[MF] Testing Testing

ian glendinning psybertron at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 06:30:10 PST 2005


Another point of Paul's I think .... limiting how much posting ....

Nice idea, but how many posts per day / week is too restricting, it
needs to be how many words. There must be an easy way for people to
upload "essays" and limiting posts to a few tens / hundreds of words.
A discussion forum needs to be conversationally interactive.

Ian

On 11/4/05, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Slightly confused - we have seem to have two threads on the same topic
> - since Marc copied Sam's proposal across to my arcane testing thread
> ... anyway ...
>
> As I said in a roundabout way on the other thread - I'm all for KISS -
> in how we organise topic areas.
>
> For reasons Paul suggests I'm OK with a two way split - one intended
> for pro-MoQ / clarifying discussion and another intended for anti-MoQ
> / alternative metaphysical issues.
>
> The split can only be "intent". As Matt points out (and I did in the
> other thread) draconion rules and control of who posts where would be
> doomed - and I'm sure Horse didn't plan and hard controls anyway.
> People playing in one area will find all sorts of legitimate reasons
> to cross-post.
>
> I still say the critical thing is how people get called-out and
> sanctioned for not playing the game.
>
> Some aboslute moral rules about basic abuse and dishonesty, and some
> other rules about which side of the MoQ / Alternatives line you are
> playing - the important thing is not the rules, but the mechanism for
> enforcement, and how transparent this is to members and non-members
> alike. (democratic, committee, etc, and warnings, privelidges,
> sanctions, outright barring, per my other post)
>
> Ian
>
> On 11/3/05, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul suggested:
> > Judging by some recent postings (just catching up after the birth of our
> > second child!), and something I've been thinking might be useful for a
> > couple of years now, there may be value in splitting the forum into what may
> > be described as a 'PIRSIG' forum and a 'CRIT' forum.
> > ...
> > The 'PIRSIG' forum would be used for the discussion and clarification of MOQ
> > basics based mainly on the available Pirsig material and also for the
> > development and extrapolation of Pirsig's ideas, linking them to other
> > supporting work and academic developments.  With respect to debate, Pirsig
> > quotes would hold some authority in their own right on this forum.
> > ...
> > The 'CRIT' forum, equally as valuable, would be used to pull the MOQ to bits
> > - philosophically - where contributors wouldn't feel the need to announce
> > themselves as 'dissenters'.  With respect to debate, Pirsig quotes wouldn't
> > hold so much authority on this forum.  Being overtly critical of the MOQ,
> > the posts to this forum would not be seen as necessarily representative of
> > Pirsig's ideas and so there wouldn't so much of the "That's not what Pirsig
> > says..." type arguments....
> >
> > Matt:
> > I think this is a great idea with many up-shots.  For one (and selfishly),
> > it would be less confusing for people in keeping track when I'm doing one
> > (digging out what Pirsig means) and doing the other (defending or critiquing
> > what Pirsig means).
> >
> > I have three suggestions or warnings or caveats (or whatever):
> >
> > One, I think both forums will have "dissenters."  Because the activities of
> > ferreting out how Pirsig views himself and philosophy is distinct enough
> > (just barely enough) from how someone themself views Pirsig and philosophy,
> > you can expect dissenters on both forums, just dissenting in a different
> > way.  For instance, the establishment of a forum dedicated to exegetical
> > analysis of Pirsig will generate a mainline interpretation.  There will be
> > those, however, who disagree, those who might dissent from this or that
> > particular point of exegesis (or in general, who knows?).  Any healthy
> > inquiry will run into that.  And that will be different than thinking Pirsig
> > is wrong on this or that philosophical topic.  It's the difference between
> > thinking Pirsig's answer to the free will problem is wrong and thinking that
> > Pirsig's readers are getting _Pirsig's_ answer wrong.  So theoretically, we
> > could not only get people who are mainline interpreters in exegesis and are
> > also defenders against criticism, but also people who dissent against the
> > mainline interpretation and defend Pirsig or accept the mainline and
> > criticize Pirsig.  And then there's the most complicated relationship of
> > all: someone who dissents the mainline and also criticizes Pirsig
> > (considering you need a pinned down answer before you can criticize it).
> > And naturally, some (if not most) people will fly all over the board
> > depending on what particular issue is being discussed.  (Predicting my own
> > position, I would probably dissent on some exegetical points while accepting
