Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00302)

I get to check the mailing list once or twice a day, and see that
some of the postings have recently taken a darker turn.

The intent of the theos-talk mailing list is to provide a forum
for discussion theosophical ideas (and personal spiritual
experiences and insights) in an atmosphere free of personal
attacks. It is intended to be a place where deeper ideas and
insights could be shared, a home for philosophical reflection.

While flaming, personal attacks, spam, advertisements for
money-making opportunities, charging money or asking for support
and donations, etc. all happen in general on the Internet, the
hope is that this list is a safe haven from all that, a place
where fellow students of the higher life can hang out with each
other.

Were the mailing list moderated -- if there was sometime with the
time and energy to do so -- it would have a chilling effect on
participation, as we see with the example of the
ts-l@theosophia.org mailing list.

Being unmoderated, there's very little control that can be applied
to the theos-talk mailing list. Someone could be taken off the
list, open up a new mailbox on one of a dozen Internet email
providers, and be subscribed again under a pseudonym the same day.
We wouldn't know they were back until there were more postings.

The best form of control with the list, as with groups that meet
in person, is peer pressure. Each group sets its own norms, and
enforces them. With a mailing list, that enforcement happens as
people post to the list commenting on postings that have gotten
way out of line. Additional private emails to the individual
involved can also make someone aware that they've gone a bit too
far.

Even stronger that peer pressure, though, is boredom. People
tire of reading messages that they find boring, and will
unsubscribe and go elsewhere where they find ideas more akin
to their own. By simply writing about what interests us, we
set the tone for the list. Rather that say "that's a bad
posting," we instead give a posting of writing we consider
the sort of thing we'd like to read.

I've noticed that most people -- 73 percent at the moment --
prefer to just get the monthly, THEOSOPHY WORLD. There are many
reasons. One is the high volume of mail; they don't want to see so
much stuff. Another reason is the unpredictable nature of the
postings on the mailing list. The postings are unpredictable
in quality of writing, in formatting, in respectfulness,
level of excitement and magic (the "sparkle factor"), in length
and number of messages, etc.

It would be helpful if the active participants on the list would
suggest what they consider to be good norms for our postings. This
is not to arrive at a set of hard-and-fast rules that we'll impose
at this time, but rather to help make everyone aware of how we see
things differently, and have different expectations of the list.
If we're more aware of what others are thinking and expecting, and
they are more aware of our approach, there's less likelihood of
anyone's toes getting stepped on.

The most important rule or norm that I think of at the moment is
"the golden rule". It says to always treat others as you'd have
them treat you. That means the same rules apply when one of us
posts to the list as to the others when they reply. It also means
that you treat them as they should be treated, *regardless of how
they treat you.* (That is, we always treat others the right way;
it's not "treat others as they've treated you" nor any other
lowering of standards.)

The related rule, which cannot be separated from the golden rule,
is that of kindness. Someone may say that they believe it's ok to
beat up other people, and they expect at times to be beaten up
too, so everything's fine and they claim to be following the
golden rule. But without kindness and respect, people can abuse
others, all the while fooling themselves that what they do is
fine.

A more careful reading of the golden rule is that one doesn't
impose one's values on others, treating them according to one's
values. What one does is tempered by kindness, by an awareness of
how and what the other person is, not dragging them into a
kicking-and-screaming fight if they oppose such things, even if
one feels that such confrontations are a valid form of
interaction.

A final point is with regard to anger. If we respond to something
that's gotten us really mad, and our blood is boiling, it's the
anger -- not us -- that's talking. We need to stay clear of a
subject until our tempers have cooled and the real person is free
to express themselves again.

-- Eldon