standards
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:10 pm
Soroush writes:
Anger and intolerance are VALID human responses -...
But this anger and intolerance must be solidly based (on love) and not the
result of a deranged vital force.
isali writes:
There is no issue as to the validity of all responses, as they are expressions of the VF. I do not concur, however, with the assertion that anger has any basis in love. It is rather, I assert, a reaction of a deranged VF as it is reflective of a state of disharmony.
I would argue further that there are two aspects of love, one a manifestation of the ego and the other a manifestation of the spirit. That which flows from the ego at best achieves temporary satisfaction. Whilst that which flows from the spirit achieves fullfillment.
Soroush writes:
But before we discuss the exclusion of anyone
from Minutus, it must be clearly shown that the person is malicious and what
they say is not correct. One needs to take in the broader picture.
isali writes:
I think what has been posted most currently speaks for itself. It is not necessary to establish malice aforethought for there to be harmful consequences. The circumstance defines resolution based upon the willingness of a would be offender to be appropriately responsive to the challenges of their communication. And the exercise of the delete or enter key should turn on a question of the balance of the information conveyed. Is it worth the trip for the nuggets obtained?
Soroush writes:
We therefore need to have arguments presented on both sides so that we can
decide for ourselves.
So much the better, if this can be done in a civil manner.
isali writes:
I would argue that information flows with abundance only in an environment rich in the operative concept of respecting differences. It requires a standard of behavior which is aptly referred to as a collegiate standard of conduct.
Soroush writes:
Please also let us not write in a way that we would NOT
address the person if they were with us in a real classroom.
isali writes:
The circumstance of this internet and e-mail form of communication allows for an anominous presence, and in the absence of an active manager of the site we are left to ourselves to construct a mechanism that addresses repetitive and ill gotten behavior, which likely would not occur if we were literally sitting at a common table. So the delete key is a remedy when in balance what is conveyed is not worth its toxic trailings.
I hope that I have been respectful to your thoughts in my cut and paste.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anger and intolerance are VALID human responses -...
But this anger and intolerance must be solidly based (on love) and not the
result of a deranged vital force.
isali writes:
There is no issue as to the validity of all responses, as they are expressions of the VF. I do not concur, however, with the assertion that anger has any basis in love. It is rather, I assert, a reaction of a deranged VF as it is reflective of a state of disharmony.
I would argue further that there are two aspects of love, one a manifestation of the ego and the other a manifestation of the spirit. That which flows from the ego at best achieves temporary satisfaction. Whilst that which flows from the spirit achieves fullfillment.
Soroush writes:
But before we discuss the exclusion of anyone
from Minutus, it must be clearly shown that the person is malicious and what
they say is not correct. One needs to take in the broader picture.
isali writes:
I think what has been posted most currently speaks for itself. It is not necessary to establish malice aforethought for there to be harmful consequences. The circumstance defines resolution based upon the willingness of a would be offender to be appropriately responsive to the challenges of their communication. And the exercise of the delete or enter key should turn on a question of the balance of the information conveyed. Is it worth the trip for the nuggets obtained?
Soroush writes:
We therefore need to have arguments presented on both sides so that we can
decide for ourselves.
So much the better, if this can be done in a civil manner.
isali writes:
I would argue that information flows with abundance only in an environment rich in the operative concept of respecting differences. It requires a standard of behavior which is aptly referred to as a collegiate standard of conduct.
Soroush writes:
Please also let us not write in a way that we would NOT
address the person if they were with us in a real classroom.
isali writes:
The circumstance of this internet and e-mail form of communication allows for an anominous presence, and in the absence of an active manager of the site we are left to ourselves to construct a mechanism that addresses repetitive and ill gotten behavior, which likely would not occur if we were literally sitting at a common table. So the delete key is a remedy when in balance what is conveyed is not worth its toxic trailings.
I hope that I have been respectful to your thoughts in my cut and paste.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]