[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[Dan Glover]

All,

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
>

Dan comments:
I happened to come across a series of Kurt Vonnegut interviews done
back in the 90's about anti-intellectualism and art, television and
reading and writing, and lots of other ideas that seem pertinent to
this discussion. This is the link to the first interview if you feel
like checking it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojMAgsfgPjA

Thanks,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com