Hi Jonathan, Struan and other passengers on the Lilabike
Definition of a Passenger:
1) A traveller in or on a private or public conveyance (other than the driver, pilot,
crew etc.)
2) colloq. a member of a team, crew, etc. who does no effective work
Source: Concise Oxford Dictionary
On 22 Feb 99, at 9:23, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> 3 weeks without posting anything must be something of a record for me.
> I've been skimming through most of the posts, and quite frankly find it
> depressing. I can't criticize the individual posts - mostly they compare
> favorably with the best of what I've seen over the months. However,
> collectively, we seem to have lost our way.
My own thoughts on this are that in our desperate attempts to be "rugged individuals",
full of DQ promise, we've lost sight of the community aspect of association, which
seems
to be a common malaise of western society in general not just this mailing list. This
is
something that I was trying to hint at in my post on Libertarian Socialism. I don't
think it's
just a case of being an individual with unrestricted freedom OR a repressed and
restricted
community member with no freedom but a balance between the two. Having a personality
within a group of strong personalities is difficult.
Putting forward a new idea or just talking about an old idea in a new way is daunting.
We
all have insecurities and fears, some more than others, we all want to be taken
seriously
and we all have at least some difficulty expressing ourselves exactly as we would
like. That
we have ideas at all is encouraging, given the general attitude of our respective
societies,
and in a responsible community it is incumbent upon ALL members to either encourage
those ideas or silently leave the way clear for them to develop or fail as the case
may be.
Constructive criticism is a good thing.
Additionally, in my post on Libertarian Socialism I was trying to put across the idea
that it
is within a framework of the collective that real individualism can flourish best
because we
have our peers and friends to support us even if things screw up as they so often do.
When you're on your own in the wastelands one mistake and you're stuffed.
It is often the case that when someone demands the freedom to express themselves
exactly
as they see fit this is an excuse to shout down everyone that disagrees with them. The
recent demands on this list to follow ones own DQ and to be unrestricted by 'petty'
rules
and regulations has, I think, led to what Jonathan has referred to as losing our way
collectively. The tendency has to been to react against collective ideals and stride
off on
our own in order to assert our independence and point of view.
The reason for the existence of this list (and the LS list) is to share ideas and
thoughts on
the MOQ not to split the group into mystics and rationals and fight over what appears
to
be the best position. We all need to reassess what it is that we want to get out out
of
contributing to the list, remembering that ultimately it is a collective effort. This
doesn't
mean that individualism has no place on the list, just that it should be tempered by
respect
for others and each member being personally responsible for the collective rights of
all.
> Over in the moderated list, I
> can't say that things are any better. It's much as I feared - since the
> discussion split, things have definitely changed, and the old dynamism has
> been lost. We're stuck somewhere in the Dakota prairies with no sign of
> the mountains.
Perhaps this is a good example of where unrestricted DQ goes without the SQ latch -
nowhere and everywhere at the same time. However, I think it's a bit early to judge
the
outcome of the MD/LS split. Three weeks isn't a long time even by the standards of
this
mailing list. If we don't try new formats then we run the risk of stagnating in our
own
excreta, if we do try new formats we run the risk of flying apart from the effects of
change.
The potential is there - make use of it. We're only limited by our own imagination.
> Similarly, the unrestricted actions
> of the individual should not be assessed only on the level of the
> individual, but also on the collective level. To come back to the recent
> discussion within the Lila Squad lists, the individual posts have been
> fine, the collective quality lacking. We share a collective responsibility
> for this.
I couldn't agree more. If the collective will exists to make this a worthwhile forum
then let's
come up with a few ideas to make it worthwhile.
On 22 Feb 99, at 20:36, Struan Hellier wrote:
> Jonathan: Very diplomatic, well done. The truth is that the majority (not
> all) of individual postings have been utter crap and the overall debate
> has degenerated because of it. If my undergraduates came out with this
> sort of rubbish I would have them rusticated without further ado.
> Save some room on the passenger seat before I leap lemming like out of the
> window.
Rusticated? Ouch! I hope you'd have the decency to sharpen the knife first :)
One point I would make here is also from my last post:
Horse
> If you don't take an active part in the
> governance of your society then you have no grounds for complaint
So how comes you've not contributed more in order to raise the standard? Two posts
this
month as opposed to 31 in January. Is it reasonable to retreat to a safe position of
passivity and safety and then criticize others for poor postings? Even if the general
quality
of posts this month have been below par at least there has been an attempt to enter
into
debate. Your posts last month were excellent - let's have some more.
OK - now that I've had a good bitch about the state of the list I'd like to make a few
observations and suggestions.
As Jonathan has said, we've lost a good deal of our direction. I don't think it's just
coincidence that this has come at the same time as dropping the PROGRAM format. This
has always been a handy means of something solid to hang on to when there's little
else
going on. It provides a focus and that's what we need. What has happened over the last
few months though is that there has been a tendency for the mystic and the rational
contingencies to seperate and then slag off the other side. So may I suggest a minor
twist
in the game.
Each month (or whatever period is preferred) we alternate between a mystical approach
and a rational approach, but with everyone who posts approaching from the same
direction as everyone else. The MOQ is supposed to be a bridge between the two so with
a little combined effort we might be able to collectively sneak up on Quality and give
it a
good seeing to. Those who consider themselves mystics can guide and criticize one
month
and then be guided and criticized the next by the rationals. This gives each supposed
faction a chance to try and see Quality from a different angle and those in the middle
to
solidify their position. Hopefully we'll reach the conclusion that an inclusivist
point of
view is more satisfying than an extremist one.
Of course, as the list is unmoderated there is still the scope to indulge in other
subjects on
the side. Let's keep it friendly and good natured and in the spirit of co-operation
rather
than adversarial. There's plenty of scope to learn from each other - unless someone
wants
to tell me that they are omniscient - I could do with a good laugh :) (<- Please note
the
smiley!!).
Jonathan, the mountains are still there, they haven't moved - we have. We just need to
stop, take off our rugged individual cool shades and look carefully in the right
direction.
Anyway, it's 3:45 a.m. and I still have a chapter or two of Mill to read so I'm going
to leave
it there. If anyone has any comments on my suggestion or has other suggestions then
let's
hear them.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
