Trunk

quickly concisely posting, then I have to get on with my local day. New: Interviews section. Thank you! to Apech for bringing this idea to the fore at this time. You're the interviewer, do whatever you want. Have at it, Trunk

As this is a new section, and these are new rules, they are subject to change as ideas for this section are fine-tuned. The basic idea for the Interviews section, in BROAD OUTLINE, is: 1. Choose who you're going to interview, contact them, get their permission. 2. In the "Gathering Questions" section, post to gather questions from TheTaoBums community for questions to ask them, organize the questions, allow the interviewee to answer/not answer the questions of their choosing, include a catch-all "anything else you'd like to add?" Also, Feel free to use ?s from any prior interview. ... and submit the questions to the interviewee. 3. Receive the completed interview, print it out in pdf format and/or post it as a new thread in the "Completed Interviews" section. Include the interviewee's name in the subject-line (title) of the Completed Interview thread. If you include a pdf file, send a copy to the current admin. It'll be stored permanently on TTBs' server and with a link to it in your post it won't count towards your upload limit. The Interviews section is visible to the whole www (not only TTBs members) and settings are such that the public can also download any interview pdfs. Members are encouraged to creatively innovate, if they'd like to. The "broad outline" is mostly a suggestion and other details / procedures (like, "how to approach the interviewee) can be navigated by the interviewers (and supporting membership community). The TTBs structures, in general and in this case specifically also, simply, "provide the space". It is up to membership to search and ponder their truths for themselves, create, communicate, "generate content". I'm sure we'll see variety beyond any one person could've imagined. GATHERING QUESTIONS SECTION This section can be used not only for "gathering questions", but is also open to general discussion directly related to Interviews. Ideas about how to proceed, etc, within the broad framework described above. COMPLETED INTERVIEWS SECTION This will exclusively hold Completed Interviews. LIMITATIONS: 1. The interviewer has to be a TTBs member and you can't interview yourself. 2. There needs to be some sort of limit of "how many interviews per interviewee?". (No limit to the number of threads created by an interviewer.) I'm negotiable on how this is done. My thought right now is that it's not infinite, . Each interview is meant to be substantial. If an interviewee really needs lots and lots of threads, there are other places (both on TTBs and off-site) to have many threads. My current limit idea is by time, inspired by the seasons, "maximum of 1 interview / 3 months / interviewee" (at least 3 months apart for multiple interviews / interviewee). So we'll start there (and if you have other ideas we can community-dialog). 3. Completed Interview threads are not a place for debate. They are *only* to get the interviewee's own view, graciously. Contradicting ideas are not allowed in this section. Consider that in the Interviews section, we are a host for a guest and our whole purpose is just kindly invite them to express their view. Moderating team standards for this section follow along that basic line; consider that an off-color post might get moderated in this section that would be a non-issue in other sections of TTBs. If you'd like to discuss / dialog / debate further re: the views presented, then create another thread in another section. However, you can not link from the Completed Interview thread to a discussion / debate thread. 4. The interviewee can either be a TTBs member, or not - but no follow-up dialog with the interviewee is allowed within the Completed Interviews thread, no follow-up Q&A within that thread (though you could gather questions for dialog elsewhere on the site, or for a future separate interview). The Interviews section is not meant to contain on-going dialogs with the interviewee, just a single interview per Completed Interview thread. - Trunk p.s. Thank you! to Apech for bringing "the Interviews idea" back to the fore. That prompted the creation of this Interviews section at this time. The basic premise is excellent and deserves special structural support.

