[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[John Carl]

On 6/12/14, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> John to Andre:
> oh piffle, Andre.  How is this contributing to either clarifying my
> so-called confusion, or advancing Pirsig's MoQ?
>
> Andre:
> Your confusion John has been pointed out and clarified at least a dozen
> times by the posters I mentioned…

JohnC:   Are you sure, Andre?  A dozen?  Is that an even dozen?  And
what I meant by "this" in the above statement was your name-calling
and denigration.

Anyway, I have a different interpretation of the way the MoQ ought to
evolve than you or dmb (if you're not the same person - that statement
you made there sounds exactly like him) and if you wanted me to change
my mind, I'd need reasons beyond mere disagreement and arguments
better than  calling me names.


Andre:


but you take no heed. I see no point in
> repeating a similar exercise which these posters have so patiently, clearly
> and skillfully presented you with. You just keep on gibbering and jabbering
> like a twittering headless chook.
>

Jc:  If you think I've been treated patiently, or had skillful or
clear arguments presented, then you really must be dmb.  Nobody else
could be that dmb.  Ron has been patient and clear and skillful. But
the rest of you?  not so much.


> John:
> So I take it that you believe Pirsig never made a single mistake?
>
> Andre:
> Tell me, referencing ZMM or LILA where Pirsig makes a ¨mistake” .

Jc:  No.  I already went through that with Ron.  And it's not so much
the words of ZAMM or Lila that are faulty, its the way those words
have been interpreted by this discuss.  Interpretations that tend
toward  seeing the levels in conflict instead of cooperation and thus
all of reality is metaphysically in conflict and therefore this
discussion is little BUT conflict.

>
> John:
> It also seems rather school boy to reflect the exact ideas of the teacher,
> without thought or understanding.  this has been you and dmb’s style for as
> long as I've observed.
>
> Andre:
> Now this is another one of those silly retorts John. How can one reflect the
> ideas of the teacher without thought or understanding when making a point in
> response to another person’s post.

Jc:  You forgot to end your statement with a "?"  Are you asking me a question?

Andre:

There may be individual differences in
> rhetoric and/or presentation but the bottom line is that we are discussing
> Pirsig’s ideas here as they reflect our, hopefully, common understanding.

Jc:  I can only imagine that you must not be very bright if you're
still trying to figure out what Pirsig says after decades of
discussion.  You are focusing upon certain aspects of his teachings
and ignoring the heart of the matter.  You've made a static object out
of non-objective metaphysics.

It's a travesty, but then that's the way the world works.  Any truth
that enters the world, will be objectified and then controlled and
then finallly, crucified.   It's the law.  The Law of Staticity.

Andre/dmb:

> is not only starting at the baseline. It is meeting the teacher where he/she
> is coming from and in that exchange the distinction between teacher and
> student dissolves.

Jc:  There is a Buddhist saying that is very wise:  If the student
doesn't surpass the teaching, then the teacher has failed.   I can see
how you imaging that exact copying is the goal;  after all, we live in
a digital age where exact replication is the norm.

Andre/dmb:

> I think it is schoolboy behavior  to try to advance the MoQ by
> re-introducing Rorty (for example) or suggesting that Pirsig is wrong

Jc:  Afraid of Rorty, are you?  Well, I believe that settles the
matter.  Definitely dmb.  "All we can expect from philosophy is good
conversation."  That's a pretty great insight if you add in Pirsig's
take on "good".

dmb/Andre:

> because your experience is different. Again and again (as I have told Marsha
> often) you do not seem to understand that there is experience first and then
> the interpretation.

Jc:  Maybe you said that to Marsha, but you haven't engaged me with
that idea.  I reject it for pragmatic reasons - non-conceptualized
experience can't be discussed, so what good is it?

Experience IS interpretation and interpretation is experience.

dmb/Andre:

> I am not quibbling over your experience I am making
> remarks on your interpretation of that experience as they relate to your
> understanding of the MoQ.
>
> In the same thread you say to Ron:
> Described intellectual patterns, must always be outmoded. therefore, for the
> MOQ to survive, it must be dynamic, not static.
>
> Andre:
> The MoQ is a static intellectual pattern of value.

