Message Boards Message Boards

The DhO Itself

Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?

Toggle
Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?


Okay, my questions are this.

When someone posts a topic, what is wrong with someone presenting an opposing viewpoint?

So for example , from recent posts, Magick and Drugs, and Buddhism.

People offer opposing views to all of the above, and so what?  Is not that part of a discussion?

Or, if someone initiates a topic are opposing views like a taboo?

What if there are known and experienced dangers and known or experienced dead ends, should not one communicate this to the group, in the discussion?  

What of opposite, genuine success with some practice of whatever name or belief system?

What if there are only supposed and speculated dangers and dead ends, can these be discussed?

What if there are only supposed and speculated success with this or that practice, can that be discussed?

Why is it that people seem to be okay with talking about non Sutta topics, but when someone talks about Suttas, it is like people are forced to eat worms or something.

So, what is it, what can we discuss and how? Personally, I am fine with whatever, but am also fine with any criticism of any views or ideas that I may project.

I am just curious, are there any hidden taboos , or open protocols that anyone here should know about?

My vote is, If ya say something , ya gotta back it up.

Would this post be better placed on the Battleground?

Psi

 




 

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/2/15 10:26 PM as a reply to Psi.
I think there should be a rough heuristic for two types of threads: collaborative and inquiry threads.

A collaborative thread is where someone has a particular goal in mind, say generating a particular state of mind, and people collaborate in service of understanding and working with this goal. People who do not share this goal should invest themselves elsewhere.

An inquiry based thread is where there is some basis of searching more theoretically. Consider it more theoretical than tangible. This type of thread is likely to build contention because the demographics are mixed up all over this site. For example, I think magic is worth discussing, traditionalists and materialists do not. If I made a thread asking if magic was real, I'd expect 70-80% of this board to say: No, study science, or, magic is bad because of Karma. Or some permutation of those two.

The obvious objection is that these aren't black and white, but that's where common sense comes in and guesses are made to post or not to post.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/2/15 11:04 PM as a reply to Psi.
I recently came to experience that your thread can be locked out if you are critical of DhO itself and no reason would be provided. If you try to find out who locked it out, there is no answer for that either. Talk about DhO dictatorship!

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/2/15 11:23 PM as a reply to Change A..
The DhO is not a democracy. In fact, Ingram owns the overwhelming amount of power not simply because he owns it, but he also shapes the vast, vast amount of discourse of how meditation and awakening is discussed.  To be platitudinous, this is both good and bad, and that's how it is. The amount of information offered by the DhO in net total is absolutely fucking staggering. It is one of the true gems of the internet, even if you don't agree with the notion it isn't a democracy.

Lastly, I have made objections and disagreed at every level to this site: how it is run, the maps, stages, discourse, and so on and not a single one of those posts has ever been deleted. Thus, it is quite possible to disagree and not be censored. It is absolutely in how one asks that is the cause of deleted posts, not the questioning itself.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/3/15 8:49 AM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan J:
I think there should be a rough heuristic for two types of threads: collaborative and inquiry threads.
Hi Ryan, your language skills exceed my own, I even looked up heuristic and do not really get exact meaning in your context, i.e. many definitions. Help!
A collaborative thread is where someone has a particular goal in mind, say generating a particular state of mind, and people collaborate in service of understanding and working with this goal. People who do not share this goal should invest themselves elsewhere.
So, for example, if someone wanted to contact Higher Angels, whether in reality the phenomenon bein our own minds, a cosmic conscious wavelength, or an externally existing entity, the collaborative thread would discuss techniques and methods about how to do so? 

Then,, if someone wanted to oppose the very practice of contacting HGA, they should open a new parallel post to express their speculations and , or practical experiences?  So two Original Posts would look something like this

OP number 1  Original Post
Methods and techniques to contact HGA.

OP number 2  Parallel Opposition Post
Dangers and pitfalls of sideways paths, like contacting HGA
An inquiry based thread is where there is some basis of searching more theoretically. Consider it more theoretical than tangible. This type of thread is likely to build contention because the demographics are mixed up all over this site. For example, I think magic is worth discussing, traditionalists and materialists do not. If I made a thread asking if magic was real, I'd expect 70-80% of this board to say: No, study science, or, magic is bad because of Karma. Or some permutation of those two.
So, if I read you right an Inquiry based thread would invite all forms of discussion, debate could go back and forth, and it is a defend your ideas and methods, sink or swim type of post?





The obvious objection is that these aren't black and white, but that's where common sense comes in and guesses are made to post or not to post.
And, I am getting a strong sense of deja vu right now....lol,  but seriously  This must have been done before

Psi

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/3/15 10:12 AM as a reply to Psi.
Basically, a heuristic is a rule of thumb, informal, not clear, intuitive, gray, etc. I used the word to capture the sense that it's not easy to tell the difference between those two types of threads necessarily. This is contrasted to some sort of clear rule, law, cookie-cutter black and white situation where there is no ambiguity.

