[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

Sun Jun 8 09:02:26 PDT 2014

Ron, Horse,

No, it's not SOM that's the 4th level.  I mean, I don't even think the 4th
should be called intellect!  So much for SOM.

And I don't have a problem saying dmb is right.  I've done so.  Even kissed
his butt, verbally.   I prefer logic to insult as a persuasion, but  I can
be brought to bear with social pressure.  I'm no hero.

Let me summarize my main arguments: 1) the word intellect connotes
"science" but the goal of the MoQ is ART and Science combined.  So I have a
problem with that connotation and 2)  intellect has an epistemelogical norm
- intuititive imagination - that is unaccounted for in the simple term
"intellectual".

There, that's it in a nutshell.  Maybe these issues have been cleared up
nicely while I was gone arguing with Bo.  That may be.  Can anyone just
respond simply to my arguments/issues without resorting to ad hominem
attacks?

Thanks,

JohnC

PS:  By "respond" I mean without resorting to "because RMP said so".
Since's it's Pirsig's terminology I'm taking to task here, something more
is needed to defend it than the mere fact of what Pirsig said.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 7, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks
> >
> > DMB is making a very valid point here.
> > The two people (John C and Ian) who were (and appear to still be)
> attached to Bo's SOM = Intellect are also the two that are having the
> hardest time getting their heads around the problem space/solution scenario
> that several people here have commented on, supplied evidence for and
> generally given a crystal clear explanation about!
> > I'm having a really hard time understanding why you can't (or won't)
> make the transition.
> > There is no problem here and as DMB has re-iterated over and over, stop
> confusing the problem with the cure!
> > I'm sure both of you will say that you have disagreements with Bo and
> his flawed interpretation but the bottom line is you're still stuck in that
> particular mode. This is similar to when myself, Arlo, Dan, etc. say that
> we have minor disagreements with some small areas of the MoQ but overall we
> are all in agreement with the vast majority of it. You two appear to be
> doing the same thing a la Bo - your disagreements do not overcome your
> general adherence to his mistaken and inaccurate interpretation. Until you
> get past this you ARE going to be stuck in the same place as when Bo left.
> No amount of evidence is going to shift you because you will just keep
> ignoring and/or denying it.
> >
> > There are none so blind.....etc.
> >
> > Horse
> >
> Ron sez:
> We have to remember that these folks have invested a lot into this point
> of view. It has become a way of life, who they are. Because they
> essentially define themselves by this point of view, attacking it is
> basically an attack on their person. Changing
> That point of view means a restructuring of who they are.
> Plus I think John has such chip on his shoulder concerning DMB that he
> will do anything but admit he has been mistaken and Dave is correct.
> There seems to be a lot of ego involved.
> There is this romanticism about painting themselves as the lone brujo
> Of RMPs examples fighting the "system".
> Granted, they exercise the muscle of explanation and polish our rhetorical
> skills, but it does get tiresome and ridiculous at some point and impedes
> The progressive dialog.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> >> On 06/06/2014 17:28, david wrote:
> >> Ian said:
> >>
> >> So, we're about where we were when Bo left us. There's something wrong
> with intellect as she is currently "construed" - but we can't quite put our
> finger on it. Despite that we're all trying very hard to solve the problem,
> because we all sincerely "believe" intellect scores over (mere) "feeling".
> Carry on girls.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> dmb says:
> >> If "we" refers to John and yourself, then yes. You're still stuck where
> Bo left off, which is equating SOM with intellect. This, for the tenth time
> at least, is a matter of being stuck in the "problem space". It's funny
> that you should mention Bo because he sent a private message telling me
> that John, despite his shortcomings, is right to equate intellect with SOM.
> He'll likely deny it and then contradict his own denial a few sentences
> later. And you'll deny it to, I bet. Probably by simply dismissing this
> criticism as a personal attack. But it's not. It's based on what you said
> above. It's simply not true that we can't put our finger on it and those of
> us who are not stuck in the problem space are not trying very hard to solve
> the problem. What we're trying very hard to do is show you that this
> problem has already been solved by Pirsig and an increasing number of other
> philosophers.  How many times have I posted quotes from other philosophers
> who also reject SOM? Too many to count; dozens or maybe even hundreds!
> >>
> >> What really kills me about this epic case of incorrigibility is that
> one can only remain stuck on the problem by ignoring MOST of Pirsig's work.
> I could fill twenty pages with quotes showing that Pirsig has already put
> his finger on the problem and the point of his work is to offer a solution
> to this problem. That's what the anti-intellectual gang invariably does
> around here. Cogent explanations and textual evidence never seems to have
> any effect on the people in this gang.
> >>
> >> "What has become an urgent necessity is a way of looking at the world
> that does violence to neither of these two kinds of understanding and
> unites them into one. Such an understanding will not reject sand-sorting or
> contemplation of unsorted sand for its own sake. Such an understanding will
> instead seek to direct attention to the endless landscape from which the
> sand is taken. This is what Phaedrus, the poor surgeon, was trying to do.To
> understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of the
> landscape, INSEPARABLE from it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in
> the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without
> seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part
> of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the
> Buddha entirely....About the Buddha that exists independently of any
> analytic thought much has been said - some would say TOO much, and would
> question any attempt to add to it. But about the Buddha that exists WITHIN
> analytic thought, and GIVES THAT ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS DIRECTION, virtually
> nothing has been said, and there are historic reasons for this. But history
> keeps happening, and it seems no harm and maybe some positive good to add
> to our historical heritage with some talk in this area of discourse." (ZMM,
> p83)
> >>
> >>
> >> As Arlo already showed, Pirsig's self-stated goal was to show that
> using "this knife creatively and effectively can result in solutions to the
> classic and romantic split." (ZMM) And, "Phædrus' resolution of the entire
> problem of classic and romantic understanding occurred at first in this
> high country of the mind..." (ZMM)
> >> "And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a
> classic culture and a romantic counterculture...two worlds growingly
> alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will
> always be this way, a house divided against itself." (ZMM)
> >> "The answer is Phædrus' contention that classic understanding should
> not be overlaid with romantic prettiness; classic and romantic
> understanding should be united at a basic level." (ZMM)
> >> "I think that the referent of a term that can split a world into hip
> and square, classic and romantic, technological and humanistic, is an
> entity that can unite a world already split along these lines into one."
> (ZMM)
> >> "Actually a root word of technology, techne, originally meant "art."
> The ancient Greeks never separated art from manufacture in their minds, and
> so never developed separate words for them." (ZMM)
> >> "So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem
> isn't that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of
> rationality so that it's capable of coming up with a solution." (ZMM)
> >> "The answer is Phædrus' contention that classic understanding should
> not be overlaid with romantic prettiness; classic and romantic
> understanding should be united at a basic level." (ZMM)
> >> "In each case there's a beautiful way of doing it and an ugly way of
> doing it, and in arriving at the high-quality, beautiful way of doing it,
> both an ability to see what "looks good" and an ability to understand the
> underlying methods to arrive at that "good" are needed. Both classic and
> romantic understandings of Quality must be combined." (ZMM)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> > — Frank Zappa
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> > http://www.avast.com
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."