Arlo, Glacier of honesty, wb , long time no spoke, missed your cotributions -sparkling intervention to open the door. Adrie
2010/9/13 Ian <[email protected]> > 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 > -- parser 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
