[MD] The General Rules

[david buchanan]

In the "Decision" thread, Matt said:

Did Bo kill somebody, or some analogous intellectual incursion? 'Cuz otherwise I can't imagine why "even-handed tolerance" should be lifted as the general rule to take care of particular cases. ... Can anyone fill in the X ("scale," "urgency," etc.) that makes Bo a situation that is different _in kind_ from, say, me?  ...But administratively, I don't know what one can do other than select certain pieces and positions as authoritatively standard (like when some years ago I started talking about "mainline interpreters" of Pirsig, my designation for Anthony and Mr. Buchanan) and highlight them on the frontpage, or where you sign up.  And even that is a contentious step, though not unheard of and less contentious than a booting. Because the issue I want to wrap my head around is why Bo is felt to be different in kind than other idiosyncratic posters.  Is the only reason I'm not on the receiving end of a decision because I'm not that involved anymore (kinda' like a difference in scale)? ... Being explicit and systematic about them is important, and I'm hazy on what this particular (cumulative) "violation" is, in terms of what I would need to do to not incur it myself (and I just use myself as a convenient lightening rod). ... I'm just having a hard time finding not only what is exactly going on, but a sense of the rationale being a good one.


dmb says:

Horse has already given his reasons concerning Bo and I won't pretend to speak for him on the question of how this might effect you. I'd just like to point out that it's not about you and me. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has complained that your Rortyized version of the MOQ is an eviscerated MOQ. But that's just me making a case against your version. Administrative rules and authoritative standards have nothing to do with our long-running dispute. Hildebrand said the same thing about Rorty, that Rortyism is an evisceration of Dewey's Pragmatism, but that doesn't mean he wanted Rorty to stop publishing and he certainly didn't try to ban him from participation in the discourse. 

On the Oxford DVD, Pirsig says the purpose of the Justice system is to produce justice even in those cases where there are no laws or rulings that apply. Justice is one of those words that's hard to pin down for this very reason. I think it's not very different here. The rules are designed to protect the integrity of the discussion, no? That's all there really is to it. This is a space to freely and openly discuss the MOQ and anything that interferes with that is a problem. Anything that seriously hampers or stops that from happening is a serious problem. And that would definitely include dictatorial standards or some kind of administrative tyranny. The suggestion that Horse is some kind of censor or enforcer of ideological purity is just ridiculous and insulting. 

If anything, my complaints about you would be the opposite of my complaints about Bo. I wish he'd give it a good long rest, even a permanent retirement. You, on the other hand, refuse to respond to my complaints. Hell, you'll probably delete this post without even reading it. You're style is more like a drive-by philosopher. You shoot off a few posts and race back to your hideout without sticking around to see the damage. Obviously, I think that's very uncool and irresponsible. Perhaps I flatter myself too much, but I think a lot of MOQers would enjoy a serious debate between us. You can make a case, when you feel like it. Bo can only make one case, a bad case and he's been making it badly for a long, long time. You, on the other hand, just can't be bothered. 

But, there is an interesting similarity too. You and Bo both have a version of the MOQ that fails to include the very heart of it all. Apparently, that's the move that can send a person in all kinds of bad directions. The whole thing loses it's coherence when you rip out the heart. Your reasons are a lot more intelligible than his, though. I'll definitely give you that. Bo's version is cock-eyed but yours is mostly just, um,..  superficial and empty. 




> 
> At the end of the day, the fact of the matter remains that, 
> in terms of the MD-community and what kind of membership 
> I have--which seems to me only measurable by 
> participation--I must only have a half-membership.  I'm not 
> nearly involved as I once was, and it only makes sense that 
> the "moral, pragmatic force" of my voice on issues pertaining 
> to how the community should shape itself go down 
> accordingly.  It's even worse for Mati, who shows up after 
> a long absence.  Because of the nature of this community, 
> we vote with our feet (as the American idiom has it), and 
> because Mati's feet haven't been here for so long, it makes 
> perfect sense to largely ignore his opinion because at the 
> end of the day the community needs to shape itself for the 
> people active in the community.  But to the extent that the 
> community wants to take into it's collective account the 
> "possible" community that it wants to court, it might listen 
> to Mati's opinion (Mati, of course, is not exactly an "outsider," 
> but I hope my point is clear enough).  And likewise for 
> me--Horse needs to balance keeping the people actually here 
> happy and shaping the community so that it remains open to 
> the invisible, possible future members.  I'm a rarer and rarer 
> voice, so the need to "please" me, listen and take into 
> account my opinions on matters that shape the community, 
> matters less than it may have in the past.
> 
> I want the best for the MD, because I have many memories 
> tied into it, but I cannot promise my active participation, so 
> I understand if the community doesn't care much about 
> what I think would be best for it.  But I do tend to think 
> that the lines of reasoning I've laid out are sound ones to 
> think about in the making of these kinds of decisions, even 
> if this particular community is not the vested interest it 
> once was for me.
> 
> Matt
> 
> > For me this wasn't the time for even handed tolerance - yes "even" Ian
> > can say that. Bo has had several metric tonnes of tolerance over the
> > last 8 to 10 years. Horse was drawing a line.
> > 
> > The only "moral" issue here is Bo's ignorance of the "Bo SOL" issue is
> > clogging up the entire MD bandwidth. The issue that many of us do
> > ignore him for long periods - until he starts perverting new
> > correspondents with his "my story is the Pirsig story" rhetoric.
> > 
> > Give it a break Bo.
> > 
> > Ian
>  		 	   		  
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> 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/md/archives.html
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1