[MD] Changes in 2011

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Andre, I was implying such rhetoric was "interpersonal", I wasn't
suggesting I was your ( or anyone's) personal target. You got my point
anyway.

BTW, we seem to pretty much agree on what constitutes respect for each
others arguments and agendas.
Listening / understanding and linking / relating, etc. These are some
basic forum rules I've used elsewhere (not specific to MoQ) :

QUOTE
Rules of Engagement

Rule #1 RESPECT – Understand & Question before Disagree & Criticize.
Critical debate is essential to our agenda and anyone voicing direct
disagreement with or criticism of the arguments of another must be
seen to have understood, or sincerely attempted to understand, the
others’ argument and to have related their counter argument to it.

Rule #2 RESPECT – No “Ad Hominem” attacks on the Individual.
Absolute no-no. Anyone having trouble with an individual should
resolve with that individual, and involve moderator(s) in absolute
confidence if mediation or moderation is considered necessary.

Rule #3 RESPECT – Duty of Care when using Rhetoric or Irony.
OK, but life (mine and yours) would be boring and sterile if we
politely agreed with each other. So lively, critical, robust,
intelligent debate is positively encouraged. What will not be
tolerated is any perceived intent to circumvent Rules #1 & #2 under
cover of rhetoric or irony.
UNQUOTE

But I'm OK with minimum change - simply reconstituting MF say - but
the point is there are rules and moderation is required to be active.
Applying and moderating the rules is undoubtedly difficult in our
situation where DQ and direct experience are fundamental to our
agenda, but the rules are still necessary to maintain a functioning
balance of workable patterns.
Ian

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian to Andre:
>
> Yes, and everything else (YouTube included, even FaceBook) is the
> physio/bio/socio/intellectual cultural context for understanding and
> living it.
>
> Andre:
> Agree Ian, and then I will also expect that anyone who makes a reference to
> these, or, for that matter reels off long/short quotes about something they
> have read, makes a specific statement of how it relates to the MOQ which is
> discussed here.
>
> I find it interesting that you add the 'living it' at the end of your
> sentence. Assuming for a minute that what you mean by this is 'experiencing
> it' it has the tendency to blur some distinctions which are crucial to keep
> in mind when discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Marsha is an easy example to use in
> this context as she is superimposing this 'living it' onto the MOQ and
> thereby blurring, for example the distinction between DQ and sq. For Marsha
> these are the same (correct me if I am wrong Marsha). Bodvar made a similar
> assertion in this respect by suggesting that Pirsig's MOQ IS experience
> which led his his non-acceptance of Pirsig's assertion that the MOQ is a
> static intellectual pattern of value.
>
> It makes discussion of the MOQ (as a static intellectual pattern of value)
> almost impossible as for ex. Marsha's responses (dismissals,evasions) make
> clear.
>
> I may be off track here and am interested in your observations to the
> contrary(if you hold any).
>
> Ian:
> People need to stop casting aspersions about the "some", the
> "brigade", the "old guard", the "fits", the "misfits", and if they
> have a specific issue, name specific names and statements. Show some
> trust and respect in other words.
>
> Andre:
> Not sure if you are implying that I show distrust or disrespect Ian. If so,
> I apologize (and note the start of your sentence with 'people'.) I did not
> specify anyone in particular because dmb mentioned some specific persons in
> a previous post and I wanted to avoid repetition. I also made clear (I hope)
> that I do not enjoy the use of these labels. In this sense I am sad to note
> that, over the past few months, a notion of 'us' and 'them' has crept in
> which doesn't add any sense of trust or respect.
>