[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[John Carl]

dmb, Dan,

On 6/25/14, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> John said to Dan:
> ...And yet, there is a way of thinking about problems in two different ways
> - you can rely upon social authority, or you can think  for yourself about
> what seems right to you.  But if that's the dividing line, then why does dmb
> constantly harp on me for not following his authority?  It's a conundrum you
> see.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> If I'm harping on anything, John, it is your disregard for reason and
> evidence.

Jc:  ahem.  your statement there, is what I mean by "harping".  You
take a negative cant and repeat it endlessly.  How can you deny that
while doing it?

You are a wonder.

dmb the wonder:


>That's what is supposed to have authority on the intellectual
> level.

Jc:  I* agree, of course.  Reason and evidence are wonderful things.
But you stick pretty much to invective and accusation and leave the
reasons and evidence, implied.  I can't think of a single cogent
argument you've made yet, that didn't include all kinds of
mean-spirited, illogical, irrational diatribes.  I doubt that's the
way you always are, but it's the way you are with me.  I have lots of
stuff to talk to you about.  Ways of looking at things that would
benefit you more than me.  (Royce) but you don't seem to want to go
there.

dmb:

You're supposed to see the reason and evidence with your own eyes and
> then be compelled by it. That's why I complain when you make stuff up (like
> my supposed social authority) rather than responding to the reasons actually
> given. That's why I complain when you dismiss textual evidence as Pirsig's
> opinion. Basically, you don't understand the difference between arguments
> from authority and authoritative arguments,

Jc:  Good!  Now we're getting somewhere Dave.  Now ask yourself, why
might that be?

Think about it.  Real hard.  Try.

Because they are the same thing, of course.  "argument from authority"
implies giving much truth-creddence to authority, in your thought and
argument.  Authoritative arguments do the same basically but in a good
way.    There's no functional difference when you are talking about
this pair.  But you can't see this because you have a locked-in
perspective.

But the issue is far more aggravating, because you can't use Pirsig's
authority to support your arguments when I'm critiquing an aspect of
Pirsig's thought or word.  I KNOW that's what he said.  But I disagree
with him and here's why...  etc.

Do you understand how "yeah, but Pirsig sez..." to me (0r even worse
"you don't get what Pirsig is even saying.")  gets old after a while
and isn't actually to the point?:


dmb:


 between political power and
> expertise, etc.. This is just one more way that you end up being so
> consistently anti-intellectual, one more way you try to justify the belief
> that your opinion is just as good as the guys who actually know what they're
> talking about.
>

Jc:  It all depends on who the guy is, I'm talking to Dave.

As the charge of being anti-intellectual... it's complicated.  Or W.
James and me would be in the same boat - but of course we're not.
Every age has its intellectual traps to be avoided.  (hint:  this is
the reason for a proper understanding of the dynamic nature of the
MoQ)  So let's think about it.


When I think about the historical expression of anti-intellectualism,
I come up with the following antecedents,

1)  Yahoo anti-intellectualism or simply "Yahooism".  This is the
redneck way, that views all them pointy-headed academicians, thinking
they are so smart and smug in their ivory towers, but unable to
rebuild a chevy small block or pour a concrete slab.  Religious
fundamentalists also fall into this category.  Indians are
anti-intellectuals of this stripe.  "can't hunt, isn't a good warrior
and doesn't get the language"  just a bunch of worthless bookworms.

2)  Critical Anti-intellectualism - the uber intellectual which
questions the basis of intellect itself and see its flaws and offer
ideas about how to make it better.  The MoQ falls generally in this
category, as do James, Dewey, etc,

3)  The romantic reactionary.  This is the reaction of the human
classic/romantic psyche, taken as a collective, acting out  when
suppressed.  Wordsworth and that lot.    The flee from cold logic and
values-free rationality.

4)  Deep Ecology.  This is an also hihgly intellectuall  stance that
questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology.   This was what I
meant earlier about "antihumanism" -  faith in human-centric intellect
leads to absolute catastrophe.  Human rationality isn't our proper
source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her
we sprang and in her we have our being.

So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last.
My whole philosophical journey was rooted there.  I don't believe in
weeding out good plants.

dmb:

> One certainly doesn't have to rely on social rank to believe that you are
> not on a par with Pirsig.

Jc:  Of course not.  Buy I don't believe in superman.  Every person
has weaknesses that need support from like-minded friends.  Blind
spots, in their mental acuity.  It just the nature of human
consciousness.  Pirsig's blind spot was he didn't see this blind spot!
 lol.  Or maybe he just compensated the wrong ones.

dmb:
 You don't have to believe him or accept his views

Jc:  I believe him.  He tells the truth, I can see that and that's all
I really need to see from a good writing - truth.  No one soul possess
all the truth tho.

dmb:

> but if you need to understand it before you can even begin to add anything
> worthwhile. But, sadly, your favorite topic is you and your previous ideas,
> while the MOQ is quite secondary.
>

Jc:  sigh.  I don't get how you can't see how shallow you are.
Talking about the MoQ?  What is that exactly?  Memorization?
Parrottiinngg?  Learn exactly what the teacher has to offer and then
recite it back?

dmb:

> By your own admission, the basic structure of the MOQ still eludes you.


Jc:  The basic structure of the MoQ is fine, reality is divided into 4
levels- but it needs fine-tuning.  No piece of music is harmonious on
it's own.  Without the imagination of a hall filled with sound, no
intellectual pattern of composition can occur.   Here's a big problem,
I have.  Where's art?  Where does art fit in?  You can say "intellect"
but when you make intellect the arbiter of all reality, it tends to
decide for itself what is art and what is not and that is a very bad
idea.

I don't misunderstand Pirsig on this subject, you dolt.  I argue with
him.  And if you don't think it's permissible to argue with authority,
in philosophical discussion, then you are in the wrong field
completely my friend.

dmb:


The
> levels, the moral codes, the difference between the problem and the
> solution, the nature of SOM and its relation to intellect and even the
> distinction between static and Dynamic. You have to understand these basic
> nuts and bolts if you ever hope to gain a clear and coherent picture of the
> thing we're talking about.
>
> You also need to learn the difference between criticism and mere insult.
> This is not mere insult.

Jc:  I appreciate that.  It sorta is, tho.  I feel like I'm arguing
with a kid sometimes and that feels insulting.  You don't vary your
approach, you don't have the repertoire of vocabulary so you just bore
right in with the same words, the same quotations,  over and over.
Without even once considering anything deeply or heeding the plain
meaning  of my argument.  You and Bo.  You'd make quite a pair.

Jc