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

[Ian]

Hooray for Arlo.
(Ian being brief, and entering circumstantially imposed silent period.)

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:24, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [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.
>
>
>
> 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