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

[Ian]

Excellent again Arlo. You really have put some thought into this.
Ian

Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Sep 2010, at 20:07, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Krimel]
> I am not at all sure what "topical boundaries" one could put around  
> a metaphysics.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think we have a lot of leeway here to relate our metaphysical  
> speculations to Pirsig's work, either in agreement, revision or  
> disagreement. But I think ultimately, at the end of the day, at last  
> call, it should find some string that ties it in with Pirsig's  
> ideas. Ham does this by presenting critical alternatives (so it  
> needn't always be "supportive"), DMB (and others) do it by  
> considering parallel in either works Pirsig himself has found  
> similarity (James) or in works Pirsig never mentions but list  
> members feel there is a parallel worth discussing (Royce). Right or  
> wrong, correct or incorrect, all these things tie back to Pirsig's  
> metaphysics in some way.
>
> But try joining the Peirce discussion list and talking endless about  
> Kant's philosophy (with no relation or regard of Peirce), and see  
> how long you last. The communities have boundaries, as DMB mentions,  
> for very constructive reasons. If someone really wanted to do  
> nothing but talk about Kant, there are better forums for his  
> involvement out there.
>
> While I do wholeheartedly support the social presence of people  
> here, while I think its great we think of ourselves (or subgroups  
> here) as friends and have genuine mutual interest in each other's  
> lives apart from our discussions about Pirsig, I think that topical  
> boundaries are necessary and valuable (for the reasons DMB  
> mentioned). I do not think its asking too much to except that the  
> bulk of one's involvement here ties in someway to evaluations of  
> Pirsig's ideas. Maybe some days it's a series of social posts, and  
> that's fine. And I think Horse gives ample fair warning, nor do I  
> think (as I said) he feels the boundaries are some etched-in-stone  
> non-negotiable absolute, and if there was one person here I think  
> capable of doing this job with the most fairness, it is Horse.
>
> [Krimel]
> But I think your analogy of AA and PTA meetings is flawed. What you  
> say might apply well to face to face meetings of people who are  
> trapped in direct contact with each other and for whom time is an  
> immediate concern. While virtual communities do mimic real life  
> communities I think some of the "real" life time constraints don't  
> apply here. Deleting and ignore posts is not time consuming and is  
> hardly the problem it is in real world meetings.
>
> [Arlo]
> Disagree. Just because I have the ability to filter emails, does not  
> mean that the forums I belong to should devolve into un-topical free- 
> for-alls. What's the point of even calling it "MOQ Discuss" in that  
> event? In all seriousness, if I have to filter through 1000 emails  
> to find 1 about Pirsig, I'd likely give real consideration to being  
> on the list. I don't mind a few, as I said, but there is a line  
> there, and I trust Horse to maintain it.
>
> [Krimel]
> I guess my problem with this is how is Horse supposed to enforce  
> this? He can't delete a post that has already been sent.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think Horse is very open about cause-and-effect when he feels  
> those boundaries are being pushed. And I would think if you made a  
> legitimate appeal he would listen. I don't think posts should be  
> deleted unless in extreme cases of criminal activity or fraud. And  
> to my knowledge, such a thing has never happened. On the other hand,  
> I have to seriously wonder about the value of the archives for some  
> threads that reach hundreds of posts and do not even mention or  
> relate to the MOQ in any way.
>
> [Krimel]
> People need to be more careful about what they wish for because what  
> I see trends that are not conducive to community flourishing.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think Horse is trying to reign in the noise a bit, and I think  
> that's a good thing. I don't see anyone being asked anything  
> unreasonable. I can beg Horse all day long to remove you from the  
> list (just an example, I certainly would not do this), and I don't  
> see that as something Horse would do unless he himself saw evidence  
> of abusive or detrimental behavior. And I am sure he would give you  
> a chance to voice your view. In the end, we have to trust his  
> judgement. I do.
>
> (Seriously, I have seen some list moderators that would blindly drop  
> people from the list for making as little as two off-topic posts a  
> month. Elsewhere, I have seen a list member dropped without question  
> because he made a flirtatious remark (in general, not even to a  
> specific woman) because someone reported it as "offensive". Boom.  
> Gone. No explanation. No saving roll.)
>
>
> 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