Some bedrock principles, structure, won't change (otherwise it suddenly becomes a completely different site). I know we've struggled over that before. Initially those premises were assumed, not written, and I think that that's part of what led to conflict. Those bedrock principles are non-negotiable, but there are skillful ways to creatively work within them (interviews being an excellent example) and there are infinite possibilities outside of TTBs (and ways to link those outside venues to TTBs, the simplest being signature links). My view is that, on that basis, there is room for more creativity both inside and outside of TTBs... and that there should be further exploration so that those options are navigated more often and more fluently (not waiting until a frustration leads to breakdown leads to explosion). Interviews section, I agree, is a good idea that is late to full implementation - thanks for your patience and mentioning that you'd said it previously in-thread: I reviewed and got up-to-speed on thread specifics. There is a "Tao In-Person" idea in-the-works. The premise is to facilitate in-person training partners, training parties, get-togethers on a peer-to-peer basis. There are some parameters that I need to finish writing (having to do with safety). TTBs won't facilitate all of it, but will encourage external links to meetup.com (as they have all the angles worked out). There was a member-map idea (and we'd found a way to only give general locations, not specific), but apparently the technology shifted on that and it's no longer viable. We're on the look-out and, map or no map, it's a good idea.

Couple of things re: interviews: As I've previously mentioned, Interviews *can* be done under our current structure, as evidenced by the fact that 3 of them *were* done, going back as far back as 2010. To do that all you had to be was a member and apply initiative and creative energy. Additionally, "The Interview idea" *is* a good enough idea that it deserves more structural support. Since day before yesterday, prompted by this discussion, I've been making notes on how to implement by creating a section for it (already half way there). I didn't say so in my previous post because as admin I don't have the luxury to just casually say publicly, "interview section! we've thought of that before but never got around to implementing, good idea to return to!" ... without being willing to commit, because then there'd be backlash. I'm saying it now. Expect an interview section shortly. (Pinning is not enough.) As I've said previously, the interview idea (whether in it's own section or at large) is different from a "teacher's section/s" (in which teachers would get section/s in which they'd get preferential treatment by staff in on-going dialog). The teacher's section idea is not workable at TTBs for a number of reasons that'd contradict TTBs fundamental managerial premises (conflicts that the Interview idea neatly avoids) ... which I've mentioned before but I'll repeat two of here: 1. In a teacher's section/s, staff would have to choose which people are "worthy teachers". Contrasted with Interviews: who gets chosen to interview is entirely member-driven. If you've got the energy to interview someone and to come up with the ?s, have at it. No need for staff to choose. 2. There's no on-going dialog, so staff doesn't have to be biased in moderating for one member over another. I've got some base-line parameters in mind that I'll finish up before making an Interviews section available... - Trunk

... taking a while off for other things (work, life, exercise) ... I'll be back to catch up later best to everyone, thank you for the airing of ideas and feelings p.s. had to add this one Even a cafeteria has rules... There's managerial intent at TTBs to leave room for what I've euphemistically called "lively" debate, kind of like we allow food fights but not fist fights. ... and, yes, it's a matter of opinion on which is which, case by case.

Ditto that.

Yup, that's the current criteria. And, on that basis, it's basically functional as-is. There is no space limit on that section (nor any section of TTBs). I was just thinking of how I respond to it personally (as a member). When I think, "articles", I just tend to think of a few high quality things... my response (as a member) when I go there now (there's now 343 threads)... it's just so many, so over-whelming, that I end up not reading any of them and just go back to a more-active discussion area. If there were far fewer, (and additionally if there was some sort of member-driven filter to drive quality up, not necesarily saying that the ones that are in there now are low quality) I might be more inclined to read them. Personally I just don't, that's all. I kind of assumed that other people reacted similarly, I could be wrong. Certainly an arguement could be made that it's perfectly functional now, that simply the name of it "articles section" is incentive enough for members to write substantial first posts. I'm saying that it's not the role of staff to determine what is high quality, high level of truth, good writing style, etc in order to take staff actions on a post. As staff, only "is it relatively civil?" (not absolutely civil, just not a gruesome attack). As a member, for my reading pleasure, of course I like to read high quality stuff (deep mature level of truths, good style) ... and that's based on my own personal preference. (Like with all members, I assume. We all choose for ourselves.) I'm 100% with you on that part. The idea to limit the number of articles/member (not necesarily to 1 or 2, but say 6 maybe) was to: 1. drive up the level of quality, but not by staff evaluation, only by a technical constraint that would have the author choose "which are my best? I want to only post my best". 2. have fewer articles so that they are more likely to be read 3. incidentally, that would make it so that 1 or 2 or 3 members don't dominate the articles section, that everyone would get their chance to put in a few of their best, it'd spread it around. If no one cares that there's a gazillion articles then it's a non-issue. Certainly a few very talented people can write many, many excellent articles. Maybe for the rest of us if we had to choose, "which are my best ... 3, 4, 6, 8?" then we'd have to really put forward some choice stuff. Some people with less talent write endlessly and it's all gibberish. Having a tech limit would be an incentive for each to choose their best. It's an interesting idea. Never implemented. I don't even know if we have the technical capability to make that happen. In any case, it was never implemented (and I don't even know if *possible* to implement), but those are just some of the ideas that were batted around. Once it was discussed and problems encountered, it wasn't high enough priority to continue on with. As you've said, it could be considered fine as-is. Do *you* go and read through all the past articles in the article section? Does anyone? I don't know. Different 'shapes' allow different kinds of flow. Even calling it the "articles section" gives it some loose shape. In any case, the above was my thinking process on it.

