[MD] The (new and improved) MOQ Wiki

ian glendinning psybertron at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 21:21:50 PDT 2006 

Actually I'm hoping I fell into yours, and that statement ending with
a question mark was actually a question, not just your Aussie
intonation ...

Either way, I agree with both you and DMB.
Ian

On 8/14/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Aha, fell into my trap :-)
>
> We can indeed do both. It's not either or, there is a middle here,
> that we should not exclude.
>
> Nature has solved this one quite successfully for millenia. It's about
> segregation ... we can't do both in the same place at the same time
> ... is what you probably meant.
>
> I'm too impatient for hindsight.
> I've tasted the garlic bread; I've seen the future ;-)
> Ian
>
> On 8/14/06, David Harding <davidharding at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list