[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

OK Platt,

You said
And I would leave it entirely up to the author to decide
"role/scope/expectations."  If you don't t like the result, don't buy
it. But the last thing the project needs is a bunch of magpie critics
cackling from peanut gallery -- a guaranteed way to
produce a mediocre work..

Agreed.

And we've agreed Ant has the best qualifications for "philosophical
content" and Dan has previous success for "editing". (I overlooked Dan
in my initial thoughts, simply because he didn't appear to have been
"active" recently ... clearly a prime candidate.)

The critics will always cackle, that's what MoQ-Dicuss is for. That's
why we need "editors" distinct from critics.

So the only point (for me) is whether one author / one editor covers
the scope we need to get MoQ into everyday life; or whether given
multiple audiences / angles, we really have a number of separate
publishing projects ?

You have exercised your fee vote. Thanks.
Three down, 60-odd (?) to go.

I'll come back separately on a number of interesting side issues.
Ian

On 10/11/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Ian asks:
>
> > > > What is the alternative to letting leaders "emerge".
> > > > No clues needed ? Shall we spread a little of that precious democratic
> > > > freedom, maybe ?
> > >
> > > The alternative is what happens in everyday life. Potential leaders are
> > > subjected to a series of tests over time. Those who do well move up.
> > > Those who don't flunk out.
> >
> > [IG] "A series of tests" ... is a bit "weasly" to use your chosen
> > word. Care to elaborate on any practical specifics that might fit our
> > current situation ? Do well ? Move up ? How will we (practically, here and
> > now) recognise "doing well" ? What does moving up mean ... gaining what
> > exactly, power, authority, rights, responsibilties, freedoms, wealth,
> > groupies, and entry in "who's who" ... what specifically (practically, here
> > and now)
>
> If you really would like to know what I mean by "tests" I suggest you read
> biographies of great leaders. For Americans start with a biography of
> Washington; for the British, Churchill. As for our "current situation,"
> only two that I know have met tests specifically related to interpretation
> of the  MOQ -- Ant and Dan.
>
> > > > What kinds of "committee" are the lesser of that particular evil ?
> > > > (Maybe transparent ones we can replace at the drop of a hat, maybe ones
> > > > that don't "produce" anything, merely resolve editorial chores on our
> > > > behalf. What are your ideas ?)
> > >
> > > One author working with one editor. That's my idea.
> >
> > [IG] Hmm. All our eggs in one basket ... the "being run-over by a bus"
> > question arises, but OK, so without naming names could you identify /
> > choose one of each such individual. Would you name names ... etc.? What
> > would you see as the role / scope / expectations of that one author. I had
> > in mind dozens of authors, 3 (or 5) elected editors BTW, just in case that
> > wasn't obvious. (PS I still recommend reading what Arlo actually suggested
> > / reasoned.)
>
> IMO Ant is by far the most qualified to write a primer, guide or what have
> you and Dan has proven his ability as an editor with Lila's Child. If both
> are agreeable, that would be my choice. And I would leave it entirely up
> to the author to decide "role/scope/expectations."  If you don't t like
> the result, don't buy it. But the last thing the project needs is a bunch
> of magpie critics cackling from peanut gallery -- a guaranteed way to
> produce a mediocre work..
>
> > > > Ian
> > > > aka The Prick (of Conscience, what else ?)
> > > > BTW I didn't know you believed in the existence of emergence :-)
> > >
> > > I don't. That's why I put it in quotes. "Emerge" like "chance" is weasle
> > > way of saying, "I don't know."  But, I could be wrong. :-)
> >
> > [IG] Stop press, Platt admits he could be wrong ;-)
> > Seriously though, if "I don't know" is the true case, then Emerge and
> > Chance are simply statements of that truth, they're just words. I
> > would say what they really say is "I don't know as precisely /
> > certainly as you'd like" ... they hide a lot of interconnected detail
> > you can't always squeeze into one sentence, one assertion. Just
> > pragmatically useful metaphors for here and now.
>
> Not in my book. "Emerge" and "chance" are declarations of total ignorance,
> as in "By chance the egg emerged from the chicken"
>
> But, I could be wrong (which contrary to your "hold the presses") I
> declare from time to time just to demonstrate my Christian humility. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
> 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/
>