Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00075)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> Dear Paul
> Accept my stupidity, but what is your point?

Dear Cass,

Sometimes questions are genuine and sometimes they are "trick questions" playing games. Asking someone what his or her point is strikes me as tending towards the latter, especially when followed by an implicit accusation:

> Is the establishment your agenda? 

Don't know what that means but I'm as anti establishment as they come. My point was stated as clearly as I can state it; what isn't clear to you reading it?

> There is almost an antagonism in your tone that suggests the internet was not the holy grail of truth you imagined it to be 

More accusation? I never imagined it to be a holy grail of truth. I *witnessed* it playing a constructive, leavening role in several different spiritual movements, stimulating public discussion of heretofore private issues in the mid-90s. But somewhere along the line things changed and the momentum was lost or reversed. And in the case of Baha'i, the reversals were shocking and horrifying. 

>and its current users are mindless and spend their days in idol gossip.

There was no such implication in my remarks, but rather that they are often dogmatic and argumentative, looking to fight and win battles rather than to engage constructively in dialogue. Not all or most participants, but enough to make things difficult for the rest. I say this as much about political as spiritual discussion on the Internet, and based on comparable amounts of experience.

> If you desire "to encounter genuine intellectual openness and honesty" pose an intellectual and honest question.

I do, and I do. Genuine intellectual openness and honesty are not hard to come by in the "real world" as I experience it daily. When I find it online, as in Perry's post to which I replied, I try to engage it. But far more often in cyberspace than in the real world, people pretend to be interested in honest discussion when all they're really interested in is playing win/lose games. One cannot waste time feeling antagonistic towards an entire medium-- but since the "real world" is generally so much friendlier and more rewarding than cyberspace, I allot time and energy accordingly.

Cheers,

Paul 


> 
> kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR wrote:
> > Let us look at it this way. Internet is the only medium where 
> anyone can 
> > publish almost anything without any intermediary and also without 
> almost 
> > any cost. Publishing is also instantaneous with world-wide 
> distribution. 
> > Have we not seen many many instances of items being put on 
> Internet sites 
> > which traditional print medium for one reason or another would not 
> want to 
> > publish. Many organizations which had controlled the flow of info 
> do not 
> > yet know how to deal with Internet medium where info and opinions 
> not 
> > palatable to the organization can and do get disseminated world-
> wide.
> > 
> > So let us use this medium to its best advantage.
> > 
> > My 0.02.
> > 
> > mkr
> > 
> Dear Doss,
> 
> Over the years I have shared your hopes for the impact of the 
> Internet, not just on the Theosophical movement but on other 
> spiritual movements I've studied as well as on political 
> consciousness. But at this point those hopes seem vain. Sometimes 
> I go back to the theos-l archives of the mid-90s, and am always 
> surprised at how civil and constructive the discourse there was 
> compared to the current scene in Theosophical cyberspace. Most of 
> the folks whose posts I most enjoyed have long since disappeared and 
> dogmatic/argumentative discourse is now the rule rather than the 
> exception. This is not nearly as bad as the Baha'i situation where 
> a great many constructive and intriguing discussions occurred in the 
> mid-90s in cyberspace, whereas now flamefests and dogmatic 
> aggression are near-ubiquitous. With ARE as well, things started 
> out in cyberspace looking very hopeful, but the aggressive 
> dogmatists indulging in personal attacks pretty much stifled the 
> good possibilities.
> 
> Neither Theosophists, Baha'is, nor ARE members are one iota more 
> likely to encounter genuine intellectual openness and honesty in 
> their organizations today than they were prior to the advent of the 
> Internet. In fact, the reverse trend has occurred-- more rigidity, 
> dogmatism, aggression, denial. Whether this is a temporary or 
> longterm result of the Internet is anyone's guess.
> 
> I'm disillusioned also with the results of Internet activism on the 
> political scene. Progressive/liberal Americans have had vastly 
> greater information sources and organizational opportunities in the 
> last four years than ever before, and one would think that a certain 
> skepticism about government propaganda would have taken root in the 
> general population. But the last election shows a conservative 
> retrenchment that is closely associated with attitudes indifferent 
> or hostile to reason and evidence. E.g. evolution deniers and End 
> Times believers.
> 
> In none of these cases has the Internet "come to the rescue" as had 
> been hoped.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]