That's not so much of a problem, you're right. Here's the rub: What "article criteria"? That it be quality? ... Then who would decide whether it's quality? Staff? Nope, staff doesn't decide what is quality "true", what is worthy of being called "article". Length? Nope. Some of the best writings are very short. *If* a person had just 1 or 2 articles to write, then: 1. They'd have incentive to make them *really* good. So, that would be a member-driven way to filter for quality. 2. There wouldn't be gillions of articles, that scroll off into never-land like in the general discussion section. You'd go in the articles section and there'd be just a few, really high quality, writings.

Two things we've run into with that idea (neither one insurmountable barriers, just 'problematic'): 1. TTBs staff (format from a management pt of view) doesn't 'see' teachers. It becomes problematic when staff choose "who is a worthy teacher". (With interviews, it's totally member driven.) So, we'd need a model in which anyone could make just 1 post (or some limited number, say '5' or something)... that becomes .. (wait for it...) 2. The Articles section! The articles section was originally made with the idea that someone would be posting... "an article" and it wouldn't turn into a huge conversation, and that people wouldn't be posting a gazillion articles. That we'd have just a few quality posts: bing!, articles. However, technical restraints were never put in place to restrict 1. how long the conversations could be and 2. how many posts a person could make - so that section became a de facto discussion area and we had never surmounted the hurdles to re-organize it into an actual articles section. ... oh, and the 3rd hurdle: how to filter out what is worthy of being "an article" rather than just a "mediocre post"... but I think the solution became: limiting the number of posts / member would be the filter to that. If people only had 1 (or 3 or 5) articles, hopefully they'd have incentive to make 'em quality.

First of all, we seem to have some mis-understanding, mis-communication, different memories: I've never objected to interviews. I think they are a good idea. The structure of TTBs supports them with no changes. Have at it. No one is stopping you, nor anyone else, from doing interview projects. No one has *ever* been stopping anyone from doing interview projects. It's totally available and totally under utilized. The natural filter (of choosing who is the worthy teacher) is the process of "gathering questions" and that is totally determined by membership (not mods). If some member has the energy to gather questions from the community and pose the questions to whomever they choose and posts the questions & answers ... that opportunity has *always* been there, totally under utilized. Go for it. Anyone can do it. Any time. No one is stopping you. No one ever suggested it. As I've listed previously, I'm not opposed to everything with teachers. As I've stated ad nauseum, I'm only opposed to teachers (or *any* member) totally controlling on-going conversations (in google searchable areas). The interview nicely circumvents that, without incurring the risks. The interviewee can be a member, or not, read the resulting thread, or not - no limitations there. Interviews are quite different than having a teacher's section identical to a PPD but google searchable.

