Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00335)

As a "lurker" I listen and (hopefully) learn. I have been amazed at the
extent of knowledge of Theosophical literature that has been displayed on
this discussion forum. I have also been amazed at the "pickiness"
displayed. I realize that, traditionally, theologist and philosophers have
taken great pains to extract any and all meanings from any statement made
or attributed to, founding members of any group. Someone said earlier that
we should attempt to view the larger picture presented by HPB, and pay less
attention to the presonna of HPB herself, and other founders.
I know I'll get lamblasted for opening my mouth here, at least that seems
the norm, but I would hate for us to become so "involved" with the
personality of HPB, Olcott, Judge, Bessant, Bailey, etc. to loose sight of
our main objective, the understanding and discussion of, the Ancient Wisdom
Religion itself.
A point to remember is that while many profess "Jesus" and claim alliance
to him, they may have little understanding of most of what he said. I
would prefer discussions about points of teachings, instead of wondering
whether Jesus, or anyone else, preferred broccoli to beets.
As far as guidlines for the discussion list, I would think all that need be
remembered is that we are all seekers of truth, not defenders of dogma. An
open mind, and a lack of aggressiveness towards opinions expressed by
others, would be all we would need to behave. Theosophy is, after all, the
seat of an attempt at universal brotherhood, is it not?
Again, I know I do not have the years of study under my belt, and I'll
confess, some of the discussion are over my head. But a acceptance and
common curtesy would be all that was needed I would think.

----------
> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Re: Usage guidelines for ARCANA
> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 9:27 AM
>
> MKR:
>
> >>From day one, Theos-xxxx lists have never had any guidelines, rules or
any
> >>restriction of any sort and had done very well.
> >
> >Varied topics on theosophy, theosophical organizations and theosophical
> >personalities have been discussed at various time. While everything that
> >goes on may be not have satisfied everyone, still it is serving its
purpose
> >very well. Also from time to time, due to the openness and lack of
> >guidelines or rules, subscribers have posted information which are
> >unavailable from *any* other source. Some of the information some may
not
> >want the world to know about it. But Truth needs no defenders and it can
> >take care of itself.
> >
> >I am for status-quo, and if it is not broken, don't fix it. Let us not
> >tinker it and possibly ruin it.
> >
> >MKR
>
> Trying to understand how it works does not mean tinkering with it and
> possibly breaking it. There *are* guidelines or norms of behavior in
> operation. Because they haven't been articulated, they are implicit
> rather than explicit guidelines. They are established and maintained
> by the consistent behavior of the list participants. There's nothing
> wrong with attempting to articulate them, turning them from secret,
> underground, unconscious rules into something that can be understood
> and talked about.
>
> The only new argument against coming out into the open about how
> things are operating, that I've heard lately, runs something like this:
>
> "If you write a guideline about how theos-l operates you're
> externally imposing an authority on my freedom-loving soul that'll
> bring me to fight you or flee the list. But -- ha, ha! -- you can't
> because John Mead owns the list and would never let you!"
>
> I can't follow the logic in this line of thought since the
> attempt to understand implicit norms of behavior on the list *is not*
> the imposition of either guidelines (voluntary) nor of rules
> (mandatory).
>
> I've heard some discussion on theos-l in the past about how it
> has been a problem that theosophical organizations have implicit,
> unspoken rules and expectations of their memberships -- about how
> this is bad, how issues should be aired and worked out by
> people in the open. Is this something that we can only talk
> about when it deals with other people?
>
> A group -- lodge, organization, even mailing list -- tends to
> maintain its status quo. Many members are followers, listeners,
> lurkers at meetings. A handful like to monopolize the air time
> and control the direction of discussions and programs. That
> handful is the group's "leadership". It maintains the status
> quo by providing the group with programs along lines that it
> likes and by keeping the group "on topic" or resisting the
> introduction of new ideas by newcomers, if those new ideas
> give the group a new direction. (That new direction is
> perceived as a "takeover" since it may take power away from
> the existing leadership.)
>
> On a mailing list with no moderation and no explicit guidelines,
> the implicit guidelines are defined and enforced by the
> most-active participants. The statement "you can't tell us to
> change" in response to any questioning of the status quo is
> really saying "we're happy with how we're currently running
> things, so shut up!" The status quo (implicit guidelines) is
> enforced by both punishment -- a barrage of critical messages
> both posted and privately sent to the offender -- and by
> rewards -- a number of positive, glowing statements in
> response to people supporting the party line.
>
> So ... back to my original questions: What are the currently
> guidelines or norms? What are the pros and cons, the good and
> bad in them? Why are things the way they are?
>
> One point made was that there may be highly useful information
> that may come out, information that may have been censored
> or discarded as useless in an unmoderated list. This is given
> as an argument against moderation, with the assumption
> that a person moderating a list would not be bright enough
> to see how important something is, or would be too prejudiced
> to allow it out.
>
> An example of a guideline would be to not use language
> that might be considered as sexist and offensive to some
> members. This is a guideline since it's a recommended
> behavior, but not a mandatory rule, since no one would be
> kicked off the list if his writing failed inspection by
> the "language police".
>
> Another example of a guideline concerns the
> discussion of theosophical historic figures (e.g. Leadbeater).
> Some people were as pissed off and outraged at this discussion
> as others were about sexist language. At the time, there was
> a guideline established that the historic discussion move to
> theos-roots, so as not to appear on theos-l and be seen by
> and continue to offend them. This guideline held for a while
> and then was ignored.
>
> A third guideline is that the list not be exploited for
> the commercial gain of anyone, that it not be filled with
> ads selling products or soliciting funds.
>
> A fourth is that purely personal communications, being of
> little or no interest to the overall list, be sent as
> private email.
>
> What else do we see that is going on?
>
> -- Eldon
>
>
>
>
>