--- alaren@juno.com wrote:
> Just a thought - maybe we ought to decide *exactly* *what* we are
>going to do before we start lengthy (often technical) posts on *how*
>we are going to do it? I realize that a discussion of methods often
>includes the pros and cons of implementing them, but I feel like we've
>got two or three static latches competing for dominance before their
>time. Pardon the metaphor, but it's like debating where the third
>rung of a ladder is when you haven't managed to get your foot onto the
>second one yet.
Finally somebody said something sensible! I'm filled with renewed enthusiasm and an almost missionary zeal to help!!!
So let's backtrack a little...
I joined this group hoping to find clear answers to questions that LILA raised. I liked the book but it didn't entirely make sense to me. I didn't know if it was I who hadn't understood or if it was the philosophy itself that was full of loopholes. The problem is that it's a novel and not a text book. You can't just look up, say, the intellectual level and find a definition and examples and generally clear up any questions you may have. In fact you can't look up anything, there are just bits and pieces of comment and ideas that can be put together in numerous different and often contradictory ways.
Now I'm not criticising Pirsig for writing like this per se. LILA was the first dynamic breath of a new idea. But dynamic very quickly becomes static if you don't advance it and that's what seems to have happened on this website.
What you need to do now is the get down to work and turn it from being a vague idea into a real living breathing metaphysics—-something that would actually be taken seriously outside of this tiny clique of hardcore fans. It would be wonderful if people could come to this site and read clear and simple essays on what this philosophy is about. After reading LILA I suspected it was somewhat incoherent. I have to say that after spending time here, I'm even more convinced of that. I'm also troubled by the fact that many of Pirsig's fans themselves seem not to even notice this. It seems that many are happy to wallow in confusion rather than taking steps to climb out and up onto something better. Sorry folks but if you don't REALISE there's a problem, then it doesn't say a lot for you.
I would suggest that the objective of the focus group would be to solve this problem. In effect you'd be creating an MOQ 101 so that when newbies come to this site they can actually learn something.
And onto random specifics:
1. The group needs some kind of master mission. eg. "Over the coming year we will collectively write a FAQ consisting of a set of short essays which elaborate on the essential elements of the MOQ."
2. The suggestion of moving focus debates from one place to another is highly confusing. If you're going to have a focus debate at least keep it all in one place.
3. Everyone wants to have their full say, but the dialog needs to be edited. The wiki idea may work for some techie subjects, but I think not for philosophical ones. Actually editing another person's words seems like a big no-no to me. Either you accept what someone else has to say, or you don't. But to rewrite their words and make it seem as if they said something when they didn't is WAY out of order! What's needed is a summary that all can agree on.
4. OTOH a summary isn't going to be entirely objective either. It's got to be the work of one person, or at least consensus by a majority vote, which will inevitably leave some ideas out. But that's unavoidable. What you have to do is minimize the problems that this creates. If all posts on the thread remain in the archives of the focus group they will at least be available for future research—-assuming the summaries will be regularly revised and updated. What you want to avoid is losing them forever which is what would happen should the debate take place in MD and the summaries posted somewhere else.
5. Some of the plans suggested seem to involve a great deal of work for the moderators. Frankly I question how many people are really willing to put in that time on a long-term basis. I mean, according to Horse it's impossible even to find someone to update the website--a task that would take perhaps ten minutes once a month! Okay, Roger put a lot of time into the thread on MD, but is he and/or anyone else willing to do that on a sustained basis? I would suggest that the MF solution should be as simple and low maintenance as possible. It's all very well having sexy ideas, but you've got to be pratical if you want real results.
6. I think this group needs a more motivated committee. They can't be bothered to update the website, they're apathetic about the future of the focus group, they're unimaginative when it comes to problem-solving. We need leadership with vision and initiative folks! And if the current administration can't/won't provide that then they should move over and let those who can and will take the lead.
_____________________________________________________________
**Short Advert**
Web Hosting & Domain Names
http://www.smackhosting.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST