The Art of Discourse II

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat May 29, 2010 12:49 pm

How could anyone describe a post that is so perfectly written that nobody could take offense over it? ...f there is a method of posting that is preferred on the JCF , I would like to know about it.
Evinnra, first and foremost, address the post, not the poster. Second, and this is a valuable practice in real time conversation, respond with what one thinks the poster meant, especially if there is doubt. Third, be mindful about how one judge's other's ideas. Noman didn't get a temporary ban because he crossed the line with JJ. He already had a track record of making inappropriate personal.

Here's some examples:
I love ya like a brother Clemsy – but you’re just so filled up with what I call ‘hippie-myths’ – or what I maybe should call ‘new age myths’ that began around 1970. ~Noman
And I leave it to any honest people among you, to acknowledge the truth of what I say. ~Fourswords
You guys have a real lack of emotional intelligence. I speak to everyone who reads these posts. You speak to that narrow little expanse of truth that serves your parochial interest, not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth". ~Roy
Your attitude dude sounds very Leo Straussian-ic which is a kind of western Neo-Con Demonic worship in my eyes that are trained to filter the lies. ~Raphael
I have shared this secret time and again here at JCF, with little response, however I never realized it was such a difficult concept to embrace. You can lead an associate to water…however penetrating intelligence, layers of initiation is difficult indeed. ~BowOfTime
I'm simply holding up a mirror for everyone to see. Now if you find the image troubling, it might serve you better to take a break until you've recognized that the person looking back is yourself - not me. All I'm doing here is bringing fourth what you desperately seek to hide. ~BowOfTime
All these quotes are demonstrably guideline violations. Evaluate the attitude behind them. I do have more... but guests are coming and there's stuff to do.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sat May 29, 2010 1:21 pm

Word association as picture association invoke not the reality of superority or inferiority attitudes displayed, but acceptance of teaching and understanding comprehended by the reader in most cases [always exceptions] which makes one feel they have overcome the simplicity of what they believe is a lower scale of commumication, even though they themselves, at one time fit into the very category they now condemn. As an example, one is set in their ways of percision, which to me automatically demonstrates judgment upon those who are nor percise in communicating .

What is forgotten in these situations is percision has not always been the forte of the perfectionist, for it was a learning process which placed one in such a position. Some are equal to the perfectionist, some are above, some are below, but all are communicators. This means, to this writer, the one displaying judgment concerning percision in communication on an open forum, has no tolerance for those whom express themselves according to their upbringing, and phases culturally accepted in their world.

This to this writer is an act of superiority far more insulting and damaging to the perfectionist because, in their percise spin of acceptance, understanding and comprehension does not wane, but one belief they have outgrew that which they had to comprehend to become fixed in their perfection.

One does not outgrow anything. One either refuse to deal with that which is believed outgrown, look down on it, or becomes a crusader of agitation. SUperiority, as inferiority is a coat of mult-colors and this should be understood before judgment of anything is undertaken.

What this writer has found to be a truth, and a present truth, is most on these forums people have conflict when just one person has a lack of understanding of what is being stated, and others of like-mind group the individual who they do not understand with phases such as "english must be you second language, et al.

Who decided slang, or other styles of writing is inferior, or not being percise displays the improper venue on a open forum which is internationally accessed to be inappropraite to international readers? Can the phase "lets get giggy with it." be percise english?

Attitudes are going to rise and fall. Standards of comprehension are always going to be high or low, but personal attitudes are intellectual bonkers for everyone who believes it must be this way or harassment will ensue because I cannot see where you are coming from because know ????????????
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney » Sat May 29, 2010 1:53 pm

Care in what one composes in the written word here shows care for those who will read the words...and vice-versa.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat May 29, 2010 3:51 pm

Jufa,

I am assuming that you are inferring that someone, probably me, is arguing for perfection? Someone here, probably me, is a perfectionist?

If this is the case, and I am not sure it is, I must reply that no one, especially me, is arguing for perfection. Indeed, I already addressed that point with Romansh. What I do believe is necessary in a higher order conversation is to at least strive toward craftsmanship in composition.

The title of this thread is The Art of Discourse. That being said, neither art nor craftsmanship are written into the forum guidelines. In my own opinion, the spirit of those guidelines do request care in composition, as JJ stated.

