[Michael] The definitions of words are relatively constant as compared to the rate of change of ideas, either in society or in personal dialog.
[Arlo] OK. We agree here. I only add that the "constancy" is not an edict from an authority, but a shared consensus among those in the dialog. Certainly, we have to agree to a sizeable foundation to make higher communication possible. If we belabored every word, every perceived nuance, we'd never get past the first sentence (maybe even the first word). [Michael] Yes. I do not take issue with the dialog, but with the lack of meidation in the wiki model of those instances where negotiation breaks down. [Arlo] And I agree that distraction can be damaging. Take me, for instance, I have no business trying to define "chaos" for quantum physicists, but in an un-reviewed forum I could (attempt to) do just that. The community of physicists would spend too much time fending off those who would derail the dialog. I think its balance that's the key, a forum open enough to allow all voices to be heard, and some form of review to keep the dialog constructive. Again, its the "heated contesting" that is wholly missed when one turns to (supposedly) authoritative sources. I value Wikipedia's engaged dialogue because it sheds more information on the topic. But I think the point is that on Wikipedia we are privy to the dialogue, for "authoritative sources" we are not, but the dialogue continues to happen. [Arlo] (My personal opinion is that "bias" is a charge only leveled against a source you disagree with). [Michael] And mine is to agree and add that without "bias" we'd have no dialog either. [Arlo] Good point. [Michael] What we couldn't do, neither democratically, nor by negotiation, was arrive at a commonly accepted meaning of one word, and that failure led to failure in dialog. [Arlo] Well, I'd say the dialogue became to focused on a "word" rather than a "meaning". [Michael] At some point, an authority is sometimes needed to mediate and resolve such negotiational impasse. [Arlo] Hehe, the problem then becomes one of "which authority". These days there are one for every possible stance. Unless Pirsig breaks his wall of silence, I doubt recourse to authority will reconcile anything. For example, did you choose MW as your authority after you read it and determined it was in agreement with your views? Did I do the same? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
