[MD] Decision

[Horse]

  Hi Matt

Thanks for the thoughtful reply to Rons very astute observations.
You've both brought up some very interesting points about the overall 
process of moderating MD and I appreciate that - some I hadn't thought 
of previously but now seem obvious in the light of what you say.
I think that for far too long on MD there has been a tendency towards 
prevarication and avoiding answering questions - especially, but not 
exclusively, with regard to the defence of SOL or SIM or whatever new 
and pointless acronym is now being employed. I also think there is good 
reason for the prevarication as most of what is being put forward is 
little more than unsupported and unsupportable drivel. In my opinion.

However, if there is to be any meaningful dialogue regarding 
SOL/SIM/whatever and it's relevance to the MoQ then those that are 
defending it need to engage in that dialogue and not spend their time 
doing everything but engage. If those that wish to promote their 
position are unwilling to engage in a conversation about their position 
then they should shut up and talk about something else. To do otherwise 
is just another form of intellectual dishonesty and as moderator of this 
forum it's my task to ensure that this stops.

Having said that, there is also the space here to form a community that 
has fun and enjoys the benefits of high quality interaction with 
like-minded thinkers - be they opponents or collaborators. In other 
words, it doesn't all have to be completely serious and high-minded all 
the time. A bit of levity and distraction is enjoyable as well.

And you didn't make my life any more difficult by your previous comments 
so no apology needed, but you did give me something to think about - 
which is always a good thing. Cheers for that.

Horse


On 13/07/2010 00:52, Matt Kundert wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Ron said:
> 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.
>
> Matt:
> Yours was a very thoughtful piece of reasoning, and the
> kind of thing I had in mind when I first wrote.  And to tell
> you the truth, I'm not sure I can exactly disagree with the
> substance of your line of reasoning.
>
> I'm not sure I catch your distinction between accuracy and
> precision, but I think I get you when you say that Horse
> has determined that Bo is inaccurate deliberately and that
> I don't think so, but--and this is your primary thrust--even
> if I'm right, there is still precedence for an administrative
> move on Horse's part, and it has to do with, roughly,
> propagandizing.  For not trying _hard enough_ to explain
> _and_ defend your line of reasoning, and the evidence and
> arguments that lead you to conclude such and so, you can
> be banned from this conversational institution by virtue of
> evacuating the primary engine of distinctively _philosophical_
> conversation: the production of reasons for belief.
>
> If I wanted to be high-mindedly metaphilosophical, I might
> talk about how Nagarjuna thought of his practice as
> philosophical propaganda (as did Wittgenstein) and how
> the only way to get the hang of a new language game is
> to just start using it.  But I was saying to Ian that I
> distinctively was _not_ taking this route, but being
> practically oriented around the (re)production of a space
> of intellectual inquiry.  And around your line of reasoning,
> though Horse may have (assuming he is wrong and I'm
> right about Bo's deliberateness) mis-emphasized the most
> powerful portion of his rationale, I think you have
> suggested what it is and why it is cogent.
>
> Because the most powerful piece is Horse's consistency in
> proving to be a "benevolent dictator," if you will: every
> editor or editorial board for a publishing organ lists explicit
> rules, but also holds the right to exercise practical
> judgment-calls guided by those rules and other implicit
> concerns (regarding the shape of the intellectual space
> they want to promote).  Horse, in my absence from
> resuming my vacational silence, adumbrated some of these,
> and with his usual clarity and institutional acuity.  And I
> find your suggestion that Horse has already exercised a
> consistent kind of action based on a reasonable interest
> for good intellectual inquiry (the demand for reasons)
> thoroughly plausible and forceful.  The rule of precedent,
> stare decisis, is strong and important in institutions, and
> your line of explication, Ron, suggests Horse's history of
> actions to be based on a relatively good precedent that
> has worked: it has promoted a better intellectual space.
> Thank you, Ron.  (And, given how Ron has unearthed and
> made explicit a function that has been implicit in Horse's
> conduct--one that at the least _I've_ been unaware
> of--thank you, Horse, for doing what I hadn't explicitly
> been aware of.)  I've never thought Horse was anything
> but benevolent, but the apprehension of the right pattern
> of reasoning helps to make sure we are all on the right side.
>
> Combined with John's importation of the notion of tenure,
> we might say that some are given lax regard most of the
> time for the production of elongated reasoning-patterns
> because of the occasion of their previous commitments of
> time and energy in previously articulating those patterns.
> A "resting on your laurels" kind of thing which is what
> tenure is for in academia so that the old guard might
> explore imaginatively new lines of inquiry without always
> having to worry about these new lines panning out.  You
> work in the vineyard for a while, get tenure, and then
> based on your record of successful work in the garden of
> previously worked out lines of inquiry, are allowed to try
> some experimental seeds and gardening techniques.
> Pretty much because of respect and trust that your
> energy and time is more worth subsidizing than someone
> who hasn't.  Very similar to how venture capitalism works.
> (Are you going to give your money to someone who's done
> squat, or to someone whose had a few successful outings
> under their belt?)
>
> So the conversational community respects the bad and
> lazy days of some of its members because of their good and
> productive days, sometimes in a distant past.  And newer
> members are asked to cut their teeth a little.  And Horse is
> asked to make the judgment call about when someone has,
> or is perilously close to, running out of slack and falling on
> the bad side of "Fox News or a real news network?"
>
> Some may think I'm still missing the obvious point: that
> Horse was very explicit in saying what the line was that
> was crossed, that SOL is _not_ Pirsig's idea.  What is
> implicit in Horse's articulation of this, that "Bo stops
> repeating what, for most, is the bleeding obvious," is that
> this point can only be appreciated within the community's
> space of intellectual discourse.  My explication of this
> particular idea might be philosophically contentious (e.g.,
> what the notion of a "fact" is), but I take it to be pretty
> obvious that it is important that Horse knows that, as a
> moderator, if he's the only one that thinks something is
> obvious, then he might want to think twice before taking
> administrative action.  To appreciate the practical and
> philosophical issues involved in constituting a
> discourse-community by the creation of rules, one has to
> abstract a little from the immediate particularity to look
> at what the space is we want to maintain and how to
> maintain it best.
>
> Thank you Ron, and all due apologies to everyone who
> thought I was talking like an idiot for the last week.  But
> the kind of thinking that I wanted to do, and Ron was
> inclined to take up, does I think need to be done on
> occasion, and can be done with accuracy and precision
> and for practical benefit.  And while my apology to
> everyone is ironic (though not my thanks, Ron), I do
> extend a sincere apology to Horse if he felt I was making
> his life as administrator more difficult than it already was
> and is.  That was not intended.  Or deliberate.  And I
> hope I produced enough reasons for why, perhaps only
> in retrospect, it was a fire worth going through to get to
> Ron's contribution.
>
> Matt
>   		 	   		
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa