[MD] Changes in 2011

[Dan Glover]

Hi Tim

My suggestions are aimed at the moq.focus discussion, which was
conceived as a more deliberate and focused way of exploring Robert
Pirsig's work. It has been tried several times over the past few years
but it seemed to always flounder and fail in the end.

This forum, the "open" forum, would not be affected at all. Everyone
would still be free to join and discuss to their hearts' content,
under the rules, of course. The focus forum, however, would be
restricted to a set number of members and the only way to join would
be by invitation/nomination by an existing member, and being voted in
by the 5 member committee.

It is my opinion that this might lend a sense of urgency that
otherwise is lacking... that members might take it more seriously and
put deeper thought into what they are saying, and why. The limited
membership would mean less traffic, less "noise" if you will. lt has
been relatively quiet of late but when things really get going, it is
easy to get lost, believe me.

Now, I never joined the old focus discussions myself. I disliked
having to restrict my writings to the moderated topic. It never
appealed to me. And I really don't know if I would join now, to be
honest, although if Horse and others saw some value in pursuing it, I
might give it a try. If I am allowed to join, of course...

As far as topics go, I pretty much shy away from religion and
politics. But I am intrigued by Horse's mention of the MOQ and
politics, as I can see some real value there, if members stay away
from left wing/right wing bullshit, which has been the problem in the
past. I would like to explore the ramifications of how Quality can
effect changes at a basic grassroots level when it comes to politics,
and how this affects us all in everyday ways.

For instance, years ago, I wrote a short piece about my interactions
with the Speaker of the House at the time, Dennis Hastert. I think I
failed to make it clear what my intentions were, and I got little
response in the way of value, other than from my old friend Marco, who
dropped out years ago. I always find it interesting when I read
accounts from people who live in Europe and Asia concerning politics
there and how it contrasts to here. I would like to see more of that.

Anyway, it is good to hear from you, Tim, and here's hoping you stick
around a while,

Dan




On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:37 PM,  <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> you have laid a solid foundation for an interesting forum.  I would have
> to put some real thought into it to see if I thought I could come up
> with any improvements, perhaps a trial period would be the most
> effective method in the end though.  However, I don't know that this
> forum, at least not here and now, is the proper one.  I am new of
> course, so my opinion comes with this caveat.  Are there a lot of highly
> qualified people on the sidelines, sitting out because this is too much
> an unruly mob of a forum?  What is the problem you are trying to solve
> with your forum?  It seems to me that the rules are geared towards a
> situation when the forum would otherwise be too big and unruly.  I
> haven't seen this here, in my short stint.
>
> I get the desire for structure, and for commitment, and for
> thoroughness, and for preparation, but I also think that the
> free-flowing nature, teh ability to broach a topic when it comes up, is
> the natural default for a reason.
>
> Dan, I would ask you, what topics would you propose?  How many could you
> come up with right now?  And which of those would you say are highly
> interesting to you at the moment.  For my part, I have been wondering if
> I would stick around very long because I am pretty much tapped.  I had a
> few things I wanted to discuss after I read the books, I was stoked to
> find this site, I had some pretty worth-while discussions about them,
> and I could be done.  Other people come up with interesting things that
> get my attention, but this is hard work.  Maybe it is the amount of work
> that people see as the problem.  hmmm... that would make some sense.  we
> noise makers (I implicate myself only in this) make a bunch of noise,
> and we do the work to extract the philosophical nuggets, and that's
> okay.  But all the work may be a turn off to some.  I can understand
> that.  I can even sympathyze with it.  But I just don't see how shutting
> down the noise will help: the noise will dry up, taking the nuggets
> along.  Maybe there is a solution as simple as a designation for some
> threads as 'highly concentrated'.  There could be some simple rules, but
> I think people would respect such a designation.  In fact, if there is a
> highly concentrated thread, and we noisemakers want to make noise, we
> could confine our noise to a mirror noisy thread.
>
> Anyway, about topics, I think a general brainstorming, and perhaps some
> light planning would help elevate the level of discussion - but this is
> based on other people being more creative than me.  Like I said, I'm
> pretty much tapped.  The one thing I was thinking, Horse and John seem
> also to be thinking.  Horse suggested politics.  In case they should be
> different, I will say I suggest talking about moral patterns of social
> interaction, and what does an evolved intellect have to say about that.
>
> Tim
>