Re: List Moderation

["Jukka Laari" <jlaari@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings

I don't know whether this is of any worth but I'll push the Send button...

Actually I believe that moderating doesn't necessarily mean what Ken
describes here:

" Moderating the list, on the one extreme, would involve
a single person sitting down with all the messages and
passing  judgement on whether or not they are "worthy"
of public scrutiny. "

I've been a moderator or co-mod on couple of lists and it wasn't like that -
sort of preventive activity. It can also be that the acts of moderating come
only after breaking the rules (as Ken suggests?). But then you'd better be
careful not to make new rules after transgressions. It easily turns out to be
unjust. Well, Jon's been doing moderating much more... perhaps he'll say
something on that?

" The problem with the argument of moderation is that it
must always be retroactive and ad hoc.  It is always in
retrospect that certain points of view appear to not be
important, useful, or worthwhile. There is never an a priori
argument that makes any sense. (...) One cannot
determine, in advance, which forms of expression are
violent. This is always retroactive. "

Intellectual or theoretical evaluation of discussion is one thing, moral
evaluation is another thing. We can easily leave the former issue to folks
reading these posts on Jefferson server (or to our grandchildren or idea
historians) but with the latter problem it's different. That's where is and
should be always some kind of moderation, either collective or personified.
We do have certain standards concerning questions of "ethnicity",
"nationality", "race", "sexuality" and such, and the use of such
representations in public discussions. And I believe that we do tend to
support some sort of "universalising ethics" on these issues because this
list is concerned with the Frankfurt-marxism and we are positively
interested in it. It means: we probably do share some agreement (akin to
Frankfurt theorists) of what's acceptable on these lists, though we haven't
necessarily explicated it yet - neither to ourselves nor to others. The
problem is that (or: if) we haven't discussed the "netiquette" earlier?
(Should it be discussed?)

One very important thing is what list-owner thinks and what are the list
rules he/she has established. If the rules are strict, then the owner or
moderator acts. If there aren't rules, then anything goes - usually this isn't
the case. So there probably are some rules. Problem is whether anyone
has (and how) transgressed the rules of this list. Jon?

" You simply want participants to avoid being overtly hostile
and, when they are hostile (whatever this means) then they
should be willing to take responsibility for their actions and
words.  Ok.  That makes  sense.  And sure, in an ideal world,
I agree.  But moderation isn't the key here and email is a medium
where responsibility  is necessary and impossible.  So there is
a paradox.  The medium itself reveals the [impossible] idealism
of the present age.  Simply repressing the contrary elements
of the paradox isn't going to help. "

"Touche", as they say...

Personally I find it boring to wittness same kind of outbursts on different
lists year after year. X saying this, Y saying that, and Z saying it... This
time, well, I haven't read all posts... But I do remember something:

Firstly, Ralph Dumain clearly over-reacted. And when he was asked about
his conceptions on aesthetics he refused to answer. Instead he did what he
did (what was it? I'm not sure I know that).

If these lists are discussion lists, then it should be clear that everyone is
obliged to answer questions, to clarify his or her views: what is (are)
aesthetic value(s)? how they are? from where do they come from? etc. etc.
It's not about telling that, say, Adorno's aesthetics was eurocentric - of
course it was. And it seems to be the case that modern, 20th century
popular culture, that's mostly of U.S. origin, can't be of much worth
according to old (19th & early 20th century) European art philosophies. Old
art philosophies are out-dated, can't be taken seriously today - except as
objects of the history of ideas. On the other hand, popular culture isn't
valuable because it's popular or fun or because it's U.S. American or of
black origin: it's value is a problem that can and must be discussed.
Instead of throwing stones I would've seen such a discussion, critical,
aware of (art & phil.) history - in a word: a serious discussion on aethetics,
on the categories of art and of aesthetic value, informed by Adorno's and
Marcuse's (and others') conceptions. But instead of that - what a waste of
bandwidth! Shame on us...

Secondly, I wouldn't let F. van Gelder to walk away just like that. I do know
that most of us on these lists do have serious problems with time. I dimly
remember that I never answered to one of Ken's posts few months (?) ago,
because I simply didn't had an hour or two to answer him. And then I forgot
the whole business. I'm afraid Ken found it insulting, but I can't do a thing
about that anymore. Now, I asked van Gelder at an quite early stage of this
recent discussion on Adorno's aethetics what he meant by something he
wrote but he didn't managed to answer. Instead he got into this moderation
business. And it was my turn to feel insulted: aren't my questions serious
enough? not academic enough? "Piss-off"?

I remember few years ago on one list how one person referred to
philosopher from the former "eastern Europe" as "more eastern madness"
or something like that. Nice anglo-saxon gesture, I thought, typical of their
arrogance and ignorance, and then I "unzubscribed" that list because I
thought that discussion will never evolve anywhere. See, I've born in a town
that's almost as east as Istanbul... except much further in north. I don't
know about that other list, don't even know whether it's active anymore. My
point is: they whined about harsh words by someone, even insults, but at
the same time they kept insulting other people without even realising it. It's
called moral arrogance and ignorance. (There's a difference to intellectual
arrogance and ignorance.) Some of them even brought their personal
problems to the list. I found it very distasteful. (Personal might be political
but surely it must'n be thrown around the world?)

van Gelder reminded me of that almost forgotten incidence. Except this
time it was German (Belgian? Dutch?) "arrogance". And  this time I wasn't
as defensive as years ago. Actually, I did nothing. - None of us is a pure
soul, I think. Not even van Gelder (certainly not me). Therefore I'd see that
Frankfurt-list could turn back to business as usual. If possible. Otherwise
this list will disrupt into continuing name-calling and moralising hysteria.

I'd see Ralph D. explains why he thinks jazz or jitterbug is art, and why
Adorno's aesthetics isn't of much worth. Also I'd see F. van Gelder explains
his understanding of Adorno's aesthetics, and where he disagrees with
Adorno.

I do hope that Jon (provided he is the list-owner, or moderator) would speak
his mind. After all, that's not our list. We don't own it.

Yours, Jukka L