Going back and reading your posts in this thread. These two seem to be the essence of what you are suggesting (both posts quoted in entirety): p.s. I am searching for this. I think that the basic interview idea is a good idea for quality contributions to TTBs and I'd agree that the idea of "interviews" has been way under-utilized. (Though we might differ as to details of implementation... and I've not thoroughly thought through all of that, but am reviewing your idea.) ... just found it: What would YOU ask Bruce Frantzis? then The Tao Bums Interview with Bruce Frantzis also What would YOU ask Chunyi Lin? then Interview with Chunyi Lin of Spring Forest Qigong. and TaoBums Q&A with Kosta Danaos

The idea that comes to the table (if there's a different one that you're referring to, please clarify) is to have a section where chosen people, who are deemed by staff to be teachers, have either threads or sections, in which they have the ability to control the conversation beyond what we already give to thread-starters in general. Correct? That provides a basis for them to control the view and the conversation. To "have the mic, and the front of the class" as it were. That's what I'm referring to as the idea of contention w/in TTBs framework... correct? That would provide the basis for a control of the mandala in the broad "classroom" sense that I'm talking about. If you have something else in mind, please be specific and clear. p.s. TTBs 3 Foundations contains this

~ later edit ~ To add to my previous list, acknowledging the value of teachers, and to repeat myself: In each one of those interactions with teachers, it was critical that I interacted with them on their turf, within their mandala... THAT provided a functional structure, a functional venue without which I wouldn't have received a fraction of what I received from them, each one. I did that a number of times, over and over. Super super important, for my personal progress, and - I believe, not just for me - but as a general principle. It's impossible for us to create that here at TTBs; it wouldn't do justice to the process and it's important that each teacher forms their own school mandala and activities in their own way, to produce what they produce in their school. Without those school venues, as a culture, we're lost. TTBs can't do that effectively; it would be a dis-service to that. TTBs is only what it is, and serves it's own - very different - important role.

That's clearly not true. I've mentioned all of the following ideas... within TTBs: - signature links to any external sites - embedded videos - interviews (with ?s gathered from community) - PPD's - participation as a member outside of TTBs - blogs - own private forum - anything that can be created in the digital or 'real' world I've also *very* much acknowledged the value of other venue formats (schools). Not only in general, also in my personal path. If that's not been clear, I repeat it here now with emphasis. The only ideas that I've consistently drawn the line at is, at TTBs: - any member controlling the conversation in a section that is viewable to the whole www. - treating any set of members as higher status than another set, in terms of ability to communicate. (Obviously staff plays a different role.) It seems to me that these ideas have been extremely obvious from the very beginning of TTBs, (though apparently not to everyone). That's the downside of the cafeteria model, obviously. .. though you are stating it to an extreme, which tends not to occur - or only for very brief periods. If you want to go study with a teacher (and I personally think it's *very* important that most students do) than GO STUDY WITH A TEACHER. Don't mistake TTBs for a school setting!!! People can do both!! You needn't leave one for the other. This is the way it's been from the beginning at TTBs. That long-standing members seem strongly attached that-it-is-something-else seems ... odd to me, missing the obvious of what this place is, always has been. There's ways to work with it creatively, and there are endless creative possibilities outside of TTBs... there's no need to be fixated here with a frustration of what this place is not.

First of all, Lettres d'Alchemie!!! boo-yah-ka-chah! Deci Belle's rockin' blog! Dig it. That's a high level. Just speaking from my own process... Daily practice, study, and seeking out Teachers .. it's all been really important for me. Certainly my own daily practice has been crucial for progressive stages. Nothing works without that. "Daily practice is the root of spiritual progress." Studying with teachers, again, just ime,... the teachers I've been lucky enough to study with... have saved me countless lifetimes of work. Not kidding, not exagerating. Particularly the process of receiving transmission, over and over again, to prompt the "ignition of the flame" the "passing of the flame" from being to being that ignites the spiritual process within one's self... I just couldn't have done that on my own. Really, realistically, wouldn't have happened. Also, dharma-friends along the way. I've learned as much from friends (co-students) as I did from teachers ... from a different kind of angle... blessings to the sangha! may well all help each other! - Trunk

