Hooray for Arlo.
(Ian being brief, and entering circumstantially imposed silent period.)
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:24, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
[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
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
