What is a discourse and are there any guidelines?

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, but one could easily read what you posted to me and subjectively see it as you questioning my respect and taking the discussion of topic with it to distract me. With your “huh?”, are you not saying that you are saying that you dont see my point at all and disagreeing with me.  That you are not acknowledging my point as a reasonable (but different) view.  Again the subjective nature of such views.

 

 

Yes, but how is that any different than my previous example with the Tao Te Ching? Are you not doing the exact same thing as your multiple Nondual Shivas? Stating that you totally disagree with the authortative text that completely states that the One emerges from the Dao?   

I've actually stated that you were right about it. I'm doing so again now here. One clearly emerges from Dao. 

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

 

Again you just stated a new position that I have somehow stated that I think you have the power or capacity to prevent someone from entering into such a discussion.  As you are well aware, I have made no such statement. You have just violated your own rules again with using a straw man technique against me in this discussion.  

Haha...I see where you're going with this.

One was an inference. I should have asked "Are you suggesting that I have the ability to influence people and make them follow rules of discourse?". That would have been a clarifying question in light of your comment.

 

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

The timing of your move seemed too coincidental, in light of your clarifying post thereafter, where you and Karen accused me trying to establish a hierarchy. 

 

So, you agree there is more to this post, it resulted from a chain of events! If I recall right Karen and I made those post after you started attacking here and as the result of several other actions.  Your actions do not seem to correspond with your words in general.  Anyway, I am not going to engage in fueling this further with you.  I know that you will come back with rebuttal for everything that is stated and justify your actions.  So, I will leave it here.

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

No, they don't.  Buddhism and Jainism are considered to fall under Nastika (Atheist systems since they oppose Vedas).  They are not part of Hindu philosophy and they don't subscribe to the beliefs listed in the original topic of this post.  That is why it is listed as other Indian philosophy and not as Hindu philosophy in wikipedia.  I don't have to prove this, anyone familiar with the sad darshanas will know these other systems are Nastika and fall outside Hindu belief systems.

 

 

I could post more material on this if needed. But I think this should suffice as we're belaboring the point now. 

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2294.0

 

Quote

Debates

      
Debating monks and gesturing.
Debates among monks on the Buddhist doctrines are integral to the learning process in the colleges in the Sera Monastery complex. This facilitates better comprehension of the Buddhist philosophy to attain higher levels of study. This exemplary debating tradition supplemented with gestures is said to be exclusive to this monastery, among the several other monasteries of Lhasa. Visitors also attend to witness these debates that are held as per a set schedule, every day in the 'Debating Courtyard' of the monastery.

Procedures and rules
The debate among monks unfolds in the presence of their teachers, with a very well set rules of procedure for the defender and the questioners. The tradition of such debates is traced to the ancient ‘Hindu Orthodoxy’ in India and this practice permeated into Buddhist orthodoxy in Tibet in the eighth century. Such debates usually take place within the monastery’s precincts. The defender has the onus to prove his point of view on the subject proposed for debate. The debate opens with an invocation to Manjushri recited in a loud and high pitched tone. The roles of the debater and the questioner are well defined; the questioner has to succinctly present his case (all on Buddhism related topics) and the defender has to answer within a fixed time frame. The finality of the debate is with specific answers like: “I accept (do), the reason is not established (ta madrup) or there is no pervasion (Kyappa majung)”. Many a time, the questions mooted are meant to mislead the defender. If the defender does not reply within a time frame, an expression of derision is witnessed. In the Tibetan debating sessions, there is no role for a witness and there is normally no adjudicator. This leads to “conflicting opinions of participants and listeners.” When there is direct contradiction on the defenders part, the outcome is, however, formally decided.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by dwai

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

So, you agree there is more to this post, it resulted from a chain of events! If I recall right Karen and I made those post after you started attacking here and as the result of several other actions.  Your actions do not seem to correspond with your words in general.  Anyway, I am not going to engage in fueling this further with you.  I know that you will come back with rebuttal for everything that is stated and justify your actions.  So, I will leave it here.

