[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

What can I say Mark, great contribution.

Apologies for drawing attention away from higher quality issues,
believe me I'm self-conscious of that fact, and really will back-off
once I'm happy the issues are appropriately addressed (or not). I
agree this is a "meta-issue" - I just believe it is important to the
future. All I can do on that score is assure you again my motives are
not egocentric, even if some of the immediate actions have that
short-term effect.

But quality is as quality does.

The quality of education, and any qualification that confers, is an
important topic in it's own right and I already acknowledged here the
thread you and Gav were ploughing there, and I have drawn attention to
initiatives outside MoQ.Discuss ploughing the same Deweyian /
Pirsigian furrow. All power to your elbow there, but it's only part of
the point here.

I like your analysis. And totally support the idea that any
"hierachic" authority based on qualification whether conferred by
tradional academe or another code of art, is bad news if it is then
applied as authoritative, hierarchical control. You'll get no argument
from me there.

But I'm trying to deal with the here and now rather than some future
state. I may have mentioned I'm a pragmatist, as indeed is Pirsig.

I keep referring to Arlo's notes, rather than mine. All that is being
suggested is some "delegation" by the group to editorial control by
some democratic means, a few minimal boundaries to total freedom we
can agree are "balanced"; A point being if we don't like em we can
change em, or find a better "code of art" based idea.

Thanks for your time Mark.
Any "contretemps" is 99% misunderstanding in my experience.
It's good to talk, etc.
Regards
Ian

On 10/10/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> The thorn in your sides.
> Sorry folks, but I'm not letting this drop just  yet.
> Not until people have addressed Arlo's "editorial" points at  least.
>
> I'm going to re-state the point within the point.
>
> Does  anyone believe that academic qualification or any hierarchical
> approval  carries any "authority" in determining any kind of group
> concensus on  documenting the MoQ for use beyond this discussion group?
>
> Mark: 10-10-06: Hello Ian.
> I think you may be conflating two modes of authority here:
> A. Academic authority.
> B. The Code of Art.
> 1. I don't think Mr. Pirsig's authority in matters MoQ rest on academic
> qualifications.
> The MoQ challenges conventional academia.
> A and B are not mutually exclusive - B may coincide with, or transform  A.
> B is more moral.
> 2. Any hierarchic regarding the MoQ serves the Code of Art.
> It is a disturbing problem when an individual attains academic  qualification
> but does not serve the Code of Art.
> Lying, for example, is very low quality, and dissipates authority, and
> reveals a sham by my above definitions.
> Does this clarify things Ian?
>
> Anyone contemplating saying Yes,  should consider their justifications
> carefully, and think on lessons from  past mistakes.
>
> Mark: 10-10-06: I hope we are in a phase transition between old academia  and
> new academia. The last thing we want is people playing at Quality when they
> can't demonstrate they recognise shit from shinola.
>
> Anyone saying No,  should consider whether the only alternative is a
> total free for all, or  whether there are "limits to that freedom" -
> checks and balances. (See Arlo's  thoughts.)
>
> Mark: 10-10-06: This is not a polar argument - there are alternatives we  may
> contemplate.
> A free for all is a low quality option.
> Regarding freedom:
> If excellence is the best, and if we all wish for the best, then do we
> choose the best or are we directed by the best?
> It seems to me we can't help choosing the best, and so in that sense we
> don't have to worry about freedom. Freedom chooses us.
> Those following the Code of Art will serve as examples for others without
> having to rely on qualifications. I think qualifications can enhance those
> following the Code of Art - i think the Code of Art enhances  qualifications.
> A block to this are egocentric individuals who constantly draw attention
> away from Quality and toward themselves.
>
> Anyone who believes my motives  are anything other than pricking
> consciences for the good of making progress  with the MoQ, see me
> behind the bike-sheds after school  :-)
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> Mark: 10-10-06: I don't know what you mean by this Ian. I've not been
> listening in to this contretemps, if indeed it is a contretemps. But as you  decided
> to restate your position i felt i could begin from this post?
> Love,
> Mark
>
>
> 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/
>