Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00888)

At 07:37 PM 5/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Michelle writes>
>>Firstly this isnt America - its the internet with its own philosphy called
>netiquette.

A.D.: Calling "netiquette" a philosophy is a clear sign of the nature of the
problem. Nit-picking yes, philosophy no.

>
>Richard Ihle writes>
>Firstly, this isn't Theo-Sophia; it's the T.S. with its own philosophy called
>"Theosophy."
>
>--Sorry, off topic. . . .
>
>I think being a schoolmaster so many years has ruined me.  If I don't watch
>myself, I think like a schoolmaster.
>
>An example of this is that many months ago when the serious "interpersonal
>trouble" started appearing on theos-l, I actually considered writing up some
>"class rules" for the list.  No, I have to be honest honest with you, the
>first thing that crossed my mind was that there was a problem with the
>seating chart:  Chuck and Alexis seemed like a bad combination sitting so
>close to each other, so one of them would just have to have his desk changed
>to the opposite side of the room. . . .  Well, even I could see that was
>absurd, so I then turned my attention to developing some class rules.
>
>Fortunately, I caught myself thinking like a schoolmaster in the nick of
>time.  I don't like the idea of a group-adopted "netiquette."  I don't like
>the cute way the word is spelled.  I don't like the way it sounds when you
>say it.  Mostly, I don't like the fact that someone else thinks I might need
>it.

A.D.:I think it's safe to say that "netiquette" is nerd talk, designed by 14
years olds for other 14 year olds.
>
>Is there anyone on this list so stupid that he or she has not already thought
>of everything on Michelle's list for himself or herself?  For example, is it
>possible that some of the participants in the private little board-wide
>conversations do not already realize that the banter may be irritating to
>many others?  Don't they usually weigh this possibility for themselves but
>then decide to post anyway just because another opportunity for verbal
>exhibitionism is just a little too delicious to pass up?

A.D.: Richard did you ever even give a minutes credit to the idea that it
might NOT be "exhibitionism" but sheer bonhomie? If you haven't try to, please.
>
>Such a thing is merely an egoic indulgence.  Egoic indulgence sooner or later
>leads to pain of one sort or another; pain sooner or later leads either to
>Self-correction or the masking of the pain with an even more extreme egoic
>indulgence which sooner or later can, I believe, actually lead to
>Self-erasure:  this is as basic a theosophical "law" as I can formulate.

A.D.: Richard, why do theosophists spend so very much time worrying and
agonizing over OTHER people's egos? In this instance what's "egoic
indulgence" to you may in fact only be "fun and games" to them.
>
>But now netiquette seems to want to send Chuck, Alexis, and possibly Alan out
>into the hall to finish their private conversations and not let them back in
>the room until they are "ready to join the others in serious classwork."

A.D.: Why are our conversations ( and you mustn't forget that Jerry Schueler
and John Crocker and others are also a part of our on going discussions),
seen as "egoic indulgences" while long dialogs on the placing of commas and
semi-colons in the works of HPB or GdeP aren't? Why are our interests
dismissed while long and boring lectures about what it truly means to be a
Theosophist are acceptable? Basically I suppose what I am asking why "we"
have only to be interested in what you are interested in? Because by
describing our conversations (and not all of them are "short and snappy: as
"egoic indulgence" or as exhibitionistic, that's exactly what you're doing.
You know we are not your students and you are clearly not our schoolmaster.
>
>Well, you know what?  On some days, I am actually in the *mood* to listen to
>their private conversations, and I sometimes think I have probably learned as
>much from their idle chat as I have from many grander expositions.  But it
uses up *bandwidth* you say?

A.D.:why thank you Richard how generous of you.
>
>What is this "bandwidth" anyway?  Is it a valid technical concept or is it
>just someone's way of saying, "Shut up"?  With half of cyberspace seemingly
>filled up with female crotches flying back and forth, is what we are doing on
>tiny theos-l really in danger of depleting some cyber "raw material" in a
>significant way?

A.D.: I think it's just more "nerd talk" and probably nearly meaningless. I
hold a radio (VHF/SW) license because of my boat, and on radio "bandwidth"
has a definite and important meaning. But we're using telephone lines and
the concept doesn't apply. If it did the really long messages would be more
damaging than the "short and snappy" ones. That's why on Radio we're limited
to very short conversations.
>
>My vote is to let things stay as they are.  To my psychogenetic eye, I see
>steady Self-awareness improvements in everyone--especially in the aftermaths
>of our infamous fights.  I say, let us be famous on the net for our fights.
> I won't be involved in any, if I can help it, but let the fighters fight
>until they fully understand the personal psychological reasons for not
>fighting.

A.D.: Actually sometimes there are differences that really need to be
battled over....as you must know I am a social activist and where would race
relations in America be if it weren't for folks willing to fight for what
they believe in? Back in Jim Crow, that's were! I do believe the analogy
holds true for everything one believes in, and that includes one's version
of theosophy! If a thing isn't worth the arousal of passions it's worth
nothing at all! Folks who suppress their passions and emotions have
coronaries and ulcers!
>
>As I recently told someone privately, teaching high school is probably not
>the most glorious way to spend a lifetime.  In fact, there is probably really
>only one distinct advantage in it:  You get to know *high school* when you
>see it.

A.D.: Please explain exactly what you mean to say by the a forgoing remark.
>
>And OK, without iron-clamp *netiquette* I suppose theos-l *will be* like high
>school in some ways.  So what?  If you were popular in high school, just
>apply some of the techniques you learned:  smile a lot, talk behind people's
>backs. . . .
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
A.D.:Actually, in my experience it's a lot more like advanced akademe.

alexis d.