RE: MD Personal Report on MoQ Conference

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 02:55:39 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Theism, Non-Theism, Anti-Theism, Nihilism"

    Dear Ian and Mati, Mark and Erin and all civil, movie-loving MOQers:

    Ian said:
    I also thought your paper, and the emotional connection you made with
    Bob, on the Orphic mythology, was the most significant moment in the
    conference.

    dmb says:
    Bob did a little research and sent word that Cocteau's film is now available
    on DVD. Its a trilogy, actually. Naturally, all three films are already on
    their way to my mailbox. (Netflix has it.) They should arrive tomorrow or
    the next day, although I'm almost afraid to watch them. I'd like to be able
    to walk out when its over, if you know what I mean. But I'll most certainly
    watch it anyway. No, I'm gonna study it. As you might imagine, I don't give
    a damn about any other movie right now.
     
    In the "Moment of Civility" thread, Ian said to Mati:

    It's a fine but important line between mis-directed sarcasm and
    ironic, barbed wit.

    There is also an element of familiarity breeding contempt between old
    sparring partners knocking lumps out of each other, which may often be
    lost on newcomers.

    Many a true word spoken in jest, and in our striving to be
    intellectual (something Paul also posted on) I hope we don't forget we
    are biological, social, human animals too. No humanity without
    humour. Sarcasm we can do without - except in frustrated extremis -
    Platt for example :-) - only joking.

    Politeness is anything but fun, but respect is essential.

    dmb says:
    I suppose civility and sarcasm both have their places. I think real the
    danger lurking behind either extreme is censorship. Too much heat will tend
    to shut people up, but so will too much restraint. Take the exchange between
    Mark and Erin, for example. As I see it, Mark knows how to make a case and
    he knows how to criticize those who can't or won't make a case in return.
    "Arrogant" is just what you call a guy that makes you feel stupid and I
    think Erin just wants to stop feeling stupid. She wants the criticism to
    stop so she pretends its Mark's fault that Platt can't make a case, as if
    this were some character flaw on Mark's part. That's ridiculous. Erin acts
    as if the MOQ had nothing to say about politics or religion and all views
    are equally valid within it. That view is simply incorrect. And if you think
    otherwise, then make your case. I haven't seen one yet, but that's probably
    because it CAN'T be made.

    One can't avoid criticism in a philosophical forum such as this by simply
    insulting the critic or making emotional appeals about hurt feelings. One
    can make a case or not. You put up or shut up. You can actually address and
    answer the criticism or simply whine about it. Which do you think is gonna
    fly around here? Duh! That's all we can do. I think its that simple. I also
    think its completely unreasonable to expect that heated debate and
    passionate arguments can be avoided here. And what a bore it would be even
    if we could.

    Show me a guy who steps into a boxing ring and then complains when the other
    guy takes a swing at him and I'll show you a guy who has no idea what he's
    gotten himself into. If you can't take a punch, take up another sport. Don't
    get in the ring. But for god's sake don't ruin the game for the rest of us.

    And no, I'm not suggesting that anyone be asked to leave. I'm just saying
    that it has to be accepted or rejected for what it is. This is an
    intellectual forum and as such anything or anyone that interferes with our
    ability to be open, honest and direct in our exchanges is our enemy.
    Sometimes that is going to mean that people get upset. So what? We're all
    adults here and metaphysics ain't for children. Can we agree on that?
    Personally, I have loads of respect for my enemies. If I'm on your back
    constantly, its a good bet that I take you quite seriously. (Isn't that so,
    Matt?) If I only attacked those who seemed philosophically weak and
    unpersuasive, then I would merely be a cowardly bully and not a boxer in a
    real fight. Right?

    Oddly perhaps, I think the calls for politeness and civility are usually a
    call for self-censorship. I think its a way of asking your opponent to throw
    the fight, take a dive or otherwise corrupt the game. Not always. I'm not
    saying that nobody has ever crossed the line or that there's anything wrong
    with being nice, but usually calls for civility just looks like emotionally
    manipulative bullshit. Usually it comes from those who are far too concerned
    with their own hurt feelings and who wants to put that concern over and
    above the substance of the matter.

    Oooops. Gotta go.

    dmb

    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 Jul 18 2005 - 07:21:16 BST