Evinnra, I have limited time today, but I do want to respond to other points in your post.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Last edited by Clemsy on Sat May 29, 2010 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sat May 29, 2010 5:15 pm

The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life
Delivered at New Covenant Baptist Church in Chicago on April 9, 1967

I want to use as the subject from which to preach: "The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life." (All right) You know, they used to tell us in Hollywood that in order for a movie to be complete, it had to be three-dimensional. Well, this morning I want to seek to get over to each of us that if life itself is to be complete, (Yes) it must be three-dimensional. .........

.....And there are three dimensions of any complete life to which we can fitly give the words of this text: length, breadth, and height. (Yes) Now the length of life as we shall use it here is the inward concern for ones own welfare. (Yes) In other words, it is that inward concern that causes one to push forward, to achieve his own goals and ambitions. (All right) The breadth of life as we shall use it here is the outward concern for the welfare of others. (All right) And the height of life is the upward reach for God. (All right) Now you got to have all three of these to have a complete life.

I remember when I was in college, I majored in sociology, and all sociology majors had to take a course that was required called statistics. And statistics can be very complicated. Youve got to have a mathematical mind, a real knowledge of geometry, and youve got to know how to find the mean, the mode, and the median. I never will forget. I took this course and I had a fellow classmate who could just work that stuff out, you know. And he could do his homework in about an hour. We would often go to the lab or the workshop, and he would just work it out in about an hour, and it was over for him. And I was trying to do what he was doing; I was trying to do mine in an hour. And the more I tried to do it in an hour, the more I was flunking out in the course. And I had to come to a very hard conclusion. I had to sit down and say, "Now, Martin Luther King, Leif Cane has a better mind than you." (Thats right) Sometimes you have to acknowledge that. (Thats right) And I had to say to myself, "Now, he may be able to do it in an hour, but it takes me two or three hours to do it." I was not willing to accept myself. I was not willing to accept my tools and my limitations. (Yeah)

But you know in life were called upon to do this. A Ford car trying to be a Cadillac is absurd, but if a Ford will accept itself as a Ford, (All right) it can do many things that a Cadillac could never do: it can get in parking spaces that a Cadillac can never get in. [laughter] And in life some of us are Fords and some of us are Cadillacs. (Yes) Moses says in "Green Pastures," "Lord, I aint much, but I is all I got." [laughter] The principle of self-acceptance is a basic principle in life.

Now the other thing about the length of life: after accepting ourselves and our tools, we must discover what we are called to do. (Oh yeah) And once we discover it we should set out to do it with all of the strength and all of the power that we have in our systems. (Yeah) And after weve discovered what God called us to do, after weve discovered our lifes work, we should set out to do that work so well that the living, the dead, or the unborn couldnt do it any better. (Oh yeah) Now this does not mean that everybody will do the so-called big, recognized things of life. Very few people will rise to the heights of genius in the arts and the sciences; very few collectively will rise to certain professions. Most of us will have to be content to work in the fields and in the factories and on the streets. But we must see the dignity of all labor. (Thats right)

When I was in Montgomery, Alabama, I went to a shoe shop quite often, known as the Gordon Shoe Shop. And there was a fellow in there that used to shine my shoes, and it was just an experience to witness this fellow shining my shoes. He would get that rag, you know, and he could bring music out of it. And I said to myself, "This fellow has a Ph.D. in shoe shining." (Thats right)

What Im saying to you this morning, my friends, even if it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, go on out and sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures; sweep streets like Handel and Beethoven composed music; sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry; (Go ahead) sweep streets so well that all the host of heaven and earth will have to pause and say, "Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well."

If you cant be a pine on the top of a hill

Be a scrub in the valleybut be

The best little scrub on the side of the hill,

Be a bush if you cant be a tree.

If you cant be a highway just be a trail

If you cant be the sun be a star;

It isnt by size that you win or fail

Be the best of whatever you are.

And when you do this, when you do this, youve mastered the length of life. (Yes)

This onward push to the end of self-fulfillment is the end of a persons life. Now dont stop here, though. You know, a lot of people get no further in life than the length. They develop their inner powers; they do their jobs well. But do you know, they try to live as if nobody else lives in the world but themselves? (Yes) And they use everybody as mere tools to get to where theyre going. (Yes) They dont love anybody but themselves. And the only kind of love that they really have for other people is utilitarian love. You know, they just love people that they can use. (Well)

A lot of people never get beyond the first dimension of life. They use other people as mere steps by which they can climb to their goals and their ambitions. These people dont work out well in life. They may go for awhile, they may think theyre making it all right, but there is a law. (Oh yeah) They call it the law of gravitation in the physical universe, and it works, its final, its inexorable: whatever goes up can come down. You shall reap what you sow. (Yeah) God has structured the universe that way. (Yeah) And he who goes through life not concerned about others will be a subject, victim of this law. Martain Luther King, Jr.
Clemsy, your assumpion is not correct. Did not have you in mind when I posted. Was making a point in generalization from observation from seeing others of lesser education and craftmanship are mistreated because of their lack.

