't think it should be.  Imaginative
conceptualization is more in the realm of art, than intellect and
that's why I see the top floor of the MoQ being more suited to the
inclusion of art, than intellect alone.

My wife read to me a passage in her reading today (and pardon me Arlo
if it uses scientifically out-moded ideas) That people tend to be
imaginative-right-brained in their youth, and analytic-left-brained in
their elder years.  Regardless of how this thinking arises in the
brain or where it arises in the brain, intellect is only half the
story.

> ---CUT---
>
> John also replied in the same thread:
>
> ...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.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Again, we have further proof to my observation.  Bergson and James are
> certainly "intellectuals" as defined by the MOQ.

Jc:  Sure, but they were "anti-intellectual" as defined by their own words.

Ant:

Whether or not, they are
> "intellectuals" as defined by Rush Limbaugh et al is of no relevance to the
> ontological categories provided in the MOQ.
>

   You shouldn't  use the term "ontological" and "Rush Limbaugh" in
the same sentence.  It's a travesty of intellect.

John