--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence,
Me: We will have to agree to disagree about your conflating actual violence with people calling other people names on a public discussion site. Since you are a fan of old timey wisdom I refer you to the sutra whose rishi congnizer I don't remember. But his cognized truth I do remember. He said: Om shanti shanti shanti, sticksahey and stonesahey may break your bonesahey, but namesistah will never hurt youahey. This teaching applied to children who needed to learn that if you choose to give people the ability to hurt you with name calling you will forever be chasing people around going "tisk tisk tisk, you must stop this because I can't handle people thinking of me in a way I can't control." And this is coming from a guy who has drawn as much attempts at emotional hurt as anyone here. I simply chose to see it for what it was, a statement about that person's values and not about me like most adults do who don't require everyone to be nice to them. I have benefited more intellectually from people who went after me with passion than people who high fived me for what I wrote here. We fundamentally disagree with what we find valuable here as evidenced by how you and I have chosen to use this site. As far as David's ideas about spiritual matters go, I don't see enough value in reading posts there, I have been there and done that and have rejected the premises of that world view completely. They have given up the ability to call BS on each other and that means that zero discrimination is going on IMO. Not my cup a tea. B: Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind o.f incivility on their groups Me:As I have pointed out, this is false. Yahoo has done nothing to impose these vague values on this site, this is all your doing. B: these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. Me: They have bought into PC culture that has ruined college campuses as a place for the free exchange of ideas. I do not share your enthusiasm for their wisdom. I work with kids of all ages. Do you know that the prefronal cortex is not even physically developed in adults till they are 24-26? As bright and creative as college kids are, they are physically as much kids as adults. Their values can be passionately held and still wrong, or they may be right. You might have to give examples to see if I agree on a case by case basis, but an appeal to them being "old enough" isn't going to help your argument without specifics. B: A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. Me: I can't make any sense out of your first sentence. I have no idea if I am "comfortable" with what you are talking about. At first glance I would say that I am not confused about what is TM, I studied and practiced it a long time. B: But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Me: If you mean that MUM is dealing with their long history of gay bashing and racism I am all for it. After I graduated there was a campus gay purge, did you know about that? One of my classmate friends was one of the targets so I am very clear about that issue that came right from Maharishi's gay prejudices. I also witnessed the National Organization's attitude toward black people in DC when I was chairman so I know they need to give up their religiously traditional oppressive views, that would be good. B:Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. Me: Sorry to be repetitious but you are misrepresenting what the Yahoo guidelines are for in pursuit of your personal agenda here. B: ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. Me: I work in schools at all grade levels. I know all about this view and object to this conflation wherever I see it. The assumption that we are all compassionate by nature and we learn violent strategies is a version of the noble savage philosophy that most modern people reject. We know about sociopaths now, we know about brain disorders that compel people to break the social contract from birth. We have also witnessed the results of attempting to prosecute thought crimes. If you look at the societies who have been this philosophy's most enthusiastic advocates, you will see some of the most hideous abuses of power in mankind's history. Because here is the problem as I see it. By nature we are opportunistic which is how we lived through the ice age. When a person gets the power to say, banish people expressing their opinions on a board like this, they predictably tend to impose their personal values on others. They provoke and then bounce people according to their personal whims. This has the effect of squelching passionate discussions and you end up with how it is over at that other site for people who can't handle differences of opinions without getting personal. Thin soup. I sincerely believe that you have had this effect here and I lament the loss of a site useful for me to exchange ideas. I get the trade-offs. But no one one needs to read posts here to get themselves worked up and offended, that is a choice. Do you think I read the pages and pages of castigation that the most famous R threw at me daily for a sustained period of time? I glanced over it and responded to what I wanted to. I was not hurt in any way by such nonsense. I knew the source. To me that is what good intellectual and emotionally mature boundaries are all about. No one needed to protect me from being called names. I suspect that you will get your way here eventually as long as Rick either agrees with you or doesn't want to deal with this site anymore. I am grateful that it existed as long as it did before your influence here. I never would have had the amazingly useful intellectual journey it has been for me. In fact I just never would have joined because I am very clear about one thing. I do not trust anyone to decide what ideas are OK. I believe in free and open discourse and passionate debates wherever they lead in order for me to find my own intellectual edges of belief. This site has been so useful that way precisely because Rick has resisted the voices that wanted to impose the kind of judgements you are advocating by your actions here. If Rick wants this place dead, he hired the right guy for the hit. I appreciate you willingness for dialogue on this topic and will read anything you care to say about what you are getting from the campus meetings. I would like to hear exactly how they plan to enforce such rules. It will keep Jerry Seinfeld away except as a glad-hander to the cause. MUM will never get his stand up routine. Remember the poet Robert Bly's reaction to the place? He had it right IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : On 07/09/2015 08:33 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Heh, that's what I said in a post before I read this one. People sit around in corporate boardrooms and dream this stuff up because the lawyers and marketing demand it. There was probably a tug-a-war between the more rational and idealistic in that meeting and probably a more senior manager reminding them they were to create "suggestions" not "rules." Those here who have sat in corporate boardrooms know what I mean. :) Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language.... You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: "looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak." Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect "micro-inequalities" in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and speech. This is critical to the sophistic goal of combining our natural civilized aversion to violence and pair it with someone calling another adult a name in a heated discussion. It is like an advertiser putting up a picture of their product next to a woman who looks as if she might be able to effectively nurse her child using a lady part that cannot be referenced directly because it might reveal the micro-inequality of sexism and might draw down the fire of an actionable remedy. (such creepy lawyer speech to hide creepy intentions.) Buck: by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. Me: You know what I hear in this tortured use of language? Intellectual insecurity. I hear this in education circles a lot. People afraid to state something simply and directly because they don't want you to really be able to evaluate the flimsy idea embellished by sophistic lawyer talk BSery. I can clear up the ideas easily: Buck is saying that he is very interested in figuring out ways to punish people whose speech uses any language that he determines holds such vague concepts as micro-inequalities to mask his agenda to just boot people off this group who he doesn't like. By using vague references to violence he hopes people will support his small minded approach to interfering with how adults discuss things that matter to them in a way that they decide for themselves. And it is all wrapped up in the carob coating of doing it for their own good and the good of the "community", all presumably babies who cannot be trusted to decide these things for themselves. Buck needs to realize that a lot of us post things laughing as we do because we like to shock people to bring them out of their stupor. Otherwise FFL would have been a knitting party. Turq really liked to do this and I like to do it to see what people here are really about. Buck: The collaboration in practice seems to require some willing studied [conscious] self-control of self-moderation for participation in the engagement. Also known as, civility and how things are said. Me: People who are terrible bakers spend a lot of time talking about the icing. Good one! -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> mailto:j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups Yahoo! Groups Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content. View on groups.yahoo.com Preview by Yahoo Thank God, now maybe we can get some peace around here from all the whining. I think you might have wanted to call the new sit! e "australia".