You do not, and have not irriated me in anyway, although you may believe you have, for I have been going through what I go through on these boards for ten or so years. My style of writing and reading of me, I know is difficult for some and not for others. It is the way I write, and if you have been to any place where I post, you know I write the sameway everywhere. If it is understood, so be it, if it is not, so be it.

My point is to look for anything from anyone concerning their writing in comparisom to whatever is looking at things as and ostrich. I do it, everyone does it, but that does not display an attitude of superiority, just irratation of perception and self-righteousness

Have never looked for confrontation. Just wanted to say what I have to say and move on.
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat May 29, 2010 5:43 pm

I see. Jufa, one is usually going to assume a connection between what is said and the theme of the active conversation. So now I understand that your post is a general statement not connected to the previous posts.

Unfortunately, that leaves me struggling as to the specific point of your post. I think I may have a general idea, but not enough to be sure I won't still be projecting my own meaning into your words.

Which I've already done once today.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sat May 29, 2010 6:00 pm

Clemsy wrote:I see. Jufa, one is usually going to assume a connection between what is said and the theme of the active conversation. So now I understand that your post is a general statement not connected to the previous posts.

Unfortunately, that leaves me struggling as to the specific point of your post. I think I may have a general idea, but not enough to be sure I won't still be projecting my own meaning into your words.

Which I've already done once today.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Life goes on Clemsy, with or without your assumption and struggling; with all its imprefection and perfection.
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat May 29, 2010 6:00 pm

Indeed it does, Jufa. Indeed it does.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Sat May 29, 2010 9:13 pm

So just to get back on track. :D
Andreas, the heart of Orwell's piece is this:

* Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
* Never use a long word where a short one will do.
* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
* Never use the passive where you can use the active.
* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Standard advice for writers.


Clemsy thanks. I'll take that advice but I am not sure if we can be conscious of rules like these when we are writing? Maybe with practice it becomes second nature.

What is more important for me, and let me know if I am wrong, is how we assign attributes and values to characters or persons, how do we think "properly" so our speech or writing is coherent and clear.

Personally for me is much easier to write how I feel than to write what I think is proper. But then again is there a difference?

In other words can we control the unconscious or should we let it create havoc, as far as writing goes. And hopefully that makes sense. :D
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sun May 30, 2010 1:01 pm

Andreas wrote:So just to get back on track. :D
Andreas, the heart of Orwell's piece is this:

* Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
* Never use a long word where a short one will do.
* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
* Never use the passive where you can use the active.
* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Standard advice for writers.


Clemsy thanks. I'll take that advice but I am not sure if we can be conscious of rules like these when we are writing? Maybe with practice it becomes second nature.
Andreas, I certainly hope I didn't give you the impression that this is the standard I expect from associates! While I do recommend keeping them in mind for one's own personal writing growth, they are recommendations for formal writing. (These are similar to the Seven Deadly Sins of Writing I use with my seniors.)

But this is not a black tie affair! (Common metaphor! Who cares!) The point of this thread isn't perfect writing but what constitutes higher order discourse in this medium. Clear and concise writing is just as important as speaking clearly, wherever you are.

If the communication works, than who cares if it's in passive voice or not?
What is more important for me, and let me know if I am wrong, is how we assign attributes and values to characters or persons, how do we think "properly" so our speech or writing is coherent and clear.
By doing what you're doing. :) I find your writing coherent and clear. How we " assign attributes and values to characters or persons" is just something, I think, we do naturally. The mind looks for patterns and creates recognizable shapes. Writing is such a pattern. We do create a "character" for each other. David Kudler, the managing editor of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, called this a "homunculus." This is why I've said one should try to read one's post as objectively as possibly, to try to predict how the post may be read by another. There's no way to do this better than the best we can. The effort alone is valuable and I can only assume one, as with anything else, gets better with practice. We should strive to make the image of ourselves another creates as accurate as possible.
Personally for me is much easier to write how I feel than to write what I think is proper. But then again is there a difference?
I think one has to turn one's feelings into thoughts, no? How does one explain how one feels? The act of mindful writing forces one to order one's thoughts, whether they are based on feelings or ideas.
In other words can we control the unconscious or should we let it create havoc, as far as writing goes. And hopefully that makes sense.
Don't we put stuff through an internal translator to make sense? Not that reactions aren't sometimes the stuff of shadow... but that's not something we can control. If we can control the unconscious, than it would be conscious, yes?

