Hallo Bill and all,
My views are:
Bill wrote:
"Some regulars here seem anxious to pounce on any topic and quickly turn
it
into a relentless campaign to vindicate a particular understanding of
theosophy. Rather than a genuine interest in a fellow human being's
current
understanding and a gentle exposition of one's own current understanding,
a
vocal few seem determined to win a debate at any and all costs. Only
total
surrender from their opponent appears to satisfy them. I think that this
type of behaviour causes many list members to hold their views close lest
they suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of an inquisition."
My answer:
I think I see a point here.
Allthough the word "any" used in the above in the words "to pounce on any
topic"
is a bit tough to agree upon.
And the words "genuine interest in a fellow human being's current
understanding " are - if you ask me - best taken care of in small groups -
in the REAL life
and not in this cyberspace. But a one-to-one email service connected with
Theos-Talk could however be a good idea. Or perhaps a small closed forum
with only
4-6-8-10-12-? members.
And I ask you Bill:
What is "genuine interest in a fellow humanbeing's current understanding
"
really ?
There is more to this than what one apperntly might think.
In the ancient times of Shankara spiritual disputes about the Truth
was quite common. Shankara was a great participator of these. Blavatsky
was
also such a participator. Just look at the articles in the magazines and
Blavatskys letters
from back then in the good old days of around the years 1886-1891.
Today disputes are not allowed it seems. And at forums where spiritual,
honest and wellmeaning
disputes are possible it is also - it seems - beginning to be kept down.
Today disputes seem to be pushed in the direction of being disallowed,
because those who are more ignorant than
others or who fail to communicate their views like to create a new agenda
to
a place where views are exchanged. I am talking about - this forum (and
perhaps also theosophical Magazines).
This new agenda is not quite visible - but it could be something like
- NO disputes - only read copy and paste articles of the past and NOT of
the
present. Only use words containing a certain kind of vocabulary else
you are banned from emailing at the forum for the next month or so.
I can't help to disagree somewhat if this is the scheme, we are going to
face Bill.
But I will say this.
This forum could be run in a different manner - if one moderated it some
more.
I am against what sometimes can be termed:
"The use of words containing a certain kind of immoral vocabulary."
(I also have to admit that I have not been quite innocent in such a use
during the years I have been a member here.
Maybe the reason being, that a certain kind of moderation is needed at
this
place. And besides I am not English. - >:-) smile...)
One of the big Yahoo forums "IndianCivilization" (1099 members and about
1200-2200 mails each month)
has a moderator, which disallows certain kind of vocabulary to take place.
Immoral content in emails and what can be termed as "continous attacking
emails" are not allowed -
and are from time to time questioned by the moderator in a very sly
manner -
before any possible banning action are taken
up and forwarded so to keep the immoral person in place. A certain amount
of
disgruntle are however allowed.
It works very well, if you ask me, because the fellow knows what he is
doing.
And yet again - it could pose a problem because we are a theosophists.
But I agree, that from time to time a more visible and outspkoen (read:
morally related) moderation could be helpful at Theos-talk.
But this depends on who the moderator are and how he or she are acting.
Is that what you are thinking about Bill ?
And If, yes - is its something you would care to take a step further and
maybe become a moderator of this place
if you were allowed or another if one were created?
These words are all wellmeant.
from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Meredith" <meredith_bill@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World To Bill: These Theosophy Lists
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Theos-World To Bill: These Theosophy Lists
> Bill,
>
> You wrote in part:
>
> =================================================
>
> Lately, I have been wondering if these theosophy
> lists have not developed their own "mark of the
> beast" for me in the sense that the topics and
> discussions more or less go round and round
> through the same material. . . . sometimes I
> wonder if this internet activity isn't like
> reading the same book over and over in some respects.
>
> ================================================
>
> Bill, I know what you are referring to but why not
> introduce a new topic? Something not covered
> before or something that is relevant to you.
Daniel, you make a good point. Could you give an example of a new topic
that has not been covered before? It might help us to get a discussion
going.
> I believe there are 262 subscribers to Theos-
> Talk. I would think some of these subscribers
> could post something "new" or "different" if
> they actually wanted to.
>
> I find it somewhat puzzling that there
> are so few indepth and serious discussions
> on these lists.
>
Some regulars here seem anxious to pounce on any topic and quickly turn
it
into a relentless campaign to vindicate a particular understanding of
theosophy. Rather than a genuine interest in a fellow human being's
current
understanding and a gentle exposition of one's own current understanding,
a
vocal few seem determined to win a debate at any and all costs. Only
total
surrender from their opponent appears to satisfy them. I think that this
type of behaviour causes many list members to hold their views close lest
they suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of an inquisition.
> Here is a medium which affords all of us
> access to people scattered all over the globe yet
> we actually don't seem to want to communicate
> that much with each other and then we avoid
> dealing in any depth with many issues or just
> avoid any comment on other issues.
>
My original intent was simply to share something that I have been
wondering
about. I do acknowledge that there are some good discussions here at
times
and on some of the other theosophy lists as well. As Eldon pointed out,
certainly the potential for discussion exceeds what we might find in our
own
neighborhoods. Steve is doing a good job getting the theosophia list off
the ground and Theos-l has Jerry Schueller active on it. I have learned
much from Jerry.
> O well, different strokes for different folks.
Thankfully this is true.
>
> Daniel
>
regards,
Bill
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