I agree that your reaction to my post was that - a reaction due to a different interaction on a different thread. Was my post influenced by that and many earlier discussions, yes? I've even prefaced the OP with the following statement --

Quote

Over the recent few weeks it has become clear that discourse is a topic that is much misunderstood by many members and on various internet fora in general.  

 

Was it motivated by malice or spite? No. Thats where the advice about ad hominem attacks should be applicable. 

 

I genuinely want to see what Bums have to say about following certain rules of engagement during discussions. See, we're already getting some good interactions between Jeff, Jonny and myself. 

[dawei]

Interesting discussion... I kept waiting for the bar room brawl 

[Kar3n]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

I genuinely want to see what Bums have to say about following certain rules of engagement during discussions. See, we're already getting some good interactions between Jeff, Jonny and myself. 

I think you will find that quite a few veteran bums think we have too many rules already. 

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

I think you will find that quite a few veteran bums think we have too many rules already. 

What I'm suggesting aren't mean to be formal rules, but civil agreements between individuals, in good faith. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

What I'm suggesting aren't mean to be formal rules, but civil agreements between individuals, in good faith. Is that too much to ask for?

 

 

Civil agreements with each person's subjective view of which discussions fall under jalpa and vitanda?  Is it practical or possible?  

[liminal_luke]

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

 

I genuinely want to see what Bums have to say about following certain rules of engagement during discussions. 

 

If I were a more spiritually evolved person all the jalpa (is that the right term?) might not bother me, but I kinda hate the whole business of debate between people who are trying to prove each other wrong.  As far as I`m concerned, off-grid could slide into the ocean and we`d be all the better for it.  Ideological arguments about golden flowers and all kinds of origination (dependent, independent, codependent) and the fine points of whether the universe is a bunch of things or just one thing -- sorry, I`ve no use for any of it.  

 

But that`s just me.  In my saner moments, I`m glad we don`t have rules of discourse here.  People post according to their natures, and requiring rules won`t substantially change anything.  Combative folks will post argumentative diatribes maintaining that their views are right and everyone else is an idiot; they literally can`t help themselves.  We can`t mandate maturity.

 

If we want to welcome people of all different levels of spiritual and emotional development -- and I think we do -- we`ll just have to accept the variety of posts that correspond to those levels of spiritual and emotional development.  It`s true that there are certain minimum standards that will be enforced: I can`t physically threaten another member, for instance.  But mostly we`re a come as you are kind of forum.  People don`t have to arrive here all practiced and full of acceptance and love; they can stagger through the door full of hateful baggage and spewing darkness and we mostly take them in anyway.  Their posts will contain ad hominem attacks and questionable facts -- how could they not?  And still we give them shelter.  We tell them their contributions and views are as worthy of consideration as any other.  We let them write and gnash their teeth and all the while the more enlightened among us provide spiritual soil in which their better natures might some fine day find succor.  I think that`s all for the best.

Edited September 28, 2018 by liminal_luke

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

 

If I were a more spiritually evolved person all the jalpa (is that the right term?) might not bother me, but I kinda hate the whole business of debate between people who are trying to prove each other wrong.  As far as I`m concerned, off-grid could slide into the ocean and we`d be all the better for it.  Ideological arguments about golden flowers and all kinds of origination (dependent, independent, codependent) and the fine points of whether the universe is a bunch of things or just one thing -- sorry, I`ve no use for any of it.  

 

But that`s just me.  In my saner moments, I`m glad we don`t have rules of discourse here.  People post according to their natures, and requiring rules won`t substantially change anything.  Combative folks will post argumentative diatribes maintaining that their views are right and everyone else is an idiot; they literally can`t help themselves.  We can`t mandate maturity.