Jc:  Intellect is the most dynamic thing in experience.  Therefore,
saying " static intellect"is an oxymoronic formulation.

dmb-Andre:

These are Pirsig’  words
> John. It ¨should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about…it
> doesn’t change from day to day, although the world it talks about does”


Jc:  If the world it talks about changes, and there is no shift in
expression to match it, then the static intellectual pattern no longer
talks about actual experience but is some kind of abstract thing that
has no relation to life as we live.   Whatever you say Pirsig said,
that's simply not what the MoQ is about.  Betterness is eternal and
there's always room for improvement.

dmb/Andre:
 (
> MoQ summary by Robert Pirsig). Your concern about the MoQ’s survival is
> rather odd because you are displaying tendencies here, from day to day,
> (anti-intellectual rhetoric and trumping social patterns) that, if and when
> unchecked and not corrected, would lead to a very, very premature demise of
> that which you claim to defend and understand so well..
> This kind of rhetoric smacks of Bodvar who wants to include Dynamic Quality
> inside the MoQ.
>

Jc:  I haven't heard Bo utter that one yet.  But anyway, Dynamic
Quality isn't contained within the MoQ, but it informs and guides the
MoQ.  Eternally.


> John:
> Now who will free us from the stuckness of the present?
>
> Andre:
> Here we go again. The present is all we have John.

Jc:  If that were true, Andre Buchanan, then those words you just
typed wouldn't have any meaning since meaning is a construct informed
by past experience.  But I believe in free will, and thus you can
choose to look at it that way.  Your words won't have any real
meaning, but then that  does seem to be the case.

Dave Broersen:

>It is as dynamic as it
> comes.The full-blown DQ/sq. The past is gone and the future is yet to come.
> If you feel you are stuck in this moment then something is really amiss.
>

Jc:  I'm not stuck in this moment.  All I have to do is sit, and it
moves on.  Whether I will or no.  You're the one who is stuck in some
abstract formulation which is preventing you from seeing any Quality
in others.

dmbab:

> Ron had asked John about Pirsig not accounting for something in his
> explanation:
> Man, that's a big question, Ron.  In a word "society".  In Pirsig’s
> metaphysics, intellect is on top of society and distinct from it.  I think
> this was the way Pirsig himself experienced life, but that's not the general
> experience.
>
> Andre:
> So Pirsig is not accounting for ¨society” ? I could be pedantic and ask you
> for your definition of ¨society`”  but Pirsig deals with this concept
> widely. But I think you mean ¨culture” (since your reference includes your
> concern about ¨ intellect”) . A culture contains social and intellectual
> values (Annot 28) . A social pattern which would be unaware of the next
> higher level ( i.e. intellectual values) would be found among prehistoric
> people and the higher primates when they exhibit social learning that is not
> genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic.” (Annot.52).
>
> So what is your gripe over John. What did Pirsig not do?


Jc:   He didn't deal very well with the interface/relation between
society and intellect.


>
> John:
> The MoQ was turned over to a community, and that community-process has
> reveal the weakness of denigrating
> social patterns.
>
> Andre:
> And again. Nobody is ¨denigrating social patterns”  John, least of all the
> MoQ community (whatever that means). Perhaps you need to be a little more
> specific with regards to exactly which social patterns you mean.

Jc:

The only experience that occurs to me, is my own - I think it was you,
but it might have been somebody else who denigrated my efforts here as
"merely social" some time back when I resigned the last time.  This is
insulting to me, saying that I'm either anti or non intellectual, and
it's a fallacious attitude towards social patterning as if "doing
social" is a derogation.  But this wasn't an isolated incident.  It's
a prevailing attitude of these interpreters of Pirsig's philosophy -
that the highest insight is when you put down society in some way.

I could go on into this a bit deeper, but that would probably just
confuse you, whoever you are, and bring more accusations that I'm not
heeding Ron, Arlo, dmb and Andre.

I heed whoever addresses me properly,

John the one and only.