> > others, in addition to dissenting on some Pirsigian doctrines while
> > defending others _and_ (most strangely of all) dissent on some of the
> > dissenting positions I'm trying to exegetically establish.  And those are
> > all logically possible.)
> >
> > Two, given this state of affairs, this might prove to be something of a
> > problem for "the development and extrapolation of Pirsig's ideas" in the
> > exegetical forum.  You have to agree first on an interpretation before you
> > can develop it, and if that's what's at issue, you'll get different
> > developments in different directions.  This doesn't have to be a problem so
> > much as you might have to realize that some of these variant developments
> > aren't critiques so much as they are different directions, but it is
> > possible (again, predicting my own behavior) that a variant direction
> > conflicts with the sentiment of the other directions--that a variant will
> > look like a critique, and indeed is one.  (This is the problem when you
> > think that the exegetically correct position is a position that
> > philosophically conflicts with itself.)  Maybe the only thing to do there is
> > to say: sure, try and establish the exegetical point, but don't pursue the
> > critique half of it.  Save that for the other forum.
> >
> > The third thing I wanted to suggest is that the issue of how much authority
> > Pirsig has in either forum is moot (as it always has been (or should be)).
> > In the exegetical forum, it isn't an issue because Pirsig is the _object_ of
> > inquiry, not a _participant_ in it.  Its not that Pirsig's texts have
> > authority in that forum, its that they are what we are dissecting.  That's
> > why critique is easily seen as besides the point in an exegetical situation
> > and philosophical dissenters could be just as good at ferreting out what
> > Pirsig means as those who think Pirsig is great.  We aren't interested in
> > critiquing what we find in Pirsig's text, we are simply interested in _what_
> > we find.
> >
> > In the general philosophy forum it isn't an issue either, but this time
> > because authority given to Pirsig is internal to the acceptance of his
> > arguments and philosophy as _good_ arguments and a _good_ philosophy.  If I
> > said to Scott (who is simply convient) that he was deviating from Pirsig's
> > playbook (and showed that he was), Scott would (as he always has on
> > particular points) shrug it off because Scott doesn't _accept_ the play
> > Pirsig has drawn out as a good play.  In some cases that's _exactly_ what
> > he's critiquing, so why wouldn't one expect him to shrug it off?  However,
> > if I said to Paul that he was deviating and presented some convincing
> > evidence, Paul would think about it longer (depending, again, on situation
> > and issue) because he thought that Pirsig's argument was a good one and he
> > had tried not to deviate from it.  (And then in thinking about it, he would
> > either become convinced that he wasn't deviating (thus rejecting my
> > exegetical evidence), or that he was indeed deviating, at which point he
> > would have to choose between Pirsig's argument or the argument he was
> > propounding.)
> >
> > The moral of the story is that sometimes using a staccato Pirsigian
> > argument, the reminding of a Pirsigian position (and _what_ those are are
> > established exegetically, which is why exegesis can't be avoided in the
> > wider forum), is sometimes useful and sometimes not, all depending on who
> > you're talking to.  In other words, its not that "Pirsig quotes wouldn't
> > hold so much authority on this forum," its that Pirsig quotes would hold as
> > much authority as they ever had.  What will hopefully go out of style is the
> > ridicule that often accompanies the pointing out of a difference with
> > Pirsig, which is what I suspect Scott is tired of.  And also the idea that,
> > because its a difference, its a closed issue--it ends the conversation.
> > Because in the open philosophy form, the Crit Forum, those differences are
> > exactly what are supposed to be faced openly and honestly and discussed.
> >
> > Oh, and I would suggest different names for the forums.  Maybe PIRSIG is
> > alright for the exegetical one, but I think something like Open Philosophy
> > (or whatever) might be better for the other, because its not as though its
> > just critique that is outside the bounds of exegetical analysis, but also
> > the placing of Pirsig in varied and different contexts (religious,
> > philosophical, political, etc.), the exploration of issues other than the
> > ones Pirsig pursued (which is also why I think linking Pirsig with other
> > people's ideas, "supporting work and academic developments," is probably
> > more appropriate for the non-exegesis forum).
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > moq_focus mailing list
> > moq_focus at moqtalk.org
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
> >
>



More information about the Moq_Focus mailing list