[MF] the way forward for MoQ discussion lists

[ian glendinning]

Hi Folks you may be interested in this ... it's a kind of
"constitution" from another school of philosophy discussion group ...

[QUOTE]
Although we agree about naturalism [read MoQ], there's a wide range of
opinion on what's appropriate policy and about the structure and
functioning of government and society. I think it's fair to say that
we won't ever reach agreement about these extremely vexed and complex
issues, even though it's important that disagreements be aired as we
explore the application of naturalism [MoQ, you get the idea] to
social policy.

The question is, how do we as a group proceed in the face of such
disagreements?   I think we should apply naturalism to ourselves and
our way of arguing, which is to say that we don't suppose that any
party to the debate deserves derision or demonization.  As much as our
hackles might get raised (and they will, inevitably), we should think
twice, or thrice, about getting nastiness off our chests, or mocking
someone else's concerns.  A compassionate regard for one's opponent
means withholding scorn, name-calling, ad-homimen attacks or any other
rhetorical tactic that's meant to wound.  If someone indulges in such
tactics, then we should do our best not to respond in kind, and the
naturalistic insight that the infraction is fully caused can help us
count to 10 before unleashing any retaliation we might later regret. 
The best way to convey and reinforce the norm of non-punitive
discourse is to model it assiduously.

One primary dynamic in groups I've noticed is that however deep and
basic the shared philosophy, disagreements will always rise to the
surface and often become the focus of bitter dispute.  Whatever the
source of this tendency, unless the group can keep it in check, energy
gets dissipated, feelings get hurt, and group cohesion suffers.  We
should keep our shared worldview of naturalism in the foreground, and
remember that at this very early stage of the game it's more important
to get the meme of naturalism safely planted than to decide the exact
contours of naturalist policy.  Given human nature, there may well
never be agreement on what constitutes just and fair socioeconomic
arrangements.  But that doesn't mean that it isn't vital to promote
awareness of naturalism and its basic implications for criminal
justice, social inequality, behavioral health, self-actualization, and
a host of other personal and social concerns.  And that's what this
group, agreeing as we do about naturalism, can do.  If we're at all
successful in this, we'll radically shift the conceptual framework
within which people consider such concerns, or at least add a
radically different alternative framework.

That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting as specific
as they like in applying naturalism to policy or personal concerns,
since that's ultimately what makes it real and not just hand-waving. 
But the actual connection between one's recommendations and naturalism
has to be made clear, and our mode of discourse should be consistent
with a naturalistic ethics of interpersonal regard: un-self-righteous,
non-punitive, non-defensive, and compassionate.  We will all fail to
live up to this very high standard, of course, but then we'll continue
to apply naturalism in seeking forgiveness, and then move on, doing a
bit better perhaps.
[UNQUOTE]

I liked it anyway.
Ian

On 11/4/05, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Horse,
>
> You're correct.  I didn't explore the options.  But I thought it was
> suggested that if the forum split, one might not be invited to
> subscribe to both.
>
> I'll check out the options.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Marsha
>
> At 07:31 AM 11/4/2005, you wrote:
> >Hi Marsha
> >
> >Not quite sure what you mean. On any list you're a member and can choose
> >to participate or lurk as you wish. With the new software you can set up
> >a number of optios as to how you receive mail etc. If you (or other
> >members) want to check this out then have a look at the email you should
> >have received when I mass-subscribed everyone. It gives you a link to
> >your personal page and a password to use (you can change this when you
> >log in).
> >This page lets you set up things like digest or individual mails and you
> >can stop posts without unsubscribing and a whole bunch of other stuff.
> >It gives you a lot more control than previously.
> >Setting up options to receive from individual members doesn't exist at
> >the moment, as far as I know.
>
> _______________________________________________
> moq_focus mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_focus-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_focus_archive/
>