[MD] The (new and improved) MOQ Wiki

Sun Aug 13 20:53:01 PDT 2006

ian glendinning wrote:
> I repeat,
>
> This is the $64,000 question for MoQ'ers.
>
> Do we believe in the MoQ enough to let it evolve naturally in the big
> bad world of competing interests, (and accept the journey as well as
> the long run quality) or do we believe it needs a little "nurture"
> (benevolent "familial" editorship) ?
>   
We can't do both?

> "Species" are only ever identifiable with hindsight.
>   
So is everything else.
> Ian
>   
David.
> On 8/14/06, David Harding <davidharding at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>>     
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>