Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00336)

Eldon,
	Thank you,  I think you have spoken for all True Theosophist. It is
time for a spiritual philosophical discussion of ideas and not attacks on
one Karma.    " Better than reciting a hundred verses of empty words is the
repeating of a single stanza hearing which one feels peace"

> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 18, 1998 3:59 PM
> Subject: the golden rule and the kindness factor
>
> 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
>
>
>