Poking

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 14:23:10 GMT -5 Peter said:

Yup, that could work.

We could call it "Moderated Spiritual Discussion" rather than "the kiddie area, with shallow water and lots of smiley faces." so that the posters don't feel like they're missing out, and insist that threads stay "on topic".

Well that is a much more reasonable and welcoming way to state it. I love playing in the kiddie pool, btw.

I've got the option of splitting posts off into new threads (in the General area) if they are obviously asking to get personal.

Then if .... people who currently have a problem with how Enigma does his thing... want to avoid Engima doing his thing then they can post there and not complain about it when it happens in the General area.

P

Sounds like a plan. This does seem to center around enigma and not around mocking/poking. I'm guilty of mockery as are many others, yet peeps don't hound my arse. Methinks this is cuz my mocking attacks are just annoying and not actually touching nerves .

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 14:25:04 GMT -5 topology said:

Jun 20, 2012 14:05:10 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

I vote for a teeny little place where folks can post if they don't want mocking/poking, not the other way around.

That is, most of the time this forum has been fine fine fine. If folks want the safety of not being jostled they should go to the kiddie area, with shallow water and lots of smiley faces.

I think a new section for those who are trying to get some real perspective on themselves would be appropriate, each person who felt so inclined to get help could start a new thread for themselves and indicate how they would like feedback, advice and other interactions. Violations of the requested interactions could be reported by the thread owner to the moderator.

Yes that's a great way to do it, as you showed in the why discuss spirituality thread. I liked having clear ground rules.

I don't find mocking to be helpful. Challenging someone's perspective and assumptions can be done without devaluing them in the process.

I tend to agree with you on this. However what is considered mocking is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. This little thing could be considered by some to be mocking. Also a if the beholder thinks it's inauthentic.

I've used mockery on occasion when I felt like the mockee was incapable of hearing anything and was also being arrogant -- these are purely subjective judgements on my part. Perhaps a little jab will get their attention? But I consider myself pretty clueless so it's relatively rare when I make such judgements.

Mockery is just another spice in the communication cabinet. It can be overused and crowd out the other subtle flavors. I've interacted at forums where there was no mockery at all. Only support. It seemed contrived and not grounded.

And I've also interacted in forums where mockery was rampant. It was often hard to suss out whether there was anything of value in the posts. I've found a mix to be the best.

[topology]

The question is, does it serve the purpose of the forum? What is the purpose of the forum? I think the average passerby is going to pass on the forum because they see that most postings look like inane quibbling. But they might stick around more if there was a section for high quality interaction (in their perception).

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2012 10:12:30 GMT -5 topology said:

The question is, does it serve the purpose of the forum?

What is the purpose of the forum?

Well this is what it says on the login page:

"This board is intended for anyone with a sincere interest in a spiritual path or teacher and is not limited to those interested in spiritual teachers reviewed at Spiritualteachers.org. Only members may post.

Think of this place as a virtual ashram and consider these words by Richard Rose: "We need a spot on earth upon which to meet. A homing ground, but not an intellectual prison. A library and clubhouse of philosophers. A place with quiet rooms where a person can be alone if he desires. A clearinghouse of contacts, or a place where a cardfile might be kept with names of those who wish to be contacted.... Many people with philosophic drive feel no compulsion to mingle with anyone except their colleagues. But these people must be unaware of future growth opportunities for themselves, and they must be unaware that they must help others in order to grow themselves.""

There's also this from the top of the boards:

"Late night neo-advaitic ramblings, questions and curiosities, or that thought that you just have to share, all such posts are welcome here."

My purpose is to have fun, learn some things, maybe. There's that spiritual stuff too.

I think the average passerby is going to pass on the forum because they see that most postings look like inane quibbling. But they might stick around more if there was a section for high quality interaction (in their perception).

Maybe inane quibbling is just the sort of filter the forum needs to fulfill its purpose. Heck if I know.

[enigma]

Jun 21, 2012 3:43:18 GMT -5 frankshank said:

Jun 21, 2012 1:29:30 GMT -5 enigma said:

I don't like the "odd dual". If I draw my sword on anyone, it's in your honor, not mine.

OK, a fair distinction Enigma. Can you see yourself venturing into a poking section though or not?

It goes in the same direction as to say 'Take your personal discussion to PM', which I never do for the reason I've been explaining. I don't argue with resistant folks for their benefit and not exclusively for mine, though I do learn quite a bit to satisfy my curiosity. If nobody's listening, discussion truly is pointless.

I would also say the nature of vibrant, useful discussion is always controversy, and the nature of illusion is always personal. Remove the personal controversy and you do not have a spiritual discussion forum, you have a tea party.

[Peter]

Jun 21, 2012 11:41:12 GMT -5 enigma said:

Jun 21, 2012 3:43:18 GMT -5 frankshank said:

Can you see yourself venturing into a poking section though or not?

