[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"_Wiki_guidebook.

[Robert Robinson]

Others have said:
   
  The problem with wikis I have found is one of "gravitation". That is, once a
certain critical mass of text is met, wikis seem to work fine. However, getting
some to invest in that initial phase is difficult. Myself included. If we would
all, for example pick ONE topic (another philosopher, or a keyword, or
whatever) and develop just that one page, 
   
   As for Wiki contributions,
there is no reason a wiki can't be set so that pages can only be edited by
certain members. Wikipedia has a similar editorial structure. But the bottom
line is a wiki is only as valuable as what its users decide... consider
"Memory Alpha Wiki", a repository for Star Trek information, the geeks love it,
and so it works.

RE: Ant's skin.

Ant, I think everyone here, myself included, not only appreciates and respects
the work you've done, but also looks to you for some degree of guidance in
interpretation. As I've said, I'm unsure of a how a "primer" would be
functionally different from your thesis. I think Ian's only concern, and its a
valid one, is that no one person's view comes across as gospel. 

RE: Opposition

I would also encourage the creation and authorship of oppositional texts. Does
Pirsig suffer from a lack of teleology or ontology? (for example). Assuming the
audience extends beyond the discussion group, seeing a dialogic interaction
where criticisms of the MOQ are fairly presented and responded to, is a
significant and worthwhile piece of the puzzle.

  Robbie says:
  Copyright issues may complicate. But if this is a public domain effort then:
   
  Using the Wiki as a pot to create a draft of the MOQ guidebook, I  think is a good idea.  You folks seem to be struggling to establish the Ojective and define your target audience. After you come to a consensus, if any.  Just put a "proposed outline" up on the Wiki and see how the group of all comers fill in the outline.  Seems like it would be worth a try.  What appears could be edited, reorganized, and a more detailed outline may emerge.  Keep up the iterations.  See how the dynamics develope.
   
  Seems like an extremely dynamic way to proceed.  Unacceptible to the control freaks among us.
   
  Robbie

ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
  TWEEEEEEET!

Alright. Everyone, back to your corners. Except Rebecca, who is listening to
Neil Young. She can stay out and play. The rest of you... stop, drop and roll.
Repeat.

RE: A MOQ Primer.

While I have no objections to this particular idea, I ask isn't that in many
ways what Ant's thesis is? Maybe a good first step would to familiarize
ourselves with the conceptual work Ant has done, and see in what ways this
needs extending or simplification for whatever target audience we are
envisioning. Now, having said that, Ant, I think your response to Ian was quite
unnecessarily cranky. I did not take any of his ideas as contradictory or
opposed to the development of any said "guidebook". Indeed, I took his
suggestions to mean there are multiple ways we can envision futhering the MOQ.

RE: Editing contributions via MOQ-Focus.

Obviously, Ant's thesis (any one thesis) could not capture all the vibrant
dimensions of how Pirsig's work resonates with every other idea. My personal
interests include relating Pirsig to Dewey, Bourdieu, Marx and Peirce. But I
don't think we should discount the resonance he has had with crowds from
Randians to Dawkinsians. As much as I'd appreciate the honor serving an
editorial role, I'd cede that to Craig, Marsha, Khaled, Platt or Case (assuming
the other editorial positions of Gav, Rebecca, David H and David B are a
given), all of who I may vehemently disagree with on some issues, or
ubiquitously nod in agreement with on others, but all of whom represent a valid
and divergent interpretation of the MOQ. Its one thing to argue it out in a
forum, its another to legitimize a perspective through exclusion. Now, having
said that, I'd assume that all contributions met a standard of citation and
logical progression. I envinsion, for example, a "special topics journal",
where one author has a "stage", but is responded to from four or five divergent
perspectives. In short, I admire and agree with Gav, Rebecca, and both Davids
too much to think that we'd form a truly fair committee. (And going on the
assumption that Ian has discluded himself, and Ant's skin is too thick...).
Besides, as an adherent of Vygotskian socio-cultural theory, I am used to
receiving reviewer feedback that says from one person "you are a loon" to
another "you rock". If every reviewer was an SCTist, my life would be easier,
but it would be less honest.

RE: Wikipedias.

Ant, I disagree with your dismissal of these venues. Thinking of my own
interests, a MOQ-Wiki can bring just this divergent perspective to a MOQ field.
I was thinking recently of doing a page on the MOQ-Wiki on Bourdieu and Marx
(assuming a Dewey page would be evident from the forthcoming book). That way,
for example, if one searched for "symbolic violence", one could find
information on how Bourdieu's notions on educations resonate with some of the
ZMM ideas developed by Pirsig (as Dan in a recent post greatly expanded upon).
The problem with wikis I have found is one of "gravitation". That is, once a
certain critical mass of text is met, wikis seem to work fine. However, getting
some to invest in that initial phase is difficult. Myself included. If we would
all, for example pick ONE topic (another philosopher, or a keyword, or
whatever) and develop just that one page, I think we could push for overcoming
this inertia. A 500-word essay is one thing, and I would add why not choose one
topic and author a page on that on the MOQ-Wiki. Besides "Emergence" and
"symbolic violence" there could be pages relating "Atlas Shrugged" and "The
Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" to Pirsig's ideas. As for Wiki contribtions,
there is no reason a wiki can't be set so that pages can only be edited by
certain members. Wikipedia has a similar editorial structure. But the bottom
line is a wiki is only as valuable as what its users decide... consider
"Memory Alpha Wiki", a repository for Star Trek information, the geeks love it,
and so it works.

RE: Ant's skin.

Ant, I think everyone here, myself included, not only appreciates and respects
the work you've done, but also looks to you for some degree of guidance in
interpretation. As I've said, I'm unsure of a how a "primer" would be
functionally different from your thesis. I think Ian's only concern, and its a
valid one, is that no one person's view comes across as gospel. 

RE: Opposition

I would also encourage the creation and authorship of oppositional texts. Does
Pirsig suffer from a lack of teleology or ontology? (for example). Assuming the
audience extends beyond the discussion group, seeing a dialogic interaction
where criticisms of the MOQ are fairly presented and responded to, is a
significant and worthwhile piece of the puzzle.

RE: Neil Young

He rocks. Including "Trans". Sample and Hold? You bet.

RE: Where from here?

Well. This is the fundamental question. In The Academy, we should encourage and
support the publication of works such as the (now available) Granger book on
Dewey and Pirsig. We should, all of us, consider some venue of publication
regarding the MOQ and our personal areas of interest. Someone should consider
formalizing to some degree the "code of art" level in the MOQ. But I think
ultimately the question we must ask is "why are we here?" Once we answer that,
where we go from here is relatively easy.

Just some thoughts....

Arlo


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/


 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com