 

If we want to welcome people of all different levels of spiritual and emotional development -- and I think we do -- we`ll just have to accept the variety of posts that correspond to those levels of spiritual and emotional development.  It`s true that there are certain minimum standards that won`t be tolerated: I can`t physically another member, for instance.  But mostly we`re a come as you are kind of forum.  People don`t have to arrive here all practiced and full of acceptance and love; they can stagger through the door full of hateful baggage and spewing darkness and we mostly take them in anyway.  Their posts will contain ad hominem attacks and questionable facts -- how could they not?  And still we give them shelter.  We tell them their contributions and views are as worthy of consideration as any other.  We let them write and gnash their teeth all the while providing spiritual soil in which their better natures might someday find succor.  I think that`s all for the best.

 

Well said. Thanks.  

[dwai]

42 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Civil agreements with each person's subjective view of which discussions fall under jalpa and vitanda?  Is it practical or possible?  

Not everything can be subjective  

Sometimes we have to be objective with facts...

[s1va]

26 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not everything can be subjective  

Sometimes we have to be objective with facts...

 

For the "we" to make sense, everyone or the majority should be in agreement with your rules.

[s1va]

This forum generously affords the members personal practice area (PPD).  You can set your rules and enforce them there right away and no one here would say a thing.  Those who agree with you can participate there in enforcing these rules.

 

It becomes an issue only when someone tries to impose their ideas and rules with other members in the general areas of the forum.  As Karen and I keep pointing out, this is against the spirit of the forum rules as we understand and interpret them.

[Kar3n]

31 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not everything can be subjective  

Sometimes we have to be objective with facts...

Even some facts are subjective.

 

To expect or insist that folks take on your view of "facts" or present their view the way you would closes a lot of doors.

[dawei]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

If I were a more spiritually evolved person all the jalpa (is that the right term?) might not bother me, but I kinda hate the whole business of debate between people who are trying to prove each other wrong.  As far as I`m concerned, off-grid could slide into the ocean and we`d be all the better for it.  Ideological arguments about golden flowers and all kinds of origination (dependent, independent, codependent) and the fine points of whether the universe is a bunch of things or just one thing -- sorry, I`ve no use for any of it.  

 

But that`s just me.  In my saner moments, I`m glad we don`t have rules of discourse here.  People post according to their natures, and requiring rules won`t substantially change anything.  Combative folks will post argumentative diatribes maintaining that their views are right and everyone else is an idiot; they literally can`t help themselves.  We can`t mandate maturity.

 

If we want to welcome people of all different levels of spiritual and emotional development -- and I think we do -- we`ll just have to accept the variety of posts that correspond to those levels of spiritual and emotional development.  It`s true that there are certain minimum standards that will be enforced: I can`t physically threaten another member, for instance.  But mostly we`re a come as you are kind of forum.  People don`t have to arrive here all practiced and full of acceptance and love; they can stagger through the door full of hateful baggage and spewing darkness and we mostly take them in anyway.  Their posts will contain ad hominem attacks and questionable facts -- how could they not?  And still we give them shelter.  We tell them their contributions and views are as worthy of consideration as any other.  We let them write and gnash their teeth and all the while the more enlightened among us provide spiritual soil in which their better natures might some fine day find succor.  I think that`s all for the best.

 

That was incredibly thoughtful and kind of soul-searching, if I read your words right.  You have really summed up how the owner and staff are guided by the rules and a human heart.   As staff, we, over many years, have talked about many of these issues including how inclusive (ie: shelter) and exclusive (ie: you asked something along this line in another thread).   There is a base or foundation that we need to stand upon. 

 

Among staff, there has been over this year talk about how some members seem to skirt the rules, residing on the fringe with keeping a foot inside the rules so as to not overstep it, yet always pushing on that boundary.   Some are more crass and some are more subtle.   It is an element that arose among staff which we are weighing, which we have dubbed 'good will' for now.

