Jeremy
01-20-2006, 03:56 PM
> This is not merely a LoO group.
While the LoO is extremely important in this group, the above point
cannot be emphasized enough. E. Drake, if you're only into pure LoO
discussion with no other sources integrated into it, I don't think
this list is cut out for you. That said, I can sort of see why you
might feel marginalized.
The truth is: David is in a unique position on the list as his
speculations are by definition "on topic". This can seem imbalanced
and unfair. One would hope that the members of this list trust on the
basis of the wealth of material he has compiled backing up his ideas,
of which the LoO is not the sole source. This is somewhat grey area,
since in the past, alternative views on the LoO by others were often
rejected. I presided over some of these rejections, and I'd like to
think that regardless of the emotions involved, there was a
consistency in our actions.
It is unfortunate when such rejection occurs, because that's never
helpful energy for the group - regardless of right / wrong. It
certainly has never been the goal of the list to marginalize competing
interpretations, however erroneous we may personally regard them. The
goal has always been to maintain a focus on David's work, and frame
all discussions around this.
The reason for this especial focus is not narcissistic. Rather, it is
to preserve the purpose of the list as a learning tool for people
interested in David's work. If the list goes off topic it ceases to
be useful to people who come here to talk about David's work. All our
efforts to build a place to discuss this work goes out the window, and
the group becomes no more helpful than the rest of the internet at large.
I think it would behoove all of us to always qualify our statements
and speculative ideas. As E. Drake mentioned, we are indeed all
learners. None of us can hope to attain a level of understanding of
the LoO that exceeds those books' authors in this lifetime (at least,
with respect to one side of the dialogues :-) Express admission of
where we speculate will tend to reinforce integrity to all the source
materials involved in our dicussions here.
That said, we would all do well to come to the list with a clear
understanding of why we are here, and to refrain from providing
service where it is not requested.
I don't think E. Drake is being intentionally annoying, and he has a
right to object to David's interpretations. I would even go so far as
to say that he does nothing wrong in pointing out which ideas of
David's are backed up in the LoO and which aren't. But to campaign
for an orthodox approach to the LoO on a site where this is expressly
not the purpose is counterproductive. It undermines everybody else's
interests for the sake of one person's interests.
In a sense, all this worrying about on and off topic posting comes
from the nature of this list. We all have to read everybody's every
posts, as opposed to a bulletin board system where there are different
forums for different topics, and segregation by interest is possible.
Given that, I propose that we all have a bit more compassion for what
others share with us over the list. Likewise, we should have a bit
more consideration for others in what we intend to share with the
group. Let's make sure that everybody participates here with like
purposes, so that conflicts won't occur as often.
L/L
Jeremy
asc2k conflict veteran
While the LoO is extremely important in this group, the above point
cannot be emphasized enough. E. Drake, if you're only into pure LoO
discussion with no other sources integrated into it, I don't think
this list is cut out for you. That said, I can sort of see why you
might feel marginalized.
The truth is: David is in a unique position on the list as his
speculations are by definition "on topic". This can seem imbalanced
and unfair. One would hope that the members of this list trust on the
basis of the wealth of material he has compiled backing up his ideas,
of which the LoO is not the sole source. This is somewhat grey area,
since in the past, alternative views on the LoO by others were often
rejected. I presided over some of these rejections, and I'd like to
think that regardless of the emotions involved, there was a
consistency in our actions.
It is unfortunate when such rejection occurs, because that's never
helpful energy for the group - regardless of right / wrong. It
certainly has never been the goal of the list to marginalize competing
interpretations, however erroneous we may personally regard them. The
goal has always been to maintain a focus on David's work, and frame
all discussions around this.
The reason for this especial focus is not narcissistic. Rather, it is
to preserve the purpose of the list as a learning tool for people
interested in David's work. If the list goes off topic it ceases to
be useful to people who come here to talk about David's work. All our
efforts to build a place to discuss this work goes out the window, and
the group becomes no more helpful than the rest of the internet at large.
I think it would behoove all of us to always qualify our statements
and speculative ideas. As E. Drake mentioned, we are indeed all
learners. None of us can hope to attain a level of understanding of
the LoO that exceeds those books' authors in this lifetime (at least,
with respect to one side of the dialogues :-) Express admission of
where we speculate will tend to reinforce integrity to all the source
materials involved in our dicussions here.
That said, we would all do well to come to the list with a clear
understanding of why we are here, and to refrain from providing
service where it is not requested.
I don't think E. Drake is being intentionally annoying, and he has a
right to object to David's interpretations. I would even go so far as
to say that he does nothing wrong in pointing out which ideas of
David's are backed up in the LoO and which aren't. But to campaign
for an orthodox approach to the LoO on a site where this is expressly
not the purpose is counterproductive. It undermines everybody else's
interests for the sake of one person's interests.
In a sense, all this worrying about on and off topic posting comes
from the nature of this list. We all have to read everybody's every
posts, as opposed to a bulletin board system where there are different
forums for different topics, and segregation by interest is possible.
Given that, I propose that we all have a bit more compassion for what
others share with us over the list. Likewise, we should have a bit
more consideration for others in what we intend to share with the
group. Let's make sure that everybody participates here with like
purposes, so that conflicts won't occur as often.
L/L
Jeremy
asc2k conflict veteran