Re: MD Noam Chomsky

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 17:09:18 BST

  • Next message: storeyd: "RE: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society."

    Dear Anthony,

    Thanks for your prompt response to my request for you analysis of Chomsky's
    worldview vis a vis the MOQ. To keep this thread within the bounds of
    Pirsig's metaphysics rather than go off on a tangent to discuss Chomsky's
    beliefs, I'd like to focus on your quotation from Pirsig about intellectuals:

    “Like so many words, ‘intellectual’ has different meanings that are confused.
    The first confusion is between the social title, ‘Intellectual,’ and the
    intellectual level itself. The statement, ‘Some intellectuals are not
    intellectual at all,’ becomes meaningful when one recognizes this
    difference."

    Compare this to your statements about "academic credentials" which, from the
    emphasis you place on them, appears to be your criteria for placing
    intellectuals within the intellectual level itself and not merely holders of
    the social title.
     
    > Firstly, Chomsky only really came to my attention after I received an e-mail
    > from my supervisor (Prof. Stephen Clark) who announced Chomsky’s visit to
    > Liverpool in early April. If you examine Clark’s academic credentials
    > (http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/srlc.html) I highly doubt that he would direct
    > his faculty to make an effort to see a speaker such as Chomsky without good
    > reason.
    >
    > I’ve carried out a brief internet search for the academic credentials of the
    > people who you noted (on May 5th) as believing Chomsky to be a ‘Communist
    > flack’ (such as Anders G. Lewis, J.D. Cassidy, Keith Windschuttle, Nick Cohen
    > and Pejman Yousefzadeh) and have had little luck. If you could provide these,
    > this would certainly be helpful in assessing their credibility – at least, for
    > anyone interested in following-up this line of research. Any information
    > concerning the funding/financial backing of Lewis et al would also assist in
    > judging their biases, if any.

    Not only do you statements award a high level of intellectual authenticity to those
    with academic credentials (those with PhD's at least I presume) but you also
    imply that by the simple fact of being academics that they are more likely
    than the average guy to be free of biases.

    While I'm tempted to refute the latter implication about the susceptibility
    of academics to biases (even science which claims to be objective is
    subjective according to Pirsig), I'd like to follow up on this distinction
    between a social level intellectual and intellectual level intellectual that
    Pirsig made in his letter to Paul. As you know, in that letter he was talking
    about Lila because some had tried to claim that she was without intellect
    based on Pirsig's sentence in the book that intellectually she was "nowhere."
    As he says, that did not mean that she "was lying on the cabin floor
    unconscious." It simply meant that few if anyone would bestow the social
    tittle "intellectual" on her, anymore than one would apply that approbation
    to Barbara Streisand.

    In the same letter, Pirsig says intellect "can be defined very loosely as the
    level of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can
    be described as the rules of this sign manipulation." That includes just
    about everyone who thinks rationally. But my favorite description of the
    intellect that Pirsig puts in the same letter is the following:

    "For anyone who really wants to know what intellect is I think definitions
    are not the place to start. Since definitions are a part of the intellectual
    level the only person who will understand a definition of intellect is a
    person who is already an intellectual and thus has the answer before he even
    asks."

    So suggesting some some sort of academic credentials are necessary for
    entrance into the gates of the intellectual level seems a bit over-emphasized
     especially when you consider that Chomsky has none in the field of global
    politics or international affairs, nor has Pirsig any in the field of
    philosophy.

    I take heart from just these two examples because I am no "credentialed"
    intellectual. I try to judge a written work solely on its merits, regardless
    of the author's reputation. Of course, it our society it's awfully difficult
    to escape completely from the celebrity syndrome or cult of personality. I'm
    just as readily suckered as anybody else.

    To sum up, I'll go along with Pirsig. If you ask what the intellectual level
    is, you're already know. Academic credentials not required. It's like Quality
    that way.

    Best regards and thanks again,

    Platt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 31 2004 - 17:07:28 BST