Diana, List,
The amount of mail on MD has been huge at times - way beyond my capacity.
The rules suggested lately will hopefully make a change, but still, a
slower and more considered list would suit me better, for the time being.
I have two comments on the workings of Lila Squad reborn.
First, I think demanding every subscriber to contribute at least once every
week, month, or whatever, is a bad idea. I have been on one such list, and
it did not work out - the list died in a few months. Generally, the idea
that only contributors are active on a mail-list is false. Every subscriber
who reads the mails and thinks about them and maybe uses them in other
contexts is an active member of the list. Those who do not read the mails
usually leave on their own account. It is quite common that the fraction of
subscribers who regularly contribute to a list is one tenth or so of the
number of subscribers. This is not a problem, but off course it is good
list etiquette to encourage everyone, with something to say, to speak up.
Second, I dislike the "program" structure. I believe it may actually work
against considerate and valuable contributions. If we want the Lila Squad
to take off in Pirsig, and move his line of thought further on, I believe
dialogue is crucial. Dialogue is an essential part of critical reflection,
and good dialogue would make a good mailing list. Apart from the general
delimitation of being relevant to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, I
believe contributors should concentrate on starting and contributing to
good dialogues. Setting up a program may make people focus more on the
subject, and their view of the subject, promoting monologues instead of
dialogue. Subjects that are important arise through dialogue, and subjects
that are not, in the present context, important will not be sustained in
dialogue.
As an alternative way of structuring the discussion and gathering the
fruits of dialogue, we may consider using the web in building some kind of
knowledge structure. A web of interrelated texts, which would represent the
more static patterns of thought in the squad. One example of such a
knowledge structure on the web is Principia Cybernetica [
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DEFAULT.html ], which is developed and maintained
by a small group of researchers. There may be others, that I do not know
about.
This would harvest the potential benefits of the 'program' structure,
without tampering with the dialogue on the list. So, the list would be the
dynamic space, where anything may be questioned at any moment, and the web
would be the static space, changing in the course of the inquiry of the
list. The detailed procedures for such a dynamic/static duo, if it is to be
pursued, would have to be worked out. The link-structure of the internet
provides for simple ways of presenting alternatives, so there would be
space for diversity. It is less obvious how consent is to be expressed. I
have seen one system, based on voting on relevance and consent, which may
be seen at [ http://intermix.org/ ] (go trough the intermix hub), but there
may be other ways to go.
Regards
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:46 BST