... a bit more on this. The vision, premise of TTBs is not a secret: re-read TTBs 3 Foundations. Sean came up with the "classroom / cafeteria" metaphor and it is *very* apt, says a lot. Imagine if a teacher sat down at a cafeteria table and tried to start teaching a class: a situation that has some frustrations, inherent in the set-up. It's not that a cafeteria "doesn't like" teachers, nor that students don't want to learn things from teachers nor that students think the whole concept of teachers/classrooms are 'bad'. It's just that the premise of a cafeteria supports egalitarian conversation, where each person has the freedom to express themselves and there aren't the constraints on what is taboo to say/not say within a classroom environment. All that DOES NOT mean that classrooms aren't valuable!!! Classrooms / cafeterias are just different venues with different premises, that's all. It's not fundamental in TTBs premise to make an environment conducive to teachers. Those that can hang here under our premise statements, fine, but there are undeniably some inherent risks & frustrations for teachers. It *IS* fundamental to TTBs premise to create & foster a space that supports the rights of individuals (regardless of status) to express themselves in an eclectic, relatively civil manner (allowing room for lively, colorful, vigorous debate that is part of varying pts of view). When I showed Sean TTBs 3 Foundations document he said something like, "this is the obvious, just what everyone assumes and already knows is true". That's what I'd thought for a long time, too ... but often people try and make TTBs into something that it's not, and that's a source of conflict in the community, so had to write it down. - Trunk

Correct. (In addition to what de_paradise mentioned, that criticism would be created in other threads, in open areas of TTBs... trying to solve that through extra moderation to stomp out anything that would be untoward to any certain teacher's view is contrary to TTBs central purpose, also would require *way* way too much moderator resources and would make this place more chaotic than it is.) Personal Practice Discussion areas already provide that to the extent that it will *ever* be provided at TTBs. Meaning, there is a boundary that TTBs won't provide PPD-level-control where it's google searchable, available to the whole www: that provides too much of an incentive (high traffic) for Emperor Reversed to make power plays in this environment (which is already a problem as it is). This has already been thoroughly thought through at an admin level (not just me). Listen, if you want a forum that caters to teachers, either many teachers in one forum or a forum specific to a specific teacher/school: GO CREATE ONE. There are SO MANY *free* resources on the web. Write up a vision statement for yourself and create it. Whether it's a blog or a discussion forum or whatever. If you see a teacher that you want to support - and want to co-create for that teacher, *ask* them how you can help them to support their school. A teacher can have a blog, a private forum, *and* a presence at TTBs: they are not mutually exclusive, *any* combination, *EASY* to create in a few minutes or hours. Even w/in TTBs format, you can start a thread and gather interview questions, interview the teacher, and post the results here as a pdf. A teacher can create youtube videos and those can be posted in threads here. Create a local practice group where people meet at your house and watch a dvd of your favorite teacher and *practice* together (do it under the guidance of your teacher, or on your own initiative, watch dvds from just one teacher or many different ones, just at your house, or rotate locations with those of your local training partners). There are *so* many options, if only you get a little creative and use some initiative. It's a waste of good creative energy to try and make TTBs something that it is not, be perpetually frustrated and feel trapped here. You are not trapped here: you have your imagination, your vision, your energy ... there's lots of room to create a variety of resources. The eastern influenced internal arts in western culture desperately needs broad filling out through myriad creative innovation. One place, with one vision statement, will *never* be able to fill that need. Many people need to contribute to create a rich *culture*, in many different ways... not just one forum, not just one teacher, not just one school, not just one subject, not just one format or vision. - Trunk

