KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

i support this with. 

awareness

Last edited by awareness (2012-06-14 15:55:22)

natura wrote:

Hi RJ, awareness,

Sounds pretty good for start. It promise to give to the forum a real status as a spiritual institution.

I’m not sure, however, that the forum is that much worth for the organization because of expenses.

I am sure you are right about that, however it is worth a lot to me, I came here for companionship along the way and have found the company to be true.

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

It seems to me RJ you are looking at this from your perspective of spirituality.Your perspective of the manner in which a site dedicated to a religious philosophy should operate.

What is spirituality then? Is social service spirituality? Partly may be, but is it only that? Is it to try to transform a criminal if you come across one? Then you spend a lot of time & the person might not be interested.

Or is spirituality to transform man? The basic nature of man?To me yes. Then do you not begin with a few who are interested? And simply move away from those who are not interested? Is it not an ideal to think that if it's spiritual work you must try to tranform anybody coming your way? Is not using your intelligence & acting to do what is possible without impediments what is necessary?All may not be interested, there may be those who have other agendas like considering something else to be religious & wanting to disrupt.There may be simply those who are corrupt.Is a terrorist going to listen to this?Can you have a terrorist in a K school? Will that not be to be entrenched in an idealistic dogma as to the conduct & management of a spiritual place & thereby ruining what is possible? So what is the spiritual action? Is it not to begin with a few who are intersted?

So certain action may be necessary under certain special circumstances which may appear to be incompatible to  the view of the normal traditional bourgeois spiritualist.Please note that after K disbanded the 'Order of the Star' he went passing the TS compund for walks without stepping on the TS premises for 50 years!! He is also supposed to have said that had he known Rajagopal was still a member of the TS, he wouldn't have worked with him! Hatred? Incompatible? To me, no. He saw & he wanted to do the work he saw as necessary & went about it the way maximum could be done without wasting time in conflict.

Let me quote K:

   .........no person can judge with certitude whether the acts of another do or do not have integrity, and that the desire for consistency between the teacher & the teachings simply mirrors the conditioning of the questioner.

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-06-15 00:08:28)

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

either/or scenarios are fairly dualistic, eden...you sure those are the only two possibilities?

natura wrote:

jeff law wrote:

...if...i'd have 7 husbands...

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

you know nothing about me except your own projections.

anyways, rj, i'am certain that you're way too sensitive and far intelligent to fall for the kind of bs written by e hassett and others.keep up the great work rj.

jeff law wrote:

e hassett doesn't talk about the bullies of the forum participants like "everyone", "jayaraj" and "joe" who repeatedly pursue and attack participants making way for conflict and the name calling and lies they themselves indulge in and accuse others of continuously. i've noticed they pursue pearl even when she's not talking to them repeatedly. isn'that a personal attack?  what about the groupism that is allowed to flourish, groups who have nothing in common but animosity, hatred towards those who challenge them. one thing is clear though the moderator is prejudiced and he knew he wanted to bann pearl from the day one and his allegations against her are totally a personal attack and what he's saying here makes no sense in reply to rj. i'm sure he like many other cowardly people who fill this forum is threatened by her presence and so the banning.but the fact remains that he is a hypocrite with no enough evidence but his own personal fear and personal judgement. he needs to feel powerful and he knows pearl knows things about him like no onelse and it's better for him that she is banned so he can feel safe with other infalted egos like "everyone", "jayaraj", "joes". shame on you fellows for attacking a woman, banning her for your own sense of feeling powerful. you're all nothing but thugs and cowards with no integrity,honesty to face yourselves and you'd go to any lenghts to save your your ugly faces.the worst of mankind and pearl brings it out of you and exposes you like no other however much you want to hide and justify the violence, brutality,ugliness that is you.

I've read some of your posts & am of the view that it's futile to answer your posts.Apparetly you see things totally differently.

Yes, I addressed Pearl several times when she was not talking to me. I did that when I thought she was bullying and humilating some one else just to show that there are those who don't accept those comments.

The other two participants you have mentioned-Joe & everyone, don't attack anybody as I understand their posts. But they state what they see as true. It is a distortion to say those are personal attacks.And what are these lies you are talking about? Lies about what? Except Pearl's baseless allegation of other's what are the lies we read here?

It is Pearl who launched a personal attack against Eric  for no reason at all when he began his work peacefully, not the other way round. Please read the posts.

I just clarified one or two things.However I won't get drawn into an argument over this.You see or wish to see differently.

Last edited by Jayaraj (2012-06-16 12:57:14)

jeff law wrote:

anyways, rj, i'am certain that you're way too sensitive and far intelligent to fall for the kind of bs written by e hassett and others.keep up the great work rj.

I question that, Sir. RJ has shown over and over that he likes to make assumptions, jump to conclusions about others, puts others down, lacks sensitivity and intelligence....

i rate him a poor moderator, a realy poorer humanbeing as long as he continues this way..very poor understanding of K.now feel free to disagree.you have all the right to.but don't come to war with me.i'm not a warmonger.

good.there is nothing more to add to this seeing clearly now what a coward he is.goodluck with everything,sds.wishing you well and it is true.much love to you too.t's a fabulous noon and one sexy one

night wrote:

joe wrote:

either/or scenarios are fairly dualistic, eden...you sure those are the only two possibilities?

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.