[Krimel]
People here have a right to say whatever the hell they want; at least
until recently when people are being bullied into silence. I know
that Horse does a great job here but WTF?
[Arlo]
I think at the heart of this is the issue of what we are here for. As
a very general rubric, it can be helpful to consider involvement in
online discourse as falling into the falling categories: (1) social
presence, (2) information dissemination (which includes requests for
information), (4) statements of comparability (agree/disagree) and
(5) topical reconstruction (typically the "synthesis, analysis,
evaluation" of learning taxonomies).
Topical reconstruction is what most would see as the generative
dialogue, it would be more or less what we consider "building" within
the dialogue related to a certain topical idea. Within MD, the
topical idea is Pirsig's Metaphysics, at an AA meeting it would be
about coping with addiction. All discourse communities have topical
boundaries, some very narrow and some quite broad, but it is this
topical idea that defines the boundaries of the community. Typically,
this is self-enforced, but when self-enforcement fails there is
usually some authority to reenforce these boundaries. (If you go into
an PTA meeting and the everyone is talking about their sexual
liaisons from the weekend, some authority will have to move the group
back into its topical domain).
This said, non-topical discourse can be very healthy. No PTA would
last long if the members if no social presence was permitted. And I
am certain Horse knows this, which is why a lot of "social presence"
discourse makes up the body of the list's posts most days. We are
social beings, and we our very nature come to appreciate the
familiarity of those we interact with. Personally, I have little
problem with people I've come to know and care about sharing their
ups and downs. We all share, to some degree, elements of our social
world outside the list in the list.
This is not about anyone's right to "say whatever the hell they
want", this is about the boundary as to when non-topical discourse
overwhelms topical discourse to the detriment of the community. This
is not AA. This is not the PTA. Horse makes the decision when this
boundary has been breached, and as such he does an exemplary job.
I've never known Horse to uphold this boundary as if its some
non-negotiable event horizon, and his decisions are always fair.
By the way, "tinfoil hat dude" has no "right" to use the MD to
promote his paranoid-delusional fantasies. Horse made the decision
that his involvement here was detrimental and I think that's fair.
This is a list for discussing Pirsig, not for promoting psychotic
rants about black helicopters and FEMA death camps. Just because I
can "filter" it out, does not mean the MD should simply be an open
forum for anyone who wishes to talk about anything. There are plenty
of lists and forums on the Internet, where people can seek that out.
And I don't see anyone being "bullied" into silence. Indeed, I think
Horse is far more forgiving and generous than I would be. Indeed, all
Horse did was state (and I am in full agreement) that messages that
are intended to be private communications should remain private
communications unless all parties involved give their consent. I have
shared several things in private with list members that I would not
personally want public. While there seems to be unresolvable conflict
between John and DMB, I think DMB was just responding from his own,
more private, view that expressing some things in a permanently
public media is not wise. It is an opinion I personally share.
Ultimately, John has made the decision to share his troubles with the
list, and I think this is not an issue given the amount he
participates in otherwise topical reconstruction. Certainly, I wish him well.
In a way, I see this balance between social presence and topical
reconstruction to be the heart of Pirsig's book. His comment that
writing as a narrative permitted him to ensure that it would be seen
properly as one person talking from one point in time seems central
to this. The "social" element of ZMM makes us care for the narrative,
gives us a sense of place and empathy, makes the interlocutor
"human", and someone we trust. The "reconstructive" element of ZMM is
the carefully built ideas that create something new from historical
ideas some pre-dating Socrates. I think we can find that same balance
here, or expect it without concern or problem. But wherever Horse
finds this moving towards imbalance, he has to act in the best
interest of the community, for if we slip into a forum of "anything
goes" we will surely lose all relevance. Again, to date, I have never
found Horse's judgement to be anything but fair.
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/md/archives.html