Not gonna happen. There are other sites that are entirely devoted to those topics. Also, the violent part of the martial studies becomes an issue. Though, hey I have some understanding, I've thought about in my own interests as well (bagua). p.s. You can put it in general, or your PPD (as long as you don't emphasize the injuring aspect)... but a whole martial section would just invite problems that don't align w/ TTBs purpose.

~~~ admin statement ~~~ It's *fine* to link to other forums. This banner in signatures has been reported lately, and deserves a public statement by me. My thoughts on the current forum set up by MPG (vis-a-vis TTBs interaction), quoted from discussion w/ mods: I think that people SHOULD create other venues (plural) with various purposes and parameters. TTBs isn't everything, can't be, never will be. I think that people should create venues (both digital and live-in-person) more often, blogs, discussion sites, sites specific to schools, teachers, pts of view, etc, etc. If TTBs isn't exactly what you want and it's frustrating for you, CREATE what you want, link to it from TTBs if you want... don't wait until you are so so frustrated that it's a real drag. My view is that MPG went through a *LOT* here at TTBs and was *VERY* patient for a very long time, under pressures. If he wants a place to express exactly how he wants, that is beyond/outside TTBs rules, he (or *any*one else) SHOULD have that kind of space. CREATE. BE FREE! - Trunk p.s. Of course, if people link to sites that blatantly break laws, racist, etc... we'd hide those posts/links, but that's a very different situation than what's going on currently. ~~~ /admin out ~~~

Part of it is a matter of experience. Different teachers have different things to offer, both good/bad. Savvy students, who have been around, learn to spot what are the opportunities to learn, what to be careful to avoid - in any school. This is true in any school. And in each of us as individuals. Pobody's nerfect.

Correct. TTBs, by it's essential structure, is a haven away from the "Emperor reversed" quality that is an inherent weakness/danger in the classroom format. (Not sure if that's exactly what you meant, Apech, but that's my meaning.) ... but, TTBs structure has it's own weaknesses, and the classroom format is a remedy for the weaknesses of TTBs format. Also, as traffic has increased on TTBs, TTBs has become a more desirable target for Emperor Reversed power plays. If TTBs made special sections, rules, for teachers: - on the negative side, we'd be inviting dynamics of a magnitude that would destroy this community. - on the positive side, it wouldn't do justice to what the private mandala of classroom is suited to deliver: focused learning and spiritual transformation. On both sides of it, it would be unsuitable to mix.

~~~ admin statement ~~~ Pretty accurate card. Though I might vary some on my interpretation of it. The mandala of a "school with teacher", aka "classroom" has its pluses and minuses. Pluses: There is a level of focus (of learning everything you can from a certain point of view) and devotion within that controlled mandala that can be very beneficial for learning, and for the progression of certain spiritual dynamics. Meaning, if the teacher has a lot of light going through them and if students focus devotion on the teacher/lineage skillfully, the spiritual process can be ignited in students. It's a sacred process that deserves its own space. Minuses: The focus only on one point of view can diminish other valid points of view as well as hide flaws of the view presented. Power can also be abused; people who are otherwise competent adults tend to roll over for teachers. Teachers have human foibles, as we all do and with their extra influence over others those personal flaws can have very strong negative influences over individuals in a group, and over a group as a whole. It is very important that classrooms exist, and that the teacher rules (provides the organizing principles) those classrooms. It's important that students "go to class" and get the most out of those environments as they can. The mandala of "egalitarian ability to speak", aka "cafeteria" also has its pluses and minuses. That's TTBs format. I won't belabor a description of +'s and -'s because you're all here and I assume you know. Those are two *very* different discussion formats, and are necessarily separate and are, in some ways, kind of remedies for each others' weaknesses. TTBs will *never* cater especially to teachers. Never treat them differently. TTBs will *never* create a special area that is google searchable in which teachers get more control. The closest thing that we'll do is that members have the option to gather interview questions from the community, submit them to a teacher, and get a list of responses... present in a post or as a pdf. ... but someone need not be a teacher to have that done... any member can do such an interview of anyone of their choosing. Admittedly a level playing field can be a bit rough sometimes for a teacher, but that's the nature of this environment. It was actually created as a kind of haven away from teachers. ... but they are as welcome here as anyone else, equally. If all teachers were as low maintainance for staff as, for instance, ZenBear - then the only limitation on the number of teachers that TTBs could hold would be hard disk space. - Trunk ~~~ /admin out ~~~

I know! "Dream Trip"???, ppfffttt!

Looks like he also bought a TTBs banner ad. (which I get no $ from, btw, and had nothing to do with) Balls! You go, MPG!!