[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

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.

[Arlo adds]
I meant only that "more" is needed. I see this moving in two directions; one, as
you suggest in this post, towards simplification or a 'core' (if you will), and
the other towards expansion, towards how the MOQ resonates, and can gain from,
what has been written elsewhere. I have no problem with either. Sorry if that
quelches our disagreement. :-)

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? 

[Arlo]
Yes, I did mean that, and yes that could certainly be a problem. This is why I'd
assume everything okayed by an editorial process would meet certain rigors in
requirement. However, I do feel that "resistance" is given a certain
"legitimacy" through outright exclusion. This is how the conservatives, for
example, are trying to frame their perceived disclusion from academia. I'm
certainly not saying, nor suggesting a "free for all". If something is not up
to snuff, it can be dismissed, and presented openly as to why it was dismissed.
But this is only a suggestion, there are other ways to respond.

[dmb]
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]
I do so believe some views need to be dismissed, my only suggestion was to allow
those views to dismiss themselves, by virtue of their content... if that makes
sense.

Arlo continued:
I envinsion, for example, a "special topics journal"...

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.

[Arlo]
Was not suggesting something new, only a process similiar in editorial style.
When articles are submitted to peer review journals, all our lives would be
easier if the reviewers shared our pedagogical/philosophical framework. That is
rarely the case. For STJs, the reviewers are deliberately chosen in opposition.
Sorry for the confusion, again, its only a suggestion.

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.

[Arlo]
I can't speak for Ian, only how it came (or didn't come) across to me.

[dmb]
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.

[Arlo]
It certainly matters. I would not suggest otherwise. I count several of you as
strong authorities on the MOQ. 

[dmb]
I'd say the problem around here in incoherence and we could use a few more clear
voices.

[Arlo]
Amen.

[dmb]
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?

[Arlo]
I'm with you, amigo. Sorry if anything I said suggested otherwise.