[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

dmb,

I figure this isn't going to do any good... but then, I argue with Bo all
the time so my tolerance for argumentation that doesn't do any good must be
pretty high.




On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:49 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> dmb said:
> ...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!
> ...Cogent explanations and textual evidence never seems to have any effect
> on the people in this gang....
>
>
>
> Horse said:
>
> ...[John and Ian] are "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! ...There is no problem here and as DMB has
> re-iterated over and over, stop confusing the problem with the cure!
> ...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."
>
>
>
Jc:  I don't know what technical issues prevented me from reading this
before, but this is the 1st time I've seen horse's comment.  So let me go
slow and digest it.

A)  I'm being lumped in with Ian, which is odd since Ian thought I was a
troll
B) The statement "there is no problem here" seems problematic in that,
according to James, and any philosopher really, when there is no problem
there is nothing to say.
C)  Evidence, imo, is logical rhetoric.  Not defamation and ad hominem
attacks so point me to logic and I'll accede.  But until then, I'll raise
the questions that ocur to me.  Or is it invalid to wonder?



> John replied:
> No, it's not SOM that's the 4th level. I mean, I don't even think the 4th
> should be called intellect! ...Can anyone just respond simply to my
> arguments/issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks? 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.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Unbelievable!
>
>
Jc:  Believe it, Dave.

dmb:


> John, you're not making any sense. How can we talk about the meaning of
> Pirsig's terms without Pirsig's explanations of those terms.


Jc:  By comparing them with experience, Dave.


dmb:


> And what makes you think you get to ignore well-supported and carefully
> explained criticisms.


Jc:  The only conclusion I can make is that you have no idea what a
carefully explained criticism is. (hint:  "you're a theist!" or "you're a
Rush Limbaugh follower!"  Do not count as carefully explained criticism in
my or anybody's book.

dmb:


> What makes you think that you get to impose conditions on your critics?


Jc:  The rules of intellectual criticism are the only conditions I as for.
You intend to go beyond those and claim intellectual superiority based upon
social position?  I cry foul.

dmb:


> And don't you realize how absurd it is to rule out the most relevant
> textual evidence there can be for the MOQ? Your attempt to characterize
> references to Pirsig's books as "resorting" to RMP says so is completely
> absurd because that's exactly what we're supposed to be talking about.
> Pirsig's statements are the thing you are distorting and confusing and
> misunderstanding.
>
>
Jc:  You've always had a hard time distinguishing between talking about
what Pirsig said, and talking what Pirsig said.  This is inexusable in a
scholarly discussion but I forgive you anyway.  I make allowances for fools.

 dmb:

Lots of people are trying to tell you the same thing, John. How does that
> fail to impress you?


Jc:  Good question, Dave.  I wonder myself sometime.

dmb:

Not just Arlo and myself but also Ron, Ant, Horse are all in basic
> agreement about the nature of your mistakes.


Jc:  I'm astonished.   All those smart people and yet not one of them
capable of stating clearly and logically exactly what my problem is.

dmb:


> Why wouldn't want to take that seriously? Even if you just don't
> understand what we're all pointing at, don't you care to find out, at least?
>
>
Jc:  I do.  I sincerely do.

dmb:


> Okay, maybe you don't care about getting ideas right.


Jc:  I do.  I sincerely do.  Or else why would I go to all this effort?
Getting ideas right is of the highest concern and even if I'm a little bit
wrong (or a lot wrong) the process of working through it ought to be
elucidative, don't you think?


dmb:


> It's not for everybody.


Jc:  Obviously.  Some people don't give a shit about getting the ideas
right.  They just want to keep their shiny rep.

dmb:


> But how are you not embarrassed or even ashamed?


Jc:  A)  Because I am trying
       B)  Because I'm not that bad
      C)  Because its amusing watching you try to make sense.

dmb:


> Don't you care what this makes you look like?


Jc:  No, but I appreciate the compliments of the ladies, when they pour in,
anyway.

dmb:


> Can I appeal to your vanity, if not your sense of decency?


Jc: You'd probably have more luck with my vanity than my sense of decency.
But I don't think you've ever gone that route and I'd be most surprised if
you took it up now.

dmb:



> This Bo's level of crazy, where you don't even care what the author of the
> MOQ thinks of the MOQ.
>

Jc:  The question I ask myself is, if you're this ignorant about Bo, then
how ignorant must you be about everything else?

 dmb:

>
> I think it's very clear that you simply unwilling or unable to have an
> intelligent conversation and so you have no business being anywhere near
> philosophy.
>
>
>
Jc:  A)  nobody can tell me what my relation is to philosophy.  The love of
wisdom, comes from within.
      B)  intelligent conversation takes two.

I'm still waiting.

John