Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00295)

Hi Paul & Iain,
Thanks for your comments :
I think for me the general rule of thumb is offer our point of view but respect someone's 
right to not respond.

We can still make a point or clarify an issue without relying on or needingsomeone to 
respond however it's a shame if meaningful and rational exchange cant be generated.
If points are well reasoned and consistent even if different from our own beliefs it can 
help us to try and understand where that person my be coming from and perhaps `see it' 
in a different light.

I tend to agree with you Iain I don't like the term either but perhaps thisinfo helps us in 
our interactions to become conscious of where we might overstep the mark and to become 
more aware of our own actions online and how more appropriately to behave ie. within 
due bounds of courtesy and consideration of others.
Sometimes those bounds need to be defined, I am not one who sees so called `dignified' 
silence as honourable its only an old political game used by the upper classes to not 
appear `undignified' in front of the `lower classes' .

Recently I've been watching some DVD's of talks given by the Dalai Lama on the `six 
paramitas' and when asked what was the best technique of meditation for someone to 
start out with, he made the suggestion that a good way to begin was to first ground 
oneself in the teachings of the tradition and test to see its veracity.

While certainly an analytical approach may have its limits it also has its safeguards as it 
helps to develop an enquiring mind rather than a belief based mindset.
This is the reason why imo Blavatsky and her teachers insisted on a non dogmatic and 
philosophically open approach.

We all have particular beliefs but those beliefs need to be held lightly and other points of 
view always need to be listened to and assessed and maybe an old belief needs to be 
either put to one side (the jury is still out) or perhaps even completely rejected if it fails to 
have any inherent logic or consistency from what we can see at that point in time.

The approach of Aristotle and of Plato while different to me both have an important place .
Any tradition needs to be continually re-examined and reassessed as new insights and or 
evidence comes to light in our own personal search.

The problem of the `devotional' mindset is it can become blind or enamouredby every 
utterance of the guru.
I think this was the problem with the release of pictures of the Mahatma's it led to worship 
of them as individuals rather than examination of what they where saying with rigour.

People that have psychic abilities can also start to become wrapped up in an air of awe, 
hushed reverence and authority.

Given that the psychic realm is said to be even more illusive than this `physical' one all 
pronouncements need to be while not rejected certainly not taken with certainty.
The logical mind can be a great leveller in this way although in it does have its limits it 
also has certain safeguards.

Cheers

Perry
 
  

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Iain" <ibse03888@b...> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> I think we are being sidetracked here. I dislike this kind of 
> terminology such as "trolls" or whatever ,this puts people into 
> categories/pigeon -holes/ compartments or even sectarian. That is not the 
> Theosophical Way. It is derogatory in its outlook and lacks the 
> understanding that wisdom requires.
> Some people do have "hard set" views that are intransient and difficult to 
> perceive reasonable debate and opinion. We must be patient(, but also aware 
> of hidden ulterior motives),by quiet and reasonable debate giving evidence 
> and sources must be encouraged.With Annand,I do not think that anyone can 
> denigh that he holds his beliefs dear to him no matter how galling they 
> appear to others.We must see behind him, what led him to such point of view, 
> Who taught him, where does the information, teachings that influenced him, 
> from that point we can learn and show by illustration and evidence that 
> perhaps his view and perception of past events are not accepted by the 
> majority of contributers on this list.We must give him the opertunity to 
> supply the information, I have asked for this in previous postings but, have 
> never received a reply from Annand, which is a disappointment but, was not 
> unexpected,
> It is, therefore, folly to ask for limitations on numbers of 
> postings,credentials and other superfluous things, it is not nessesary.I 
> beleive that the members of this group are intelegent enough,and have the 
> capacity to sort out"the wheat from the chaff",The past week or so has shown 
> that to be the case,Self regulation, mutual respect, generosity of spirit 
> must and will prevail.From time to time the odd"eruption" will occur and as 
> has been the case a repeat performance every 3 months or so,but this will 
> past as the cycle moves on,as this chapter moves on to something new.
> Let us leave such terms as Trolls or chimps on swings or 
> whatever,let us go forward and explore new pastures of discovery and 
> imagination.
> wishing every one the seasons greetings and may the God of your dreams be 
> with you.
> cheers Iain
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 1:38 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Trolls (and double trolls)
> 
> 
> > Dear Perry,
> >
> > There are many fine nuances but the bottom line is that someone who
> > initiates hostile arguments by pushing buttons deliberately-- and
> > interferes with attempts to discuss matters in a friendly way-- is a
> > troll. Theos-talk has rarely been an environment in which a single
> > troll terrorizes the group, but rather one sets off another who'd
> > rather fight than discuss, and then another chimp swings into the
> > feud, and it's all downhill from there.
> >
> > As for rules, one of the really standout aspects of theos-talk
> > compared to most other fora I read is the great number of posts
> > coming from a few listmembers, and the use of personal names and
> > aggressive punctuation in those from one. Posting way more than
> > anyone else is calling "flooding" and has a negative influence on
> > the atmosphere of a list. Even when the content is not over the top
> > trolling material, the volume of it can get in the way of normal
> > discussion. So, no personal names in headers with aggressive tone,
> > and no more than ?5 posts daily would improve the tone. But I don't
> > think Eldon is open to suggestions that involve moderation.
> > Guidelines, maybe.
> >
> > Anand can't sustain these sectarianfeudingtheosophist train wrecks
> > all by himself!
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@y...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Paul and All,
> >> This issue of `trolls' on the internet seems to keep coming up.
> >>
> >> What is fair and reasonable argument?
> >> What methods are acceptable and what are not?
> >>
> >> I would suggest that being part of a theosophical internet group
> > any hypnotises put
> >> forward should be open to reasoned challenge and debate.
> >>
> >> If we put forward a proposition and the logic in it is flawed, is
> > it not reasonable and
> >> acceptable for others to point out these inconsistencies out and
> > ask for clarification?
> >>
> >> If we are voluntarily coming onto this group and making statements
> > be they historical,
> >> philosophical or otherwise, should we not expect those statements
> > if inconsistent or
> >> flawed, to be challenged?
> >>
> >> In other what is the line one crosses from using genuine and
> > legitimate philosophical tools
> >> of debate and logic, to being a `troll'.
> >>
> >> As a suggestion cant we as group put forward a set of rules for
> > what is and what is not
> >> acceptable behaviour and practice in this group.
> >>
> >> If `trolling' is a problem then perhaps it can be first identified
> > and then the moderator of
> >> the group deal with it appropriately according to whatever rules
> > we as a group come to
> >> consensus over.
> >>
> >> Just a suggestion
> >>
> >> Best wishes to you and to all for Christmas !
> >>
> >> Perry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson"
> > <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > a word to the wise:
> >> >
> >> > Here is an excellent article on Internet trolls, explaining the
> >> > phenomenon:
> >> >
> >> > http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
> >> >
> >> > which helps explain certain patterns on theos-talk. Some
> > relevant
> >> > points from the article:
> >> > "An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord
> > on
> >> > the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments
> > and
> >> > upset people.
> >> > Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues
> > for
> >> > their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they
> > are
> >> > hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite
> >> > human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they
> > feel
> >> > no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the
> > greater
> >> > the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as
> > they
> >> > see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows
> >> > trolls to flourish."
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>