On the topic of the HGA since it's so contentious, Alan Chapman, Duncan Barford, and Ona Kiser all had great success with it in support of the type of awakening described here, and that's simply the names I know. There is good reason to believe it works for people, even if others don't seem to think it does. They appear to be extremely highly realized by this forums standards and mature. Hermetically Sealed posited perhaps the clearest counter argument, although I find it brings in many assumptions about 'Cosmic Forces' that I believe should be approached from a sense of groundless-ness, in that, the realm of magic works according to how one was culturally programmed to think it does. That's a problem, because two people could argue about magic working differently and they'd be right.

Magic has been a part of every culture in every time period in every religious tradition except in this culture. Metta is magic.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/3/15 12:09 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan J:
The DhO is not a democracy. In fact, Ingram owns the overwhelming amount of power not simply because he owns it, but he also shapes the vast, vast amount of discourse of how meditation and awakening is discussed.  To be platitudinous, this is both good and bad, and that's how it is. The amount of information offered by the DhO in net total is absolutely fucking staggering. It is one of the true gems of the internet, even if you don't agree with the notion it isn't a democracy.

Lastly, I have made objections and disagreed at every level to this site: how it is run, the maps, stages, discourse, and so on and not a single one of those posts has ever been deleted. Thus, it is quite possible to disagree and not be censored. It is absolutely in how one asks that is the cause of deleted posts, not the questioning itself.
I don't know of any large long running public message board that was able to remain civil and topical under pure democracy.  If anyone knows of one, then please let me know, I'd be very curious.  But from what I've seen, there are too many trolls and troll feeders out there.  Humans aren't civilized enough to keep it together well without rules and rule enforcers.  Someone has to make decisions about when posts become more of an attack instead of a discourse.  But the wonderful thing about internet is anyone who thinks they can do it better can do so cheaply.  There are many low cost board software options.  If people don't like this board, they are free to go out and try to do it better.  I don't alway agree with every little thing around here myself, but there is no human that I always agree with, if there was a such a person, seems to me that either they would be my duplicate or I would be their mindless follower.   The board operates more smoothly than most, but it will never be able to make everyone happy all of the time, no board or human has that ability.  Every board has it's share of irritated people complaining that the board is not fair and no good, but yet for some reason do not want to leave either.
-Eva     

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/3/15 4:04 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?




Okay, now my intentions for asking about Original Posts and responses to them.

Because, I do not want to be a pain in the ass.  I have views and ideas and sometimes,  I think I may be posting incorrectly and irritating people and/or leading posts off topic.  It actually seems impossible to have a post stay completely on topic as there are so many side considerations and so many topics, and we can not open a topic every single time, there would be an endless number of topics. 

So, I just want to try and make sure I am not being too bothersome.

And, because, I really do not see any problems when anyone posts this or that about this or that, to me it is just words.  I actually like seeing both sides of the coins.  Which is why I am asking all this, because I must have a Blind Spot.  And if I have I Blind Spot, I want to make sure I am just not tromping through and disrepecting this site or anyone here.

So, this post is really kind of a selfish post, sorry.

In the past, I would maybe just be quieter, but for....

Samvega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/4/15 7:58 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Psi:
Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?



Okay, I probably really flubbed the title of this thread, it could be taken a couple of ways, ways that were not my intention.  
Background, this is the second board I have ever posted on, so I have lack of experience in posting ettiquette.  And I was unsure whether opposing views and such were really correct and if whether I was doing anything wrong or not.  I found some links and suggestions below that may help my posting in the future, and I will share , in case anyone else is in a similar situation.  I did not know but it seems Disscussion boards are even taught in classrooms now, guess I am getting old...
  • Make sure your post is readable: Before submitting, read it aloud to make sure it makes sense.
  • Don’t use shortcuts: Forget about using “ur” in place of your – now is not the time to show off your quick texting skills.
  • Check spelling/grammar: Use proper grammar & use spell check.
  • Ensure a positive, academic tone: Read aloud your post to make sure your tone is friendly and not childish or criticizing.
  • Humor will not help: Now is not the time to add humor. University of Wisconsin-Stout suggests in its online discussion board etiquette that humor can be difficult to convey in text, so make sure everyone realizes when you are trying to be funny. It’s easy for messages to be misinterpreted since there are no physical gestures or voice inflections that accompany the text.
  • Cite references: If you are taking material from a text, cite it. Remember to use quotation marks and a page number when citing a direct quote.
http://edgab.com/posting-to-discussion-boards/



