[Wittrs] [quickphilosophy] Latest Self-Congratulatory Nonsense at Wittrs

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 11:15:36 -0000

The whole post, in fact nearly every post of his ever, is a fairly bald attempt 
to validate a particularly obnoxious form of cultist behavior--"I am right, so 
any objections must be nothing but a type of madness," but this gem is my 
"Besides, once you open the bottle to pluralism, you better not discriminate 
against haughty arrogance. You may find that direct approaches yield short-term 
conflict but cause long term self reflection (perhaps in some)."

Let me provide the subtext here.  Pluralism--good, therefore Strangelove must 
be for it, and his attacks on other ways of thinking can't be ANTI-pluralist 
(as one might crazily imagine), but ,ist be PRO-pluralist.  Dirctness/arrogance 
with respect to all other ways of thinking than his are good, however, not 
simply because they promote pluralism but because they cause self-reflection, 
which, apparently, is a kind of activity that is useful for others (as they are 
unenlightened) but that would be harmful in Doc's case, because he has 
"transcended."  It's the same kind of stuff that seems to have been very 
effective with Tom Cruise and John Travolta.  

It may just be a prejudice of mine, but I don't think this or that view 
regarding Wittgensteinian interpretation can be thought to be more exasperating 
than those sorts of cultish claims (though I admit that an admirer of Witt. may 
well find Strangelovian interpretations libelous).  Views of being above 
criticism because of  of transcendence of norms of logic, reason (even 
etiquette--see Trollope), have long caused a great deal of incredibly harmful 
behavior, and, of course, continues to do so all over the world.  Obviously, 
it's not consistent with "pluralism" (whatever precisely is supposed to be 
meant by that) at all.

Finally, I think it's funny (and again suggestive of the view that Strangelove 
thinks his WITTRS members are really stupid), that he first transmitted the 
post of yours to which he was responding with the first graph or two cut out.  
He then seems to have thought better of that bald censorship, and removed it. 
But, perhaps because he wanted to provide everyone with the benefit of the tres 
DEEP response of his discussed above, he posted it again, this time claiming 
that some sort of technological glitch had caused the system to "eat it" which 
made necessary a "cut and paste" job.  

There was no technological problem.  JPdeM's bowdlerized post was there for a 
day and then removed by the non-moderator.  Then a fibby attempt was made to 
recreate the history of that editing.  Admittedly no more than a wee-wee scale, 
but Stalinist behavior nonetheless.  

I'd beware of contributing to any list where the non-moderator can change 
others' posts (and would even do so without mentioning it!).


Other related posts:

  • » [Wittrs] [quickphilosophy] Latest Self-Congratulatory Nonsense at Wittrs - wittrsl