Cheers,
Clemsy
Last edited by Clemsy on Sun May 30, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria
Associate
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:05 pm

Post by Hypatia_Of_Alexandria » Sun May 30, 2010 2:46 pm

Clemsy wrote:To move this back on track:

A "higher order conversation" can only occur in an atmosphere of mutual respect where no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another, or believes one is in possession of 'special knowledge' that others are unaware of, and where, since this is a text medium, particular care is taken with the written word so that meaning is clear and concise.

Any additions?
I'm new here so I want to ask Clemsy why he he thinks it's so important that no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another

How does that belief harm anyone unless it has some force behind it to compel others to believe in it? As long as someone just says what she believes in, without any ability to force others to believe the same thing, then how does a "belief that one is in some way superior to another" harm anyone who hears it?

Galileo believed his knowledge was superior to the official knowledge that the Earth went around the Sun. Was he wrong to say it was a matter of "fact"? He wasn't able to force anyone to agree with him. He just said what he believed and he didn't hide his belief that his knowledge was superior to others.
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sun May 30, 2010 3:58 pm

Greetings Hypatia, and welcome to the JCF Forums!
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria wrote:
Clemsy wrote:To move this back on track:

A "higher order conversation" can only occur in an atmosphere of mutual respect where no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another, or believes one is in possession of 'special knowledge' that others are unaware of, and where, since this is a text medium, particular care is taken with the written word so that meaning is clear and concise.

Any additions?
I'm new here so I want to ask Clemsy why he he thinks it's so important that no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another

How does that belief harm anyone unless it has some force behind it to compel others to believe in it? As long as someone just says what she believes in, without any ability to force others to believe the same thing, then how does a "belief that one is in some way superior to another" harm anyone who hears it?

Galileo believed his knowledge was superior to the official knowledge that the Earth went around the Sun. Was he wrong to say it was a matter of "fact"? He wasn't able to force anyone to agree with him. He just said what he believed and he didn't hide his belief that his knowledge was superior to others.
Hypatia, if Galileo, Joseph Campbell, or Hypatia herself (!), were to log on here, there would be a natural reflex to defer to 'authority,' although some of us would reflex in the opposite direction because deferring to authority may punk one's own attitude towards authority.

Personally, I'd try to treat them like everyone else.

The key word in my post is demonstrate.

We all come from various backgrounds with a variety of strengths and weaknesses. To assume a position of authority among people one has never met is, plainly, arrogant. Here's the problem: one who assumes a position of authority is less likely to entertain the ideas of an inferior. Said 'inferior' is then less likely to take the 'superior' seriously. Read the quotes above from banned associates. These folks were here to enlighten, not converse.

What is your reaction to someone who says to you:
And I leave it to any honest people among you, to acknowledge the truth of what I say.

You guys have a real lack of emotional intelligence.

I have shared this secret time and again here at JCF, with little response...

All I'm doing here is bringing fourth what you desperately seek to hide.
The point is to share what one believes, as among equals. The authors of the above were not interested in your opinion, and were unbearably patronizing, unless it agreed with their's.

All that being said, I accept, for example, that Cindy B. knows more about Jung than I'll probably ever know. Romansh knows more about science. That expertise still does not put them in a superior position to anyone else.

Besides, isn't this the democratic ideal? If one is superior, such status should be granted by others, not personally assumed. IMO.

Of course, I'm from New York City. John Lennon loved New York because fame doesn't impress New Yorkers, generally speaking. I ran into him him and Yoko one day on Columbus Avenue. I smiled and said hello. Thanked him for the music. Kept walking. After we had passed each other, we both turned around and smiled.

So, we are all on a level playing field. One can consider one's self superior, but if that comes out in one's writing ( is demonstrated ) it invariably results in personal, condescending remarks which violate the Forum Guidelines.

The work of Joseph Campbell is what brings us together here, no? As far as I'm concerned his writing on personal bliss and the hero journey exemplify the idea of enlightened individualism. We are all on the same quest, just different paths, as it were. Your ideas may enhance my journey, and vice versa, but this doesn't mean anyone's status is superior or inferior to anyone else's.

