[MD] The (new and improved) MOQ Wiki

[David Harding]

Hi dmb.
> dmb said to David Harding:
> I clicked on "questions", for example, and found a series of ridiculous 
> questions that look a lot more like mockery than anything else. Looks like 
> maybe even the hoaxters of Liverpool wrote them. And if the purpose of Wiki 
> is to provide descriptions and definitions to those who are not yet 
> familiar, then the site will mislead people just as they're being introduced 
> to the MOQ. Bums me out, man.
>
> DH replied:
> Firstly.  I can tell you I'm the only person to have edited the MOQ Wiki in 
> possibly more than six months.  I can also say that while I did not ask the 
> questions on the Questions section I saw nothing indicating to me they were 
> folly (a good perspective to take) and so responded to them according to my 
> own understanding.   I claim no moral authority on the MOQ and understood 
> while I wrote my answers that if someone didn't agree with what I had 
> written they could simply change it themselves or complain about a response 
> on the Discussions page for that page (every page has one).  The last and 
> worst option would be that someone not participate at all.
>
> dmb says:
> You claim no moral authority and you saw nothing wrong with the questions? 
> Yikes. Now I'm even more worried. I don't mean to be cruel, but if you put 
> that site up then aren't you responsible for the content to some extent?

I didn't put the site up.  I like the rules of a Wiki: Even if you don't 
own the site, you can help to control content.
>  
> Shouldn't you be able to filter out pranksters. I mean, how could you fail 
> to notice how awful those questions are? Why should any legitimate question 
> about a philosophical system contain any reference to Janet Jackson's left 
> breast? 
Because like it or not, Janet Jacksons left breast is part of reality. 
Lots of people looked at it, a whole lot more than the people who come 
to MD for example.  Metaphysics is a way for describing reality.  Why in 
your view, can't a good Metaphysics describe beautifully, a phenomenon 
that so many people watched?

My answer if you'd like to discuss it is as follows:

"The short MOQ answer is that biological patterns are more universal 
than cultural or intellectual patterns.

They are more universal because they are older than the social and 
intellectual patterns. They are more common. Furthermore, the social and 
intellectual patterns of the day support the significance of the 
biological patterns."

> And who wrote that nonsense, anyway?
>   
I didn't write the questions.  However I saw some value in them.  A 
grave mistake according to you, but I'll take my chances.  If someone 
has a question in regards to the MOQ I'm always more than interested in 
what they have to say and I'll try as best I can to help them understand 
things from my perspective. Why's this such a bad thing?
> I'm not saying you should be a control freak about it, but come on!
>
> Its not too hard to see that part of your response is to basically say, hey, 
> if you don't like it, then go ahead and change it. But I wonder if I can and 
> I wonder how much time that would take. And I wonder if I'd then feel 
> obliged to keep an eye on it to see if any pranksters have returned.  And, 
> man, if I had the time for all that maybe I would have put up the site 
> myself. But I don't, so I didn't.
>
> Okay, maybe here is where I cross the line. But I gotta say it. If you can't 
> manage the site, then shut it down or hand it off to somebody who can. I 
> mean, imagine how you'd feel if you were the author of the MOQ. Imagine how 
> you'd feel if your life's work was pointlessly associated with Janet 
> Jackson's (lovely) tits? And how do you suppose visiting philosophers would 
> take it?
>   
Are you a Romantic dmb?  Your argument reminds me of Johns horror that 
Pirsig used a coke can shim on his lovely BMW.

We fuck, we fart, we shit, we smell, we sweat and the MOQ has a whole 
level for these things! Yes, even Janet Jackson's breasts are on that 
level. Yes, sadly lots of people looked at them and Oogled.  While your 
Romanticism surprises me, I disagree with it and don't think it's the 
way one should handle Metaphysics.  Like I said.  Metaphysics is about 
reality.  Reality is life.  Janet Jacksons breasts are a part of reality 
and yours, and my life.  Why shouldn't we talk about why they're so 
popular?  And if we have a Metaphysics which does so beautifully rather 
than not-so, then why can't we use it?
> DH said:
> Anyway, if you like I'll remove the Questions page altogether if that's what 
> you want?  Or the offending questions?  Or have you got some questions you'd 
> like on there?  Actually, please tell me questions you'd like on there!
>
> dmb says:
> Here's a question for you about Wiki rather than the MOQ; who is supposed to 
> answer the questions? 
Everyone, I think the more people who contribute the more 'foolproof' it 
will become. I'm an MOQer I think if we work on it the *best* answer 
will win out.  That's what happens on Wikipedia, that's what happens in 
Reality, why should we be any different?

>  I guess the idea is to have a wide open thing so 
> anybody can answer them (or ask them). This is the part that worries me. 
> There seems to be absolutely nothing in place to protect against dishonesty 
> or incompetence. Freedom is one thing, chaos is another, you know?
>   
And Dynamic Quality is another thing altogether too.  I would like to 
see Dynamic Quality where everyone wins.  Dynamic Quality, can be 
confused with chaos.  Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org is very poplar 
(and it's quite foolproof for dishonesty) and probably seems like chaos 
at times, but it's not.  If something gets sinisterly changed (like a 
whole page deleted for example), it will get changed back by one of the 
moderators. Measures can then even be taken whereby IPs(computers) are 
banned and a username system put it place, but I wouldn't want to see 
this as it would slow down people being able to use the site.



> DH said:
> Not having attended the first ever MOQ Conference it appears a shame to me 
> that the events of more than a year ago now, are going to hinder what I see 
> as something with as yet completely untapped potential.
>
> dmb says:
> If you mean to say that it would be a shame to let hoaxters messed up the 
> site, then I'd certainly agree. I think they already have. But it would 
> hardly matter if the author of those questions was completely sincere, 
> because they're ridiculous regardless of the creator's motive.
I've disagreed that the questions are ridiculous above.
> For whatever its worth.
>   
Heaps,

Thanks dmb.

David Harding.