[MF] the way forward for MoQ discussion lists

[david buchanan]

Horse, Sam and all MOQers:

dmb opens:
I'm a little worried about the direction this seems to be taking. While 
pathways through the campus is a pleasant image, I think this analogy is 
mostly built on old grudges and such....

Sam said:
..........................................................................I'd 
quite like to have a
distinct 'MoQ from a Christian perspective' stream - distinct from a 'MoQ 
and
mythology/religion' stream - but perhaps that's selfish (although presumably
anyone can start up a thread appealing to their own interests, and then 
it'll be
a question of 'survival of the fittest' - appropriately evolutionary for the
MoQ?) I just think there is an awful lot of material that could be 
fruitfully
considered, and separating it out from the general mysticism/Campbell/New 
Age
stuff would stop it from being drowned at birth.

dmb replies:
Obviously, you're saying you want a stream that's distinctly yours and 
distinctly not mine. It seems you're asking for a forum where nobody can 
object to the insertion of theism into an "anti-theistic" system. It seems 
you want to rig the game. To prevents us new-agers from murdering your 
christian babies. I don't think we ought to be constructing our new fora on 
the basis of such insulting or inflamatory rhetoric nor the grudges and axes 
that produced it. How about if we decide NOT to taylor anything to anyone's 
perspective or pet project, but construct our new fora on democratically 
elected rules and principles instead.

Sam said:
Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to have two separate groups 
pursuing the different
agendas, so that the projects of group (a) aren't always undermined or 
drowned by the concerns of group (b) - which are often more vocal!! 
...That's the precise same reason, though, why I wanted to separate out a 
general 'mysticism' discussion from a specific 'moq from a Xn point of view' 
discussion. Those of you familiar with my many-year-long discussion with DMB 
on the subject
of mysticism will know that we are never likely to agree on the 
presuppositions (the equivalent of group (b)) and my interests at the moment 
are much more to do with exploring the inter-relations and tensions between 
the MoQ and Christianity, ie the equivalent of group (a). That's all - which 
is why I think they need to be separated.

dmb replies:
Isn't this really just a fancy way to get away from me? Aren't you really 
just asking for space to pursue your "agenda" without any challenge? No, I 
think its a huge mistake to have any rules about which perspectives or 
viewpoints will be allowed and which ones won't and even have serious doubts 
about dividing the critics from the adherants or anything like that. I think 
the biggest problem is that people don't stay on the topic, they change the 
subject and so we should seriously think about imposing some discipline with 
respect to wandering off.

And I have to say that the so-called critics and the ones with "agendas" are 
especially guilty of this. Have you ever noticed that no matter what the 
topic is, no matter what the thread name is or who started it, if Bo is 
talking then SOLAQI is the topic, if Matt is talking then Rorty is the 
topic, if Sam is talking then Christianity is the topic, if Ham is talking 
then his essence is the topic, etc., etc., etc.. This has the effect of 
disruptiing or highjacking just about every other conversation. It seems 
like every thread gets infected with somebody's pet peeve before it ever 
gets off the ground. Its rude and counter-productive. Its a real buzz 
killer, man. Lets fiqure out some rules that will protect the topic and 
otherwise enhance the abilitiy to keep our collective eye on the proverbial 
ball. Let's make it a crime to switch the topic or evade an issue. Let's say 
irrelevance is grounds for rejection and that no further comments will be 
accepted until questions and challanges have been addressed. Let's say all 
cowards and disserters will be shot at dawn. I'll bring the cirgarettes.

I guess that brings me to a subset of the same problem. Another problem I 
have with the so-called critics is that the problem never seems to be 
properly identified. I suppose it could be very interesting to level an 
actual criticism of this or that Pirsigian assertion, but I don't see that 
sort of thing going on at all. Rather it is more like the critics don't 
really have any particular criticism of the MOQ, they just want the MOQ to 
suit their - I don't know - taste? Agenda? They just want it to be more like 
something else and usually that something else is fundamentally hostile to 
the MOQ. I mean, the critics don't seem to be interested in solving a 
problem with the MOQ, its that they have some kind of problem with the MOQ, 
a problem that no one else may care about.

In any case, I'd like to see some rules that govern the process of 
criticism. Let's say that the problem has to be clearly laid out first. 
Let's say that improvements and modifications can only be proposed AFTER 
some kind of need for such a thing has been indentified as actually being 
some kind of problem within the MOQ. Hopefully, we can tame everybody's pet 
peeve without excluding it. Otherwise these pet peeves will continue to chew 
up the furniture and shit on the rug.

Sam said:
...as for the evolution - once a cell divides you don't have the common area 
anymore... but you do have organic growth.

dmb says:
Or we could go with Sam's idea and divide into seperate cells. I could be 
the master of a Campbell cult, Sam can have his own congregation within 
Pirsig's anti-theistic system, Matt can converse with his shruggers about 
the death of metaphysics with ironic abandon, Scott can dream up ever more 
elaborate and complicated ways of saying what the MOQ already says simply, 
and everybody else can just have their own private world without any 
dissent, where everyone is nice and agreeable and every posts begins with, 
"gee, you're swell."

That's not evolution. That's not the way to foster growth unless you're 
raising hothouse flowers or growing dope in your basement. That's the way to 
hide from the struggle that real growth requires.

Even if there is no good way to tame the pets or force the critics to be 
more coherent, let's not cater to these unproven and highly disputed 
alternatives. Let them live or die according to their own merits. Leave them 
open to debate like everything else, but impose some order on the form of 
that debate.

If I had my way, every thread would be tied to a Pirsig quote. Any opinion 
would be welcome, as long as it remained relevant to te quote. Maybe the 
quote is selected because there are questions about it, because it seems to 
conflict with other assertions, becasuse it touches on some problem the 
ciritics see, because its important to the MOQ, because somebody thinks 
somebody else is not reading it correctly, because it sounds a lot like what 
so-and-so said. Whatever. I think we need some kind of anchor to help us 
from constantly veering off on tangents, to thwart the highjackers and 
agenda pushers.

That's my two cents.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/