[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[david]

Ant McWatt comments:
...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.


dmb says:
Yes, John is using the SOM definition of "intellect", as opposed to the MOQ's construction of it. This is what Arlo calls the "problem space" and the "solution space" respectively. This is also what I often refer to as the disease and the cure or some other medical metaphor, following Pirsig's metaphors in ZAMM. 
While anti-intellectualism is very popular in the right-wing media, it seems that John is merely relying on the ordinary dictionary definition of "intellect," making a special point to include the idea of objectivity in that ordinary definition. But of course dictionaries aren't a very good source for the purposes of metaphysicians or ontologists. I tried to correct John about this already, about a week ago, but apparently he just doesn't care. Here's that part of the exchange, from May 30:

-----------------------------
dmb said to John:

...The "problem space" is SOM, the problem addressed by the MOQ, not anti-intellectualism. ...your anti-intellectualism is connected to your failure to get out of the problem space. That is to say, you keep attacking intellect here in the MOQ discussion group as if it were SOM, as if it were still the problem.


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. (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.
--------------------------------------- 

John replied to the same comment from Ant:
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.


dmb says:
You see how he works? He denies the criticism but then goes on to re-committ the very error just denied. It's like a cleverly written parody of stupidity. "I am not stuck in the problem space," John insists, "I just think intellect is uncreative and unimaginative and so we have to find a way to include art in the intellect." After a brief pause, and a false of epiphany, John declared, "I think I'll call it 'the art of rationality,' because we need a new, spiritual rationality!"   "I'm a genius. I'm a maverick. I'm way ahead of my time. Why aren't you squares glad to have me and my brilliant creativity around to save you from your squareness!?"


Like dmb, Ant McWatt also tried to correct John's mistake:

,,,Bergson and James are certainly "intellectuals" as defined by the MOQ.  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.


John replied (sort of):
Sure, but they were "anti-intellectual" as defined by their own words.



dmb says:
Yes, they referred to themselves as "anti-intellectual". But if you think that their views are comparable to the anti-intellectualism of the knuckle-dragging, bible thumping, climate change deniers in the right-wing media, then you most certainly don't understand HOW they used that term. Their philosophical views are simply not comparable to your attitude toward intellect. In fact, their brand of anti-intellectualism was aimed at your Absolutist heros! When James and Bergson complained about "vicious intellectualism" or "vicious abstractionism" they were complaining about Royce and Bradley and guys like them. Pirsig rejects Hegel and Plato for the same "anti-intellectual" reasons. The ordinary right-wing version of anti-intellectualism, by contrast, is the kind that put Pirsig on a list of subversives.