TO; Platt, John, Davor and anyone involved in the thread
FROM: Rog
PLATT:
I agree with John that Roger's summary is bland and necessarily so.
Nothing but blandness ever comes out of committees, unless it's a
camel. To believe we can come up with an extension of the MOQ by
attempting to mediate all views is a Utopian dream based on the
mistaken assumption that ten minds are better than one.
ROG:
But 10 minds can be better than one. That is why societies are so much more
productive and creative than lone feral individuals. That is why we
communicate in this forum. And nobody tried to mediate all views. All I
tried to do was summarize the discussion to its key points, so one could
recollect what was discussed, agreed upon, and left unresolved. My hope
would be that anyone could pick up the summary and get an understanding about
the views of the participants on the issue of what high Quality Patterns
have in common that lower quality patterns don't. From it, one could continue
on toward new explorations or arguments (such as your Nazi angle) , or dig
further into those posts that seemed of highest value. It would be a high
level (albeit bland) map of the thread, as well as a reminder of outcomes and
learnings.
PLATT:
As I've said,
Roger has given us a perfect example of how to conduct and present a
summary of opinions. There will never be an improvement over
Roger's work. Yet what was the result? I heard no hozannas of praise.
Everyone just moved on with their own agendas. And rightly so. Human
nature is not conducive to a steady diet of all holding hands and
singing Kumbayah, much as we might wish it was so.
ROG:
Thanks, and you are right, it did not get much in the ways of overwhelming
praise (though some did seem to value it). That is OK, as it was just an
experiment. If it really is useful or valuable, the proof will be in our
future adoption of it or related offshoots. DAVOR volunteered to moderate
another thread, but has yet to start it. (Davor?) As for the Kumbayah
comment, I don't even know what you are getting at. It was a summary. There
was indeed a lot more harmony than normal in opinions on this topic, but
other topics may not fare so well.
JOHN:
So I agree that Platt has raised a very powerful objection [that a nazi would
agree to the summary] to the conclusion
that you have so far developed, Roger, but I doubt that his mystic response
will solve it. Is this taking the debate in a totally new direction, or just
a red herring, or is it a valid rejection of a premature closure?
So, to your request, two responses. I would need more time to complete my
input into the original question, and, secondly, I think Platt's challenge
does invalidate the rather bland conclusion we have so far arrived at.
ROG:
I don't know if you saw my response to Platt last week on the Nazi argument
(or my addendum to V3). To be frank, I find his criticism on this account
as being completely wrong (except as an isolated and appropriate critique of
my poorly worded V2 final summary paragraph). I am sorry, but my
understanding of Nazi's is not that they were into harmony across span and
depth, higher consciousness or avoiding destruction. I cannot believe you
see this as a "powerful objection". (Or am I missing something?)
I strongly encourage you or Platt to respond on this counter, or on the
unresolved challenge that destructiveness (as opposed to reconstructiveness)
is NOT the path to quality, or even the mystic angle that you hinted at that
everything is good (yuck!). I see no reason to close the thread...after all,
isn't this type of dialogue the very reason for summarizing it?
Rog
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 - 16:01:46 BST