  • Substantial: Messages should relate to the subject matter and provide information, opinions or questions about that subject matter.
  • Concise: Studies have shown that messages that are several screens long do not get many replies. The point of your message should be clear.
  • Provocative: A good message is one that prompts others to reply or object.
  • Explanatory: A good message explores, explains, or expands on a concept or connection.
  • Timely: A good member of the learning community gets on regularly and replies to messages in a timely fashion.
  • Logical: A good message should contain a clearly stated conclusion of thesis supported by premises, reason, evidence or grounds of belief.
  • Grammatical: A good, clear, concise message should be well written and free of typos and sentence fragments.

http://www.designingforlearning.info/services/writing/ecoach/tips/tip33.html



1. Read the forums rules and guidelines before posting for the first time.
2. Search the other posts to see if your topic is already covered.
3. Use a meaningful title for your thread.
4. Do not use a forum to promote your product, service or business.
5. Be civil. Personal differences should be handled through email or IM and not through posts displayed to everyone.
6. Stay on topic.
7. Ignore spammers, respond to them personally and not through the board, or report them.
8. Do not submit a post that requires readers to download a large attachment. Either explain the attachment or, better yet, provide a link to the information.
9. Use plain text over HTML if you want your post to be readable by everyone.
10. In order to be understood by most people, use correct spelling, grammar and avoid slang unless you know the word or phrase will be understood by other members.
11. Do not double post (post the same message twice in one thread) or cross post (place the same message across several forums).
12. Act in a give and take manner; help others as often as or more than you ask for help.
13. Do not use all caps or SHOUT in your posts. In addition, one exclamation point is enough.
14. When replying to a post, do not quote more from the previous post than you have to.
15. Do not post new problems on someone else's thread and interrupt a topic of discussion.
16. Do not use someone else’s thread for a private conversation.
17. Most forums prohibit warez, cracks or illegal downloading of software and similar topics.
18. Watch your sense of humor, posts may be read by people from a variety of backgrounds and ages.
19. Do not use a huge and annoying signature, a modest signature is fine, moderators may remove large ones anyway.
20. Do not post any information that you want private. Posts should not contain personal, identifiable information or content embarrassing to others.
21. Do not post content that violates a copyright.
22. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.
23. Write concisely and do not ramble.
24. Do not use words like ”urgent” or ”important” in your subject line, be patient.
25. Do not chastise newbies
.

http://forum-services-review.toptenreviews.com/25-forum-posting-etiquette-tips.html


I like this one, 

  • Provocative: A good message is one that prompts others to reply or object.
I was not sure if it was really okay to object to things or not, and when objections are raised I am sure there is a right time, place, and demeanor for doing so.

We can not always expect agreement, and this is how we learn new things. I also now know not to use All Caps, it is considered yelling, as was pointed out to me here one time, oops!!  Humor is hardly ever conveyed well, and usually misunderstood or taken wrongly, as tone , gestures, and inflections are not present, oops!!

So the title to this thread that is closer to my intention would better be,

Original Posts, Is it okay to raise objections to statements in other's threads? And if it isn't , when is it okay? And again if it isn't , why isn't it okay?

 Practice logs maybe being a separate issue.

Ayway, thanks for everyones patience.  emoticon

Psi


RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/4/15 12:27 PM as a reply to Psi.
Original Posts, Is it okay to raise objections to statements in other's threads? And if it isn't , when is it okay? And again if it isn't , why isn't it okay?

I think it would help if people acknowledge what they are doing.  Even a simple statement like, "I realize that I am not directly addressing your question, but the thing that was called up prominently when I read your OP was..... [insert theory-based objections here]."  

To use Ryan's excellent distinctions, if one is going off on an 'inquiry'-based tangent on an otherwise 'collaborative' thread, then just saying so might help.

Also, I think its really annoying when people can't admit they are wrong or could possibly be wrong.  A lot of posters here speak with an over-exaggerated sense of certainty

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/4/15 12:36 PM as a reply to Noah.
I agree Noah.
I really like the idea of practical vs. theoretical threads or however you want to phrase it. I think if someone is posting about a certain practice, their experiences with it, things they hope to accomplish with it, how to optimize it, things like that-- then respondants should be responding in supportive ways, not denigrating that practice or starting debates about the value of that practice. People should be able to come here and get support with their practice, that's the primary thing.

No one is stopping someone from posting a parrallel thread about negatives about the said practice.

The exception in this example would be a poster who has personal experience with said practice and has negative feedback about the practice or warnings about its dangers-- that could definitely have a place in the OP's thread.

i think a little more self awareness on all of our parts about how we respond and whether we do so in the OP's thread or in a parallel thread would go a long way to making this an even more supportive-of-practice community.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/4/15 12:38 PM as a reply to Psi.
@ Psi, thanks for your thoughts and reflections. I find them valuable and relevant as ever.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/5/15 3:52 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
Ian And makes a distinction between 1st person, 2nd person & 3rd person knowledge. As I understand it 1st person is personal experience. 2nd person is communication with someone claiming a 1st person experience. 3rd person is based on communication with someone about their 2nd or 3rd person communications.

