[MD] Where I'm at [Administrator Message]

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
People here have a right to say whatever the hell they want; at least 
until recently when people are being bullied into silence. I know 
that Horse does a great job here but WTF?

[Arlo]
I think at the heart of this is the issue of what we are here for. As 
a very general rubric, it can be helpful to consider involvement in 
online discourse as falling into the falling categories: (1) social 
presence, (2) information dissemination (which includes requests for 
information), (4) statements of comparability (agree/disagree) and 
(5) topical reconstruction (typically the "synthesis, analysis, 
evaluation" of learning taxonomies).

Topical reconstruction is what most would see as the generative 
dialogue, it would be more or less what we consider "building" within 
the dialogue related to a certain topical idea. Within MD, the 
topical idea is Pirsig's Metaphysics, at an AA meeting it would be 
about coping with addiction. All discourse communities have topical 
boundaries, some very narrow and some quite broad, but it is this 
topical idea that defines the boundaries of the community. Typically, 
this is self-enforced, but when self-enforcement fails there is 
usually some authority to reenforce these boundaries. (If you go into 
an PTA meeting and the everyone is talking about their sexual 
liaisons from the weekend, some authority will have to move the group 
back into its topical domain).

This said, non-topical discourse can be very healthy. No PTA would 
last long if the members if no social presence was permitted. And I 
am certain Horse knows this, which is why a lot of "social presence" 
discourse makes up the body of the list's posts most days. We are 
social beings, and we our very nature come to appreciate the 
familiarity of those we interact with. Personally, I have little 
problem with people I've come to know and care about sharing their 
ups and downs. We all share, to some degree, elements of our social 
world outside the list in the list.

This is not about anyone's right to "say whatever the hell they 
want", this is about the boundary as to when non-topical discourse 
overwhelms topical discourse to the detriment of the community. This 
is not AA. This is not the PTA. Horse makes the decision when this 
boundary has been breached, and as such he does an exemplary job. 
I've never known Horse to uphold this boundary as if its some 
non-negotiable event horizon, and his decisions are always fair.

By the  way, "tinfoil hat dude" has no "right" to use the MD to 
promote his paranoid-delusional fantasies. Horse made the decision 
that his involvement here was detrimental and I think that's fair. 
This is a list for discussing Pirsig, not for promoting psychotic 
rants about black helicopters and FEMA death camps. Just because I 
can "filter" it out, does not mean the MD should simply be an open 
forum for anyone who wishes to talk about anything. There are plenty 
of lists and forums on the Internet, where people can seek that out.

And I don't see anyone being "bullied" into silence. Indeed, I think 
Horse is far more forgiving and generous than I would be. Indeed, all 
Horse did was state (and I am in full agreement) that messages that 
are intended to be private communications should remain private 
communications unless all parties involved give their consent. I have 
shared several things in private with list members that I would not 
personally want public. While there seems to be unresolvable conflict 
between John and DMB, I think DMB was just responding from his own, 
more private, view that expressing some things in a permanently 
public media is not wise. It is an opinion I personally share. 
Ultimately, John has made the decision to share his troubles with the 
list, and I think this is not an issue given the amount he 
participates in otherwise topical reconstruction. Certainly, I wish him well.

In a way, I see this balance between social presence and topical 
reconstruction to be the heart of Pirsig's book. His comment that 
writing as a narrative permitted him to ensure that it would be seen 
properly as one person talking from one point in time seems central 
to this. The "social" element of ZMM makes us care for the narrative, 
gives us a sense of place and empathy, makes the interlocutor 
"human", and someone we trust. The "reconstructive" element of ZMM is 
the carefully built ideas that create something new from historical 
ideas some pre-dating Socrates. I think we can find that same balance 
here, or expect it without concern or problem. But wherever Horse 
finds this moving towards imbalance, he has to act in the best 
interest of the community, for if we slip into a forum of "anything 
goes" we will surely lose all relevance. Again, to date, I have never 
found Horse's judgement to be anything but fair.