Entry 1200 — On Obtusophy and Propagandism
This from Steve Steinberg at the Anonymous thread:
I “got” what you said exactly Bob. You’re referring to Oxfordian/anti-Stratfordian arguments as “propaganda” and “wack-text” is the closest thing to actual propaganda I’ve encountered in the Shakespeare authorship debate. So is your penchant for making up “ology” words by which to describe us as mentally unsound. That’s okay. I’m cool with it. It’s cute and charming in a way. But, if there is anyone in the SAQ debate who is a ‘propagandist’ it is you!
What follows is what I made of three responses (here with the above because I’m in my null zone again, in spite of having taken what I call my “zoom-dose”: two APCs and a hydrocodrone tablet:
So far, Steve, you’ve done nothing to indicate you understand my simple point except say that you have. I feel that if you had, you would have made some attempt to refute it.
Moreover, you clearly are ignorant of what propaganda is. For one thing, it is NOT name-calling. As I told Ranny, it is AMONG OTHER THINGS, name-calling as a SUBSTITUTE for responsible argumentation. I just about always supply responsible argumentation, so am NOT a propagandist.
But thanks for mislabeling me, for it reminds me that I neglected something important in any discussion like this: definition of argument-establishing terminology. In this case, the main argument-establishing term is “propaganda.” I will now go to my word-processor to work up my preliminary definition of this. I extremely doubt that you could define it, but you’re welcome to try.
Note, the thought has crossed my mind that you may not be a propagandist but seem like on due to your being what I term a “obtusophist”–one not intellectually qualified to participate effectively in verosophical discussions.
Here’s my definition of propagandism (so far–I know it’s more complex than I suggest):
Propagandism (by which I mean the use of propaganda): the promotion of a belief through the excessive use of appeals to emotion and/or invalid argumentation and/or misrepresentations of effective arguments against the belief being promoted, and/or simple distraction–with a minimum of fact-based logical argumentation for the belief or engagement with fact-based logical arguments against the belief.
I say that you have dealt propagandistically with my fully-argued point about Shakespeare’s exposure to a curriculum–because you have failed to engage it, and used distraction against it (bringing up irrelevancies). Being propagandistic once or twice does not make you a propagandist. In fact, I think you are an obtusophist. Someone who comes up with interesting thoughts he can’t effectively defend, and lacks a coherent serious theory.
Note: my description of you as an obtusophist is not an argument against your beliefs, so not propaganda, just a side-opinion.
Later note for here but not the thread: nullosophers, who are those opposing the search for truth, are inevitably propagandists because intentionally confusing whatever the issue is. Obtusophers act like propagandists but unintentionally. They sincerely believe they are on the road to some Grand Elucidation of an Important Subject. Verosophers sometimes operate like propagandists–by smearing opponents, for instance–but not to win an argument but for the joy of smearing a moron.
“Verosophy,” you may need to be reminded, is derived from the Latin for “true” and the Greek for “wisdom”–or “knowledge.” Hence, a verosopher is a seeker of truth. This is a required term in English because English lacks a word for philosophers, scientists, historians . . . mathematicians? My zoom-dose may be taking effect belatedly, for a flow of thought is beginning to raise me out of the null zone. I’ve just thought an old small thought about whether or not mathematics is a science. I say that because it is not if science is considered a quest to understand material reality (like metaphysics is a quest to understand everything else, if there is anything else–and there is: my consciousness, for one thing; maybe yours, too, although I suspect not. Mathematics, to get back to that, is a quest to understand itself only. That it’s splendidly useful in science is beside the point. (Side-thought: for tomorrow’s essay, students, tell me if mathematics is too important in science, not important enough, or employed just the right amount. It’s greatly over-used in psychology, I think.)
Okay, we need the term, “verosophy” (or some better term if anyone can come up with one), to cover all the forms of serious truth-seeking, to wit: science, philosophy, mathematics, history. . . . Step back, I feel another coinage gurgling up: “sociodominancy.” I think I have some other word for that but it would probably take me a couple of hours to find it, so the heck with it. Sociodominancy is the art or science of winning ascendancy over others, with sub-categories of politics and . . . war, I guess (I want a spiffier word like “havocry”). Would chess and bridge be sub-categories of war? Economics I’d make a sub-category of the science of psychology, ditto political science. What about geographical exploration? No. Geography is a science, exploration a means of gaining truths about it the way looking through a telescope is a means of gaining astronomical truths.
Technology is a sister of science as is art.
Now I have a great urge to see my list of human activities–but I’m so damnable disorganized, I can’t find the list nor where to go that it might be.
* * * I just found one item on the list: “utilitry.” That would include technology. Failed to find any more.
.