 

Why are such things so difficult to decide on , and membership decisions ?   Much to what you share; we want inclusion but it does come with a boundary of acceptance of what we could say is a good will towards the way you treat others and participate in threads.   We don't want folks to simply agree, although that is nice to see it, there should be the ability to argue your point of view without disrespecting a member or their tradition or belief.  

 

I am personally really hesitant to adding more rules.  I don't mind us clarifying what the rules and staff expect but I really would like to wake up without a Report or Complaint in PM.   However, we (staff) cannot really have a feeling to ignore some issue although one gets used to knowing very quickly what is an issue to discuss with a decision or put aside. 

 

One thing I've seen over the years was a decline in Reports which I interpreted as veteran members realizing that very few Reports have any action anyways, so they just are more selective to Report stuff.   On the other hand, we see lots of new members who will be unfamiliar with the "TDB Way" and so we get some Reports.   

 

To try to bring this back to topic at least, I think it raised an interesting topic of discussion that weighs on some of the issues I mentioned.  

[Marblehead]

In my house all the doors are open.  The only time one is closed is when someone is using the bathroom.

 

I have no problem with going off topic if something someone has said inspires a thought in my mind.

 

I even visit the Hindu and Buddhist sub-forums just to see if there has been anything said that will allow me to go off topic.

 

I have been put on "Ignore" before.  Didn't bother me.  I learned how to be ignored when I was married.

 

 

[dawei]

Just now, Marblehead said:

In my house all the doors are open.  The only time one is closed is when someone is using the bathroom.

 

In my house, bathroom doors are left open even when used... well, it seems visitors like to close them...   just so you know in case you ever visit 

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

In my house, bathroom doors are left open even when used... well, it seems visitors like to close them...   just so you know in case you ever visit 

Yeah, I really should visit.  not necessarily to your home but some place in your town.  We aren't all the far apart.

 

But yeah, just you and your wife, no reason to close the doors.

 

 

[dawei]

@Dwai:   if you want this in General, I can move it... but it will disappear within days of no posting.    Here, the staff realized it has value however it has posted.   It is easy to see it again. 

 

So applicability vs visibility is actually something I consider.  

[liminal_luke]

4 hours ago, dawei said:

 

Among staff, there has been over this year talk about how some members seem to skirt the rules, residing on the fringe with keeping a foot inside the rules so as to not overstep it, yet always pushing on that boundary.   Some are more crass and some are more subtle.   It is an element that arose among staff which we are weighing, which we have dubbed 'good will' for now.

 

 

Thanks Dawei. 

 

Aren`t intelligent misanthropes just the worst?  I`d much rather deal with an emotionally impulsive person who makes blatantly insulting comments than a shrewd -- but no less insulting -- Bum who manages to get digs in while hewing scrupulously to the letter of the law. I don`t pretend to have the answers but I`d be inclined to give those who are metaphorically shooting at bottles in the backyard second chances while kicking out the cold-blooded sharpshooting assassins. 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by liminal_luke

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

If we want to welcome people of all different levels of spiritual and emotional development -- and I think we do -- we`ll just have to accept the variety of posts that correspond to those levels of spiritual and emotional development.  It`s true that there are certain minimum standards that will be enforced: I can`t physically threaten another member, for instance.  But mostly we`re a come as you are kind of forum.  People don`t have to arrive here all practiced and full of acceptance and love; they can stagger through the door full of hateful baggage and spewing darkness and we mostly take them in anyway.  Their posts will contain ad hominem attacks and questionable facts -- how could they not?  And still we give them shelter.  We tell them their contributions and views are as worthy of consideration as any other.  We let them write and gnash their teeth and all the while the more enlightened among us provide spiritual soil in which their better natures might some fine day find succor.  I think that`s all for the best.

 

This is beautiful, thank you!

[dawei]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Thanks Dawei. 

