[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[John Carl]

Yo Ian,


> [IG] My point was that my brief (terminally clipped) summary of such a
> serious
> issue, could hardly be taken too seriously.
>
>
J]

Good point then.  Mine was a slightly raw over-reaction to accusations that
I'm not serious enough.



> [IG] Criticism is easy, we all fall short, that's a given. (ie Tell me
> something I don't know.)
>

J]

Ok.  Fill me in on all you know and I'll see if I can find any gaps.  Might
take a while, tho, and isn't that what "criticism", in essence, is?

IG]

Q:  Shall I start criticising you and your one-man Royce show ;-) ? (A: No.)
>


J]

Right.  No need.  Now if there were no other criticisms being offered, then
you might see the necessity.

IG]



> The move from "the virtues" to Virtue is precisely to avoid debating
> which is "the (most important) virtue".


J]

Sorta turns the spinning stool into a stable tripod.  Although actually, you
can get a stable platform from a single leg another way, can't you, you can
pound the sucker hard enough that it sinks in.  That seems to be a common
technique.

IG]



> As I say Loyalty is a good
> word for it, Respect is pretty good too, Quality fits fine too.
> Goodness - say, why don't we call it Virtue. Virtue involves these
> qualities in dynamic patterns.
>

J]

That's putting one spin on it, I guess.  Although capitalizing is more like
pounding it into the ground.  The problem with pounding into the ground
(absolutizing) is that it's stuck in one place.  It's a stool that can't be
relocated.


> > John:
>
The fundamental issue for
> > the follower of a different drumbeat, is that different drumbeat itself.
> > DQ, we call it, expressing itself in subtle rhythms that appeal
> personally.
> > But there have to be some sort of social reactions of affirmation or the
> > person represses this weird drumbeat and gives up on it completely.
> >
> [IG] Hmm. Especially if the crowd keep exerting their right to
> criticise instead of being constructive. Right ?
>

J]

There's such a thing as "constructive criticism" ya know.  Yeah, you do
know.  You offered me some.  What's the difference then?  I'd say the
constructive kind is trying to build up something that we hold in common as
a worthy project.  The destructive kind is more like a social dominance
game, trying to tear down the other guy, so you look better.  It's not
always easy to tell which is which at first glance.  It takes effort over
time, a history which builds trust.  I think you mentioned before that you
doubt whether such trust can be built in an online world.  That we humans
needs a sort of "look into my eyes" to really have that fundamental trust in
the other's sincerity.  Is this correct?

IG]


> (Yes already. Choose your metaphor, drumbeat, small-voice, intuitive
> sense of quality or virtue ... Yes already. Yes already. Yes already.
> Isn't this why we're having this discussion on an MoQ-Discuss thread ?
> Tell me something I don't know, and let me know when we are going to
> look forward to making progress instead. This apparent frustration is
> not aimed at you BTW. It is my very thesis.)
>
>
J]

Well, I'm glad you added that last bit.  Otherwise I'd have had no idea
where to take it.  As it is, I've got a sort of interesting
response/meandering mentation.  I was just shuffling through a bunch of
stuff from our old home, which needs to be sorted and put away.  I came
across a sketchbook by one of my daughters -my eldest, actually.  A
character drawn on a page, a world-weary woman with a cigarette in her hand,
bemoaning the futility of life, that "highway traveling through empty desert
to empty desert" - her quote,  The one thing she said that really struck me,
mainly because I've never heard it before, is that every mother is a killer,
a murderess.  Babies are born so that they can die.  And yeah, I know, we've
heard it all before.  Nothing new under the sun and all that.  She even
called the piece a little ecclesiastes - "This apparent frustration is my
very thesis" as you put it. But really, every mother is a killer?  What a
sad thesis!  There's gotta be more than this.  There must be a better thesis
than apparent frustration, I say.  I say THAT is why we're here having this
discussion.

But I should also add, that there is to my thinking a high value to you
voicing your frustration - even though that basically amounts to what you've
already denigrated as "criticism".  The value is that it makes me think and
it makes me want to try harder, to improve things somehow, to come up with
words that satisfy and answer your discontent.  And that's a good thing,
right?

Write.


(snippage)


> [IG] And again, yes again. This is why my mantra is often that there
> is far more for a group to do than criticise its members and vice
> versa. Criticism is all to easy. Support takes .... strength. Courage
> of convictions. Loyalty to that intuitive small voice. Virtue.
> Quality.
>
>
J]

There's far more for a group to do than merely reinforce itself too.  That's
how a community degrades into a collective, by making support a higher value
than criticism.  Truth is, there's a value to both in their proper time and
place.  And of the two, I'd say support is easier than criticism.  Criticism
has a backlash of anger and counter-criticism whereas support gets you warm
fuzzies.  But the key thing, is that the group has to have a bigger goal in
mind than it's own self-preservation and self-interest.  That's where
Macintyre loses his way, in what I've read/studied of him so far.

IG]


> This should keep you going. http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1580
>
>

J]

Yes, well it got me started anyway.  Thanks.  Good stuff.  I thought his
take on the cultural narrative - that we're basically stuck in Christianity
in our times, was apropos.  I agree.  It's one reason I don't think we can
just throw Christianity out, we have to accept our foundations if we're
gonna evolve beyond them, that is, if we want to build something meaningful
while traveling through this empty desert.

Your fellow traveler,

John