For example an author of a book who is quoting studies by other people would be presenting, at best, 2nd person knowledge which becomes 3rd person when you read it. Reading the studies could count as 2nd person knowledge. 

If someone is writing about 1st person experience then uninvited comments could be kept to 1st person experiences.

If someone is writing about 2nd person knowledge then it would be nice to match that with 1st or 2nd person knowledge.

Often there is a debate established by taking two opposed views. I doubt this is ever very useful. So for example X says Y is good, Z says Y is bad. The thread will often turn into projections of X onto Z and Z onto X. This does say a lot about the projections of X and Z but often not much about Y.

Another approach would be for Z to clarify what X means and get to a point where Z can take on enough of X's assumptions to see Y is good. Then Z actually understands X and can highlight the single most important erroneous assumption by X in regards to Y. Ideally X would then either question their assumption or add information to explain why it is a valid assumption.

When I've tried that strategy it seemed to annoy X so by no means an ultimate answer!

One of the best groups I've learnt and shared with was based on what they called gestalt communication principles. Basically you could only talk from 1st perosn and you were not allowed to suggest what the other person should do/think. It was amazing how constructuve and valuable the conversations were. There were some other rules too but I think they were secondary. 

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/5/15 7:37 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:


One of the best groups I've learnt and shared with was based on what they called gestalt communication principles. Basically you could only talk from 1st perosn and you were not allowed to suggest what the other person should do/think. It was amazing how constructuve and valuable the conversations were. There were some other rules too but I think they were secondary. 


This sounds neat.
My instinct says we could all do better at trying to keep things to first person in life in general ;) I think this is what my mother was trying to teach me when she encouraged me as a child to "use i statements, not you statements..." hahaha. It's really true though. It's the difference between projecting our stuff onto others (you statements) and owning our own thoughts and feelings (I statements). If I say "I worry that practicing that way could be detrimental or lead to spiritual bypassing" that is very different from saying "you are spiritually bypassing!" for instance. The latter statement will lead to a whole 2nd and 3rd person debate while the former can bmore easily be responded to much more intimately and directly, experientially, without resort to intellectualization.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/5/15 9:16 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
. Jake .:
Mark:


One of the best groups I've learnt and shared with was based on what they called gestalt communication principles. Basically you could only talk from 1st perosn and you were not allowed to suggest what the other person should do/think. It was amazing how constructuve and valuable the conversations were. There were some other rules too but I think they were secondary. 


This sounds neat.
My instinct says we could all do better at trying to keep things to first person in life in general ;) I think this is what my mother was trying to teach me when she encouraged me as a child to "use i statements, not you statements..." hahaha. It's really true though. It's the difference between projecting our stuff onto others (you statements) and owning our own thoughts and feelings (I statements). If I say "I worry that practicing that way could be detrimental or lead to spiritual bypassing" that is very different from saying "you are spiritually bypassing!" for instance. The latter statement will lead to a whole 2nd and 3rd person debate while the former can bmore easily be responded to much more intimately and directly, experientially, without resort to intellectualization.
Hi Jake,

Not using 'you' was one of the rules (unless asking a clarifying question). Bascially everyone in the group was responsible for interrupting if it happened but there was even one person nominated as a sort of "gestalt police".

There is a more subtle point in the example you gave. Neither statement would have been acceptable in the group I mentioned because they aren't spoken from 1st person experience. So you might say for example "when I was practising using style X it took several years before I realized I was avoiding issue Y, turns out that is spiritual bypassing". I think this has an effect of putting my experience front and center so I'm in a vulnerable situation so you are not going to feel threatened. Even if X is not the same practise style it may lead to relevant questions, so the person decides if they want to explore my experience further. The conversations tended to get very intimate because there was no judgement.

RE: Original Posts and What can or can not be questioned?
Answer
6/5/15 12:42 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
There is a more subtle point in the example you gave. Neither statement would have been acceptable in the group I mentioned because they aren't spoken from 1st person experience.

Jake:
Totally! I think the difference my examples point to is between a case wherein there is a naive conflation of personal experience and/or biases with perception ("YOU are...") on the one hand and a case wherein there is at least potentially self-awareness of those biases ("I worry (I feel...) ...").

That sounds like an interesting group. It's amazing how collectively enacting certain rules for interacting and languaging can have profound affects on consciousness and behavior, such as your experience of greater intimacy. It makes me wonder what might be possible through such experiments.