[MD] Decision

Fri Jul 9 05:21:23 PDT 2010

Matt,
 I respect your call to inquiry. 

It brings up questions about the role of a community
and the responsibilities connected with that role.

Also the question of maintaining and defending the distinctions that define
that community.

Do we adhere to the Good, or exclude the bad? what meanings can we derrive
from each or both? 

Certainly we all must concede that there are limits, "that which we are prepared
to act apon", it is the very foundation, the most basic principles, the belief, 
the value
the very definition of this society of thinkers known as MoQ discuss, the idea 
of
Quality.

Keeping with this in mind and understanding from the beginning of membership 
that 

Horse will and does serve as moderator, we all have agreed by contributing, that 
horse
will serve as the final word on questions of intellectual value.

To the Platt crowd, I argue that Horse is exercising his individual sense of 
value just like
the bigots and racists you defend for having their own right to exclude whom 
they wish
from their own societies on the basis of their own sense of superiority and 
betterness.
The arguements you raise against Horse contradicts your own stance on individual
freedom. On the basis of inconsistancy in meaning alone it undercuts the 
arguement
trying to be raised.

Going back to "that which we are prepared to act apon", the question of the 
reasons
for upholding certain values, making certain distinctions. What are Horses 
reasons
for enforcing his moderating ? for clearly he is prepared to act, clearly he has 
taken
an active role in making certain value judgements by participation and the 
arguements
presented.

His arguement is presented on the basis of accuracy not precision. The next
question he raises is the intention of the accuracy or lack thereof as 
being deliberate.
I think you answered that no, Bo was not deliberately being inaccurate but the 
arguement
is raised on the willful distortion of meaning to support and justify certain 
beliefs
that have not been reasonably explained. Horse has moderated religous people
from propagating their own beliefs for precisely the same reasons yet no one
has raised a fraction of the dismay as such on this issue. No one gave a damn
about authorative limits or censorship. Horse has set a precedence on this issue
he has enforced it before, several times.

If there is a distinction I am missing please counter.

-Ron

----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 5:57:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Decision

Apparently I'm not making _myself_ clear: I understand that 
Bo attributes what we consider his idea to Pirsig.  Thank you 
Ian, Magnus: I'm not sure how you thought that's what I 
was missing.

However, what is this "line"?  What actions are we talking 
about?  Is nobody reading the junk I wrote?  I'm saying that 
blaspheming against intellectual integrity doesn't to me seem 
easily posed as a criterion with which we can lay down a rule 
with which to kick people out.  For the lifespan of Milton-Mill 
life of free inquiry, the assumption has been that the best 
way to keep inquiry free and shuck falsity from truth is to 
keep the _structure_ wide and clear from dogma and let the 
inquirers/warriors fight it out.  As Rorty said, "take care of 
freedom, and truth will take care of itself."  I'm not just 
spouting moralistic propaganda, I'm talking about practical, 
structural bits of wisdom of how to best assure that truth is 
what comes out from an institution.  We have found over the 
course of history that there are places where we need to step 
in: fire in theatres, inciting riots, fighting words, etc.  There 
are places where we yet need to step in: monopolization of 
media outlets.  But in this small institution we call the MD, 
what rule changes are we talking about?

I'm saying Horse has pointed out _nothing_ new (not that 
Horse, and all of us, shouldn't continue to blast Bo for 
consistently being mistaken) and I want to know _what is new_ 
in this discussion?  What is this line?  What happens when the 
next person crosses it?  We blast more emails about how wrong 
they are?  That's what we've always done, and the only thing 
to do without making structural changes to the rules of the 
game.

So, is the only thing I missed the fact that I didn't miss 
anything?  Is Horse _not_ suggesting he will take any action as 
an administrator?

Christ Ian, if you'd understood what I was saying, rather 
taking it as a moralistic screed, I would've hoped you'd have 
seen that the thing that needed to be cleared up was to 
say, "Oh, no Matt, you got it wrong: Horse isn't suggesting 
he's going to do anything as the administrator.  He's not 
suggesting he's going to kick Bo out, he's not adding any 
more rules to the list, or anything like that.  He's just 
admonishing Bo, as the administrator, for lacking the 
intellectual ability to tell the difference between his ideas 
and Pirsig's ideas.  Same thing we've always done, but now 
he's adding the force of moq.org officialness."

And I'da gone, "Oh, yeah I misunderstood.  Thanks for 
clearing that up quickly so I wouldn't have to keep thinking 
I was taking crazy pills and people we're walking me back to 
the point I was trying to move on from."

> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:47:10 +0100
> From: ian.glendinning at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Decision
> 
> And Matt, Magnus answered your question explicitly
> 
> "You missed *the* crucial point Horse has tried to make twice now:
> Bo is telling people that the SOL is Pirsig's idea."
> 
> Time to draw a line.
> Ian
> 
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matt asked
> >
> > "Why Bo is felt to be different in kind than other idiosyncratic posters ?"
> >
> > Because of his claim is that his idiosyncratic idea is explicitly Pirsig's.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Ian Glendinning
> > <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We got there in the end Matt.
> >>
> >> Like you, I can switch off from Bo (or Platt) - so can anyone.
> >> This is Horse's thread, not Bo's. A decision as moderator to not
> >> simply ignore him, but exactly as per your own advice,
> >>
> >> to tell Bo to "shut the fuck up".
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Matt Kundert
> >> <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Heh, I had a feeling it _was_ a metaphor, but ya' know,
> >>> just in case there was some hardware issue.  What the hell
> >>> do I know?
> >>>
> >>> And I guess I'll reiterate since it isn't: delete the fucking
> >>> emails.
> >
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with 
Hotmail. 

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

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