I would also say the nature of vibrant, useful discussion is always controversy, and the nature of illusion is always personal. Remove the personal controversy and you do not have a spiritual discussion forum, you have a tea party.

Yeah.

I'm tending towards thinking that any new section should be "not poking" and leave the existing section the way it is, rather than the other way around.

Then we're subtly saying that "challenge" is the norm.

[frankshank]

E: You say if nobody's listening discussion is truly pointless but your conversations with Andrew seem to go round in circles as you both have pretty fixed positions. You keep biting though. As for the general section turning into a tea party, I think it's perfectly possible to have vibrant, useful discussion without sticking tongues out and throwing cake. A new section would allow for that and more though and could be a first stop as well as a place to go to sort out grievances. It could be anything you want it to be with little or no moderation.

Anyway, I'm just throwing it out there for people to think about. I'm not overly fussed how it pans out in all honesty.

[enigma]

Jun 21, 2012 12:25:30 GMT -5 Peter said:

Jun 21, 2012 11:41:12 GMT -5 enigma said:

I would also say the nature of vibrant, useful discussion is always controversy, and the nature of illusion is always personal. Remove the personal controversy and you do not have a spiritual discussion forum, you have a tea party.

Yeah.

I'm tending towards thinking that any new section should be "not poking" and leave the existing section the way it is, rather than the other way around.

Then we're subtly saying that "challenge" is the norm.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[enigma]

Jun 21, 2012 12:34:59 GMT -5 frankshank said:

E: You say if nobody's listening discussion is truly pointless but your conversations with Andrew seem to go round in circles as you both have pretty fixed positions. You keep biting though.

"I don't argue with resistant folks for their benefit "

As for the general section turning into a tea party, I think it's perfectly possible to have vibrant, useful discussion without sticking tongues out and throwing cake.

So what is sticking tongues out and throwing cake? One of the reasons I do discuss quite a bit with Andrew is that he rarely resorts to foul language and name calling, and neither do I. So what is it that you want, aside from the end of the conversation because you are bored?

A new section would allow for that and more though and could be a first stop as well as a place to go to sort out grievances.

I have no grievances and never have. and in case you haven't noticed, when someone clearly has nothing but a bone to pick with me, I have little or nothing to say. Start a thread to attack me or a campaign to smear me and you're probably on your own. I have no interest in discussions of personal grievances that have no redeeming value.

[arisha]

It means your ego (i.e. egoism) is so strong that you loose the ability to understand how others feel about what you are doing. You were told so many times with different words, by different people, how they feel, but you never tried to make an effort and realize what is wrong about you. You only point to others being always wrong instead.

[frankshank]

E: Some folk prefer confrontation and positional battles, like you, and some folk prefer to discuss spiritual matters without the chest beating. I'm merely suggesting we cater for both. Chest beating can be lots of fun though, don't get me wrong.

Comments like: So what is it that you want, aside from the end of the conversation because you are bored?
are personal and confrontational, just to give you a little tip. Your passion for truth has nothing to do with comments like that.

[enigma]

Jun 24, 2012 3:12:37 GMT -5 arisha said:

It means your ego (i.e. egoism) is so strong that you loose the ability to understand how others feel about what you are doing. You were told so many times with different words, by different people, how they feel, but you never tried to make an effort and realize what is wrong about you. You only point to others being always wrong instead.

Oh, I understand very well how people are going to feel about some comment I make. Your underlying assumption is that it's my job to make people feel good. I don't see that as my responsibility at all. I also have no interest in making anybody feel bad. I'm interested in talking about what's true.

[enigma]

Jun 24, 2012 5:26:34 GMT -5 frankshank said:

E: Some folk prefer confrontation and positional battles, like you, and some folk prefer to discuss spiritual matters without the chest beating. I'm merely suggesting we cater for both. Chest beating can be lots of fun though, don't get me wrong.

Comments like: So what is it that you want, aside from the end of the conversation because you are bored?
are personal and confrontational, just to give you a little tip. Your passion for truth has nothing to do with comments like that.

Chest beating isn't fun at all, and I don't prefer confrontation and battle.
Again, as I said, spiritual work is very personal and I don't really value detached intellectual or philosophical discussions about spirituality. The core of the problem (ego) is always presenting itself right here and it's appropriate to address it as the major part of the exploration. My "passion for truth" certainly does extend into the truth about our personal dynamics. In fact, that's pretty much the only truth we can talk about. The overwhelming majority of seekers are trying to become conscious, though they are not conscious of it. They're not really exploring some sort of advanced spiritual concepts.

[kate]

I don't post here much anymore, but i would be very curious to see how a "non-poking section" went. My feeling is that most people are drawn here because there is an opportunity to just duke it out. Do people really want to go off to their own special little place where they can sit around and debate a little bit but not too much?

I don't see why, as long as no one is being abusive, there should be any requirement for people to be other than they are. That's just the package that is that person.