To: Everyone
From: Roger
These are my thoughts on the topic of quality in the MD, and the future of
the MF.
1) REGARDING LOW QUALITY POSTS -- I think experienced members develop good
filters that newer members may lack. The problem with web sites like these
is that the best way to attract attention is to say something others disagree
with. The very best posts around here get little or no response. They stand
on their own. On the other hand, a contentious point can get a valuable
argument started (for example the "are atoms aware?" argument).
Contrast this with the garbage of posts that can quickly develop around
pointless namecalling that self amplifies into 10 or 20 posts per day. Or the
neverending series of posts that can develop if the participants lie at
ridiculous extremes from one another.
The Quality of the MOQ, is not in volume, it is in the occasional gem or
insight. We all have a limited amount of time and attention to give to this
forum, and this creates a burden of deciding how much time one should spend
reading or responding to a given post or thread.
Is it worth investing in a relationship with a new member who will probably
drop out as soon as you ask him/her to explain his or her views?
Do you really need to know more about SOLAQI, or the 5th level, or Roger's
hopelessly biased views on the horrors of socialism?
Does the person really consider and respond to your arguments, or just
respond like a broken record?
How important is it to make your view public?
2) ON THE FUTURE OF THE MF -- I like Marco's idea of taking topics off line
to the MF whenever it seems productive to do so. I think we could do it
fairly informally.
Magnus is correct that what has always been missing in both forums is any
static latches. In early '99 I tried to summarize the arguments and positions
for each month, but I received little encouragement (or even criticism) for
the work and so quickly discontinued it (OK, the truth is that I did get some
encouragement but I couldn't keep up!). It would be very productive if we
ended monthly topics with something like...
" Most members agreed that the MOQ was of very little value in dealing with
real world moral conflicts. Most dilemmas are same level, and the MOQ is
notoriously quiet on the issue. Platt and Horse were notable exceptions to
this consensus though, Horse stating....and Platt countering that ...... In
general the rest of the group either disagreed or considered them both
bonkers. Rob stated the issue succinctly when he retorted..."
Granted, it is very difficult to simplify a thread down to its essentials,
even simplified summary would tend to run on for pages, and any editor is
guaranteed to introduce bias, but that could be the value of allowing any of
us to volunteer to be the summarizer. For example, what if we offer to
sponsor a thread? For example, Bo could agree to sponsor a thread on
critical analysis of SOLAQI if he could get a number of members to agree with
him on the topic or thread. Heck, they don't even need a separate forum for
the discussion, they could just continue it here under a set tiltle like "
SOLAQI MOQ FORUM THREAD." When the discussion winds down, Bo could then
offer a summary of the thread to members for their input and response. The
summary thread and summary responses would then be what is published in the
MF (which really does need to be updated) for anyone to read and to reference
at a later date without wading through 320 messages per month.
Think about it... wouldn't it be cool if we had a summary of the following
topics (other than just the relatively older stuff in Lila's Child):
Are Atoms aware?
What is DQ?
How can we use the MOQ in our lives?
The MOQ evaluation and response to Terrorism
How effective is the MOQ in resolving moral dilemmas?
What are the contrasts and similarities between Heideger/James/Lao Tsu/etc
and Pirsig?
How original is the MOQ?
Is Socialism moral?
What are the key tenets of the MOQ?
What are the organizing forces of each level?
What is the role of entropy in the MOQ?
These and a hundred other threads have been explored and to a great extent
lost in the flow of the MD and MF due to the overwhelming lack of summary and
static latches.
Think about it... we could use the MF as a static latch to summarize
arguments down to their basic essentials, recording who was on each side of
the discussion, and what the points were that they made. Those feeling the
summary was not balanced could also summarize there issues. Later, we could
reference and springboard off of these established foundations. New members
could be encouraged to read these summaries before restating all the
arguments. Updates could be added in the future to the thread summaries as
we further explore new angles in future months. etc, etc.
I think that this would allow us to accomplish Magnus' goals of capturing
various interpretations or branches of the MOQ, and it would eliminate a
bunch of our concerns with editorial censorship. Thoughts?
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST