KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

night wrote:

joe wrote:

night wrote:

Well you can't dance if you have a broken leg, can you?

Who have you been talking to?  Life is always dancing night.  I guess you were trying to use analogy here though, so ok I take your point.  I am still fairly sure that there are more than two potentials though.

Of course I agree, there are many levels of health/readiness/traumas/etc. It is a question of what is bearable and what is not, which depends on many individual factors. It's easy to speak of it as two levels here, for the sake of the discussion, but it is really a continuum. Another way to put it is if a being is traumatized, then my play will feel like abuse to him/her.

yes, that much is clear..'victim consciousness' is strong.  Another point though is that what one conceives of as play may just be what their mind has decided on as a self image.  Surely you are not so naive as to think it is all play, are you?

natura wrote:

jeff law wrote:

natura wrote:

It looks like with your temperament it wouldn’t be yet enough for you

you know nothing about me except your own projections.

was just a joke, of course

anyhow, I know a lot about you; more then you think I do

if you think so.

ehassett wrote:

RJ wrote:

An open letter:

Dear Eric and Tom, KFA forum moderators.
please consider the following suggestions

1) Membership, how to stop the spam
Deactivate automatic subscription. To practically eliminate spammers overnight invite prospective members to write a note as to why they wish to join, or how they know about K, or anything. The question is unimportant, the answer is irrelevant, there are no wrong answers. Once a week check to see if there are any genuine applications, let them in. If they had to wait a while, good, send them a welcome note.


2) Conflicts, how to help them
Arbitration is a delicate, wonderful art. To not take a side but to help two people hear each others points of view is one of the great ways a wise person can help others on their way. Personally I care too much for my own opinions to be any good at this but if you can do it, marvellous. The approach of trying to stop or interfere in others conflicts because you disapprove of them is spiritually bankrupt and nothing but fear in action.


3) Suspension and Banning
If someone transgresses the (yet to be clearly explained) codes of conduct they are given a first public warning which explains (through quoting) exactly what was their sin.
If they repeat the offense they are given a second public warning, again openly and clearly.
If there is a third offense then the threats of the first two warnings are carried out and they are suspended for an openly specified number of days or weeks.
When they are allowed to post again the slate is wiped clean and the process must begin again as if the first suspension had never happened. Two warnings before the act of suspension, everything open at all times.

At no time is banning ever introduced, you use the word suspended under their names, even if you think someone is so terrible that you want to impose a long sentence, there is no capital punishment, ever. That is an unforgiveable violence from one human against another.

Thank you for giving your time and attention to this and I look forward to your considered reply.
RJ

Thanks, RJ, for offering these suggestions. Please find my responses below.

1) Membership, how to stop the spam
Deactivate automatic subscription. To practically eliminate spammers overnight invite prospective members to write a note as to why they wish to join, or how they know about K, or anything. The question is unimportant, the answer is irrelevant, there are no wrong answers. Once a week check to see if there are any genuine applications, let them in. If they had to wait a while, good, send them a welcome note.

This is an interesting suggestion, and one that hadn't occurred to me. Not sure how well it would work in practice, but it's certainly an option. At the moment, the spam problem seems to be fairly easily handled by a two step process of first blocking access to the spammers, then deleting their spam. Seems like this at least has the effect of slowing them down, even if it fails to stop them altogether.

2) Conflicts, how to help them
Arbitration is a delicate, wonderful art. To not take a side but to help two people hear each others points of view is one of the great ways a wise person can help others on their way. Personally I care too much for my own opinions to be any good at this but if you can do it, marvellous. The approach of trying to stop or interfere in others conflicts because you disapprove of them is spiritually bankrupt and nothing but fear in action.

Your points on arbitration are very well taken. But in terms of "trying to stop or interfere in others conflicts" being "spiritually bankrupt" and "nothing but fear in action," well, I'm not at all sure I'm with you. If the principle is one of non-interference, I'd say that yes, people deserve a great deal of latitude (freedom) to work through their differences, as well as the various emotions and energies unleashed and attendant upon their clash. Where this might go too far, in the context of this and other forums, is when such conflicts become the norm rather than the exception - because if the shared intention is learning together (and most especially, learning about oneself), then it seems there are situations that somehow reach a level of diminishing returns, with the energies involved producing much heat, but very little if any light. Yet even these moments should be left alone whenever possible, in my view, so that the dynamics can unfold however they must, with the ever-present possibility that something new will come to light (an insight occurs). Now, as I said above, when such conflicts become the norm rather than the exception, that's perhaps an indication they may have gone too far. But where it can really become an issue is when such conflicts morph into the kind of disruptive force that effectively sucks up all of the 'oxygen' in the room (distracting virtually all of the energy of awareness present), but even more importantly and of much greater consequence, is when it actually denies others the freedom so essential for inquiring into themselves and each other and the subject in question, whatever it happens to be.

Now, to give you a better sense of my approach to moderation, let me relate some of my experience moderating the Ning site this past year. First of all, there was just one occasion in which someone was suspended (the site's software uses this term, rather than "banned"), and that was for a total of two days, as I recall. This same individual ultimately left on his own accord some months later, out of his own sense of frustration with the site and its members. I'd actually been interested in seeing if he'd come around to appreciating more of a dialogue approach in his interactions with others, an outcome that wasn't to be, as it turned out. In fact, I'd encouraged him to stay on - to stick it out and "see what happens" - but in the end it was his patience that ran out, not mine, even though almost everyone who interfaced with him experienced perhaps the most coarse, bitter obstinacy I've ever witnessed; far from a dialogue-like approach, it goes without saying. There have been other 'difficult' participants that have come and gone, whom I've honestly tried my best to engage with an open mind and, whenever possible, an attentive heart. In essence, I think just about anything that occurs in life and between people can be placed under the light of awareness, the kind of attention K talks about, but in the context of a forum such a this, there are times when attention seems to have run its course.

3) Suspension and Banning
If someone transgresses the (yet to be clearly explained) codes of conduct they are given a first public warning which explains (through quoting) exactly what was their sin.
If they repeat the offense they are given a second public warning, again openly and clearly.
If there is a third offense then the threats of the first two warnings are carried out and they are suspended for an openly specified number of days or weeks.
When they are allowed to post again the slate is wiped clean and the process must begin again as if the first suspension had never happened. Two warnings before the act of suspension, everything open at all times.

These are good suggestions. I can assure you that I will take them under serious consideration. In fact, believe it or not, they are not far from my own thinking on this matter.

And regarding "this matter" - that is, the matter at hand - I do believe the action taken was commensurate with the imperative that arose. Ample indications were offered, sufficient cautions were relayed, consequences transmitted for all to see - yet apparently to no avail. And while clemency in this instance is possible, it is nonetheless doubtful. The onus here rests squarely on the participant in terms of indicating an awareness and understanding of the site's guidelines, and demonstrating a willingness to abide by them.

At no time is banning ever introduced, you use the word suspended under their names, even if you think someone is so terrible that you want to impose a long sentence, there is no capital punishment, ever. That is an unforgiveable violence from one human against another.

As mentioned above, "banning" is the word of choice for this forum's software, so it is what it is. Regarding "capital punishment": I could be wrong, but it seems that user IDs don't have a pulse.

Thanks again, RJ, for these serious suggestions, and also for not addressing me with a misapplied psychiatric term. It's very refreshing, that. :-)

Eric

Eric, I took some time to digest this and to revise my thinking about you and what you hope to achieve here.
I appreciate your considered and thoughtful response, thank you.

awareness wrote:

aha, ok. it must be then in the other "direction" also. ah, before i forget. this "nosce te ipsum" you can give also the meaning of, let the other think, what they want about you. so this real individal "frequence" makes one special.

As my friend in the past used to say, ‘when I’m silent I can pass for a clever one’.

Seriously. Yes, that sentence ‘nosce te ipsum’ can be interpreted, which means it’s not precisely unambiguous, monosemantic… as any verbal stuff…

and that’s another good reason for practical self-knowledge.