 

Aren`t intelligent misanthropes just the worst?  I`d much rather deal with an emotionally impulsive person who makes blatantly insulting comments than a shrewd -- but no less insulting -- Bum who manages to get digs in while hewing scrupulously to the letter of the law. I don`t pretend to have the answers but I`d be inclined to give those who are metaphorically shooting at bottles in the backyard second chances while kicking out the cold-blooded sharpshooting assassins. 

 

 

 

Once again, you have the insight of what staff faces and contemplates, but of course there is a personal opinion that has to be guided by the forum rules; that is heart and rules idea.

 

As staff, I hope, we try to let a person express themselves as who they are, without restriction.... aka: one of the ten thousand arising... but even dust and dirt gets in our eyes ! LOL    So we will ultimately judge such dirt on some level.

 

If I read your post rightly, you feel straight shooters are better than wild shooters.  I truly get that, but  I still don't think it is that easy. 

 

While I may personally like someone to be more direct (straight) over another wildling...  I just view both for who they are, as this is their basic foundation of their self and we should accept that.   I just view whether it is someone who upholds the rules and expectations, not like an accounting ledger but on a basic sense.   

 

There have been times when we allowed someone back against all odds... hoping for the best, well better outcome, and it resulted in a second removal.  We want to let folks have a second or third chance.  I did read your comments about whether we are a sanctuary.   At one point, I thought that was a useful idea but found in practice, such folks who require it, require some help beyond a forum in most cases.  I don't want to play psychologist or read tea leaves... but over time, you can tell something about a member the more you remove yourself from personal judgments and decisions. 

 

Everyone should have every benefit of the doubt till doubt tells you it is not working out.    In most cases, the rules have been violated and easy to identify why you remove them.  IN other cases, it is a very gray area where, as admin, I need to own the reason internally as to why I've removed them.   That reason may not always come out so clearly or understood within the review of posts, but the last resort is whether it is really in the best interest of the forum.   I can recall a few people I truly wish were back here and posting.  That helps to balance a rash decision to remove someone.  

[liminal_luke]

I`m guessing it`s a lot more fun to discuss moderation decisions from the outside than to make them.  My respect to the brave men and women who put themselves in the line of (critical) fire so that this forum can run as well as it does.  While I don`t always agree with every decision made, I believe that staff and moderators act in good faith and with the best possible intentions.  Seems to me it`s the rare individual who can comfortably moderate over the long haul.  In my own estimation, I`d make a poor moderator:  I have the brains for the job but not the stomach.  Kudos to those who have both.

Edited September 29, 2018 by liminal_luke

[dawei]

12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I`m guessing it`s a lot more fun to discuss moderation decisions from the outside than to make them.  My respect to the brave men and women who put themselves in the line of (critical) fire so that this forum can run as well as it does.  While I don`t always agree with every decision made, I believe that staff and moderators act in good faith and with the best possible intentions.  Seems to me it`s the rare individual who can comfortably moderate over the long haul.  In my own estimation, I`d make a poor moderator:  I have the brains for the job but not the stomach.  Kudos to those who have both.

 

I think that is a very fair assessment from the outside.  Your stomach might turn twice from the inside.

 

We don't claim to be perfect in everyone's eyes but trying to uphold the forum sensibilities. 

 

This reminds of T.S. Eliot on the sensibilities of the Metaphysical Poets, prominent is John Donne.   I have too many books on them.

[Everything]

Well, I guess vitanda has a purpose and place in this human story of who it is we really are. For you would rather wanna fight as a human and die as a poopy. Then be a poopy, and not die at all. As some like to say, the greatest hell is the one you don't even know you're in.

And again, I'm not judging poopy. I'm just saying. You wanna be more than a poopy you know? You wanna be a poopy who's absolutely loved for all that you are! Not constantly flushed around and about all of the time. But there's great fun in that aswell. Here I go! Weeeeeeeeeeee!!! .......

Remember meeeeeee!! ... eee... ee..

*blup*

Edited September 29, 2018 by Everything