[MD] Anti-intellectualism revisited

[david]

John insists that Pirsig isn't accounting for something in his explanation?


John said to 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.  Metaphysics deals in universals, much more, generals.  I think the MoQ is a slice out of a man's life. ...


dmb says:
It's not that Pirsig fails to account for society but rather you don't like his account because "intellect is on top". It seems that this disapproval is another symptom of John's anti-intellectualism. 

And what reason does John give for rejecting this account? It's just Pirsig's experience, he says, not the general experience. There are so many problems with this argument that it's hard to know where to begin. John has once again exhibited an anti-intellectual attitude, humorously defined as "the belief that my ignorant opinion is just as good as your expert knowledge". And, more concretely and more importantly, by characterizing Pirsig's account of "society" as mere personal opinion John has misconstrued the levels as something other than a description of an evolving universe and as a series of historical conflicts. That is to say, Pirsig's account is based on our common history and the current mythos and not mere opinion. His account includes a very large number of examples, any one of which can be found in a common encyclopedia. 

And this is John's standard operating procedure. He distorts and misconstrues Pirsig's ideas and then criticizes Pirsig for his own distorted constructions. When he's not doing that, he's offering improvements to the MOQ that are already contained in the MOQ. Of course Pirsig's original version has the advantage of being intelligible.

It's just an ordinary logical necessity.  One MUST understand a thing before one CAN criticize that thing. That's why John can't criticize the MOQ. He may and he might someday but only if he understands it first. And he refuses to believe that anyone could know better than he. That's why John's criticisms are never worth addressing and why they probably never will be. Bet you ten bucks he won't even deal with this logical necessity honestly or fairly. He'll likely dismiss it as mere insult or mere opinion or otherwise evade the issue.