[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

Ian said:
Does anyone believe that academic qualifications of any hierarchical 
approval carries any "authority" in determining any kind of group concensus 
on documenting the MOQ for use beyond this discussion group?

dmb says:
The issue is always competence, right? In this case we're talking about the 
skills required to comprehend and then write about the MOQ. Does Ant's Ph.D. 
thesis on the MOQ demonstrate such competence? Of course it does. There are 
other ways to demonstrate such skills. Academic achievement is just the most 
obvious and acceptable one. Granted, these academic qualifications do not 
give anyone the power or authority to determine a group consensus, but 
that's a different question anyway. And isn't "use" a different issue too? I 
mean, we're talking about an intro or guide to the MOQ rather than specific 
applications. We're talking about Gav's project here, right? Or did I miss a 
memo?

Arlo said (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....

dmb says:
Hmmm. Its actually kind of refreshing to disagree with you for a change. If 
we are talking about a primer, a brief intro for the general reader, then 
"all the vibrant dimensions" are exactly what we don't need. To the extent 
that's such things are possible, I think the goal is to obtain the purest 
version of Pirsig's ideas. Simple, clear, basic.

Arlo said;
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.

dmb says:
I'm guessing you meant "DE-legitimize a perspective through exclusion". How 
about lending legitimacy through inclusion? Couldn't that be a problem too? 
I guess you're a better person than me, Arlo, because I think some views 
really, really need to be excluded from any accurate descriptions of the 
MOQ. There is plenty of room for honest differences in interpretation, but 
there certainly can be invalid views too. That's the issue isn't it? So how 
do we tell the difference?...

Arlo continued:
Now, having said that, I'd assume that all contributions met a standard of 
citation and logical progression.

dmb says:
Yes. I think a primer or guidebook should be anchored by quotes from the 
orignal text. Indentifying and collecting key passages from Lila might even 
be useful in suggesting an organizational structure for the whole work.

Arlo continued:
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...).

dmb says:
Special topics journal? Is this on top of the primer (or was it a guidebook) 
and the children's book? Good god, this is way too messy already. I thought 
Gav had a good idea for a project and would've liked to chip in, but I don't 
think I even know what hypothetical thing we're supposed to be editing or 
why editing has become such a big issue even before a single word has been 
written. Makes my brain hurt. I think I'll just watch or something.

Arlo said to Ant, RE: Wikipedias:
Ant, I disagree with your dismissal of these venues. Thinking of my own 
interests,..

dmb says:
The problem is not with the venue, but with the content itself. I complained 
about it a while back and Ant apparently agrees. Have you seen it? I don't 
mean to be unkind, but its like some kind of badly written hoax. I wish 
there was a wikipedia for the MOQ and I'm sure it could contain a countless 
number of pages on Bourdieu and Marx, Dewey and James and a million other 
connected ideas. Breaks my heart that there isn't and what does exist is 
embarrassing and possibly even malicious.




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.
>
>

Arlo said 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.

dmb says:
I don't see it that way at all. I think Ian has, in effect, tried to 
appropriate Gav's suggestion as if it were his own and then quickly set 
about the task of minimizing Ant's voice. I think Ian has been way too 
control freaky about a project that is not his and does not yet exist. One 
person's voice comes across as gospel? I just don't see it. I give more 
weight to your voice because your academic skills are demonstrated in your 
posts, but that doesn't mean I take it as gospel. And if I did, that would 
be my mistake and nobody else's. Same with Ant. I suppose this could be 
called "authority" in some sense of  the word. But its only reasonable that 
this should matter. Its just an extension of the truism that its quite right 
to weigh informed opinion over uninformed opinion and rational argument over 
baseless assertions. I'd say the problem around here in incoherence and we 
could use a few more clear voices. That's why I'm not too thrilled about a 
primer based on "group consensus". That formula pretends all voices have 
equal merit. But then I don't think this is about Ant or Ian so much as its 
about Bob. In the newer editions of ZAMM he says there are a few people in 
the world who understand his work and they can be found here. For better or 
worse, somebody might actually believe that and might take our hypothetical 
primer seriously as a result.

Sorry, I realize that makes me sound like a horrible snob. But think about 
how absurdly ironic it would be to produce a piece of shit on the topic of 
quality. Any such primer has to be excellent, not just pretty good. It has 
to demonstrate lots and lots of intellectual quality, at least. We can only 
hope it would be a work of art too, I suppose. But can't we agree, at least, 
that its quality really, really matters? Can't we agree that it will be 
about the MOQ and nothing else?

Thanks.

P.S. Ian, what time shall we meet behind the bike sheds?

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline