Comments | irenicspace: Anti-intellectualism

irenicspace

Anti-intellectualism

Oct 28, 2004 09:34

Cliff Bostock recently wrote an essay for Creative Loafing called, Derrida and Dubya: Anti-intellectualism in America. It was very interesting. Some of his points made me immediately think of the OTO though. I read:

The anti-intellectual typically exhibits little curiosity about other perspectives and no skepticism about his own positions. When ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

k_navit October 28 2004, 13:58:55 UTC

(sitting on fingers ( ... )

Re: Results... irenicspace October 28 2004, 21:39:24 UTC

I don’t see any point proven accept that you have failed to show any proof or results that these meetings take place elsewhere. You say they do, inquiring minds would like to see that is true. You have done the tell part, now it is time for the show part. I don’t see any point proven accept that you have failed to show any proof or results that these discussions take place elsewhere. You say they do, inquiring minds would like to see that is true. You have done the tell part, now it is time for the show part.

Please note the correction and reply to this one.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Results... 31seel October 28 2004, 22:45:58 UTC

In other words, there is no debate going on anywhere and you find the tone utilized to point this out troublesome.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Results... 31seel October 29 2004, 16:14:48 UTC

You know, for someone who goes off about other peoples tone you sure can be snotty at times.

Then again, it always is easier to critisize the mote in another's eye, rather than the beam in one's own.

Again Gerald... irenicspace October 28 2004, 23:24:47 UTC

you stated "I thought you were saying that people do not care or engage in these sorts of discussions. I was saying that they do." I would like to know where the discussions are happening and what are the results? If you can make the assertion they do care and engage, please show me where, when; show me results. I am all ears.

Re: Again Gerald... z111 October 30 2004, 19:40:05 UTC

I don't know what Gerald was referring to, but he and I have certainly had some discussions about where the OTO is at, where we would like it to be, what's holding it back, etc, etc.

Keith z111 October 30 2004, 17:49:20 UTC

Do people ever change their minds by arguing with you? Or is it enough that those who already agree with you can get into mutual bitchfests enjoyed by all who see "problems" existing in the same way you do?

Have you ever changed anyone's mind?

Have you ever had a positive influence on the order with your "license to scourge"?

Z111 keith418 October 30 2004, 19:18:51 UTC

In fact, even I have been surpised at how many people have told me that my writing has changed their minds. In the end, it's usually the folks who start to see that complaining about "tone," and making endless ad hominem attacks, really aren't that satisfying, or productive, in the long run.

The irony is that AC's "tone," in many, many places, is much more, shall we say 'tart' than mine is. I thought getting over that hurdle would have taught more of us that substance is more important than style, and that, sometimes, the "medium is the message."

Calling me names doesn't invalidate my arguments, any more than it would if I tried to call you names to invalidate your positions. Why that isn't clear to all of us is a mystery to me.

Re: Z111 z111 October 30 2004, 19:37:02 UTC

I don't think I was calling you names.

I do find you to be one of the most frustrating and difficult people to communicate with about anything OTO related. Our phone conversations have always seemed pleasant...but online mostly I either want to clomp you over the head or just disengage.

If the OTO did have the problems you say it does (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here), you'd be the last person I'd want to try to problem solve it with. :-( You can't problem-solve when you want to clomp someone or run from them.

So sometimes I wonder if your presentation of your concerns is actually counter-productive to your aims.

But you seem to think it's working for you. So I guess that means I just need to stay disengaged and try to fight off the urge to clomp.

Lastly, I don't think you can really compare the tone of your writings to Crowley's writings.

Again... keith418 October 30 2004, 20:51:58 UTC

I feel your pain - there are any number of people I communicate with whose tone irritates me. Again, as I have said already on this thread, I see that more as my own problem - rather than their problem. I make an effort to detach my issues with their tone and look at the substance of what they are actually saying. If I cannot tell the difference between signal and noise, I ask for clarification ( ... )

Andmoreagain keith418 November 1 2004, 17:27:37 UTC

"... who would defend a position, who would support an idea, if he had to multiply his scruples, ceaselessly weigh pros and cons, and conduct a reasoning with all due precautions? The original thinker forges ahead rather than digging in: he is a Draufganger, an enthusiast, a break-neck, and in any case a determined, combative mind, a rebel in the realm of abstraction, whose aggressiveness, though sometimes veiled, is nonetheless real and effective. Under his apparently neutral preoccupations, camouflaged as problems, stirs a will, functions an instinct, as indispensable as intelligence to the creation of a system: without the collaboration of that instinct and that will, how to triumph over the paralysis to which they doom the mind? No assertion that cannot be annihilated by a contrary assertion. In order to offer an opinion about anything, bravura action and a certain capacity of thoughtlessness are necessary, as well as a propensity for letting oneself be carried away by extrarational reasons."

- E. M. Cioran

True or false?

Re: Andmoreagain z111 November 1 2004, 18:55:31 UTC

I'm not going there. :-)

Re: Why should anyone have to work that hard? rawmr October 29 2004, 18:44:21 UTC

"then it is logical to assume that the arguments will be presented in a way that will serve that end."

I think what you meant to say is, "then it is logical for aurguements to be presented in a way that will serve the desired end."

Certainly here is a skill for which one has to work hard to aquire. I had gathered that Grand Lodge would consider any confrontational opinions as "attitudunal" and so thought to help make the KTO a shinning example to follow. But I was perceived as having "attitude," and so I am now happy to leave it to others to do as they might here. But it remains extremely logical for aurguements to be presented in a way that will serve the desired end.

Re: Why should anyone have to work that hard? 31seel October 28 2004, 21:00:03 UTC

The odd thing is that it is only an "attitude" and a "problem" when they are saying something counter to what the complaining person wants to hear. IT is an amazing thing, when people agree with what I am saying there is never a complaint about my tone, only when I am disagreeing. Seems the actual tone being disliked is the audible one.

Back to all threads