Cheers,
Clemsy

PS: I sometimes wish, when I consider it at all, that my post count wasn't visible. I'm the site moderator with 7,000+ posts. How may people react to that? :shock:
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria
Associate
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:05 pm

Post by Hypatia_Of_Alexandria » Sun May 30, 2010 5:48 pm

Wow! Thanks, Clemsy, for greeting me with such friendly openness AND with such strong challenges to reply to as an equal even though I'm a "newbie" here!

Okay, you said, and I'm going to put all your words in italics:

Hypatia, if Galileo, Joseph Campbell, or Hypatia herself (!), were to log on here, there would be a natural reflex to defer to 'authority,' although some of us would reflex in the opposite direction because deferring to authority may punk one's own attitude towards authority.

But you're imagining a hypoethtical situation of you recognizing Galileo and Joseph Cambpell having "authority" in 2010. But would you have "deferred" to the authority Campbell in 1935, or Galileo in 1615?

Personally, I'll try to treat them like everyone else.

You say that today, but I wonder if you would have said that in 1935 or 1615 before Campbell or Galikeo became famous.


The key word in my post is demonstrate.


Okay....


We all come from various backgrounds with a variety of strengths and weaknesses. To assume a position of authority among people one has never met is, plainly, arrogant.


Okay, maybe you're right about that, but then my question remains, "How can anyone on an internet forum "assume a position of authority" unless she has some way of enforcing her belief in her authority? If what she says is just her "arrogant" opinion on a free forum without any way to force anyone to agree with it, then what harm does it do?

Maybe you have already tried to answer my question in your next words:

Here's the problem: one who assumes a position of authority is less likely to entertain the ideas of an inferior. Said 'inferior' is then less likely to take the 'superior' seriously.


But then I still have a question: WHY should it matter to ANYone, that a so-called "inferior" might be "less likely to take the 'superior' seriously' ?

If someone takes someone else's ideas "not seriously", then what harm does it do, as long as no force is involved? And if someone "assumes a position of authority" WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO FORCE IT, then what harm can that do to anyone with a mind of her own?

Are you trying to "protect" forum members from subjectively feeling pressured by strong words? If so, then it would seem to be a very weak forum. Or do you object mainly to anyone who has a "bad" - meaning overly confident - attitude about HERSELF? If so, then as I've studied a lot of Joseph Campbell, then I think that's not in line with his ideas either, because he was in favor of everyone speaking the truth of every individual experience no matter what others might think of it. As far as I know, the only rule (if any) that Campbell ever believed in, was a rule against FORCING anyone to believe in anything.

But as far as I know, Campbell never objected to anyone openly procaiming to beilieve something is true. The only thing Campbell absolutely objected to, was to FORCE anyone to believe in anything.

Well I might be mistaken, but those are my thoughts.
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Sun May 30, 2010 6:29 pm

Hello Hypatia, and a warm welcome.
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria wrote:Okay, maybe you're right about that, but then my question remains, "How can anyone on an internet forum "assume a position of authority" unless she has some way of enforcing her belief in her authority? If what she says is just her "arrogant" opinion on a free forum without any way to force anyone to agree with it, then what harm does it do?
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria wrote:But then I still have a question: WHY should it matter to ANYone, that a so-called "inferior" might be "less likely to take the 'superior' seriously' ?

If someone takes someone else's ideas "not seriously", then what harm does it do, as long as no force is involved? And if someone "assumes a position of authority" WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO FORCE IT, then what harm can that do to anyone with a mind of her own?
Hypatia, let me respectfully suggest that such a person will not get anybody to converse with her seriously, other than those who are willing to refute her opinions with the same level of aggression. Which is not conducive to a conversation of a higher order.
Hypatia_Of_Alexandria wrote: Are you trying to "protect" forum members from subjectively feeling pressured by strong words? If so, then it would seem to be a very weak forum. Or do you object mainly to anyone who has a "bad" - meaning overly confident - attitude about HERSELF? If so, then as I've studied a lot of Joseph Campbell, then I think that's not in line with his ideas either, because he was in favor of everyone speaking the truth of every individual experience no matter what others might think of it. As far as I know, the only rule (if any) that Campbell ever believed in, was a rule against FORCING anyone to believe in anything.
We all speak from individual experience - see the "Explore Your Personal Mytholgy" forum - but does that mean one has to express it arrogantly? Clemsy was citing the comments of certain associates who were openly arrogant and callous about others' opinions. It's the tone we are talking about, here. Joseph Campbell talked about what he believed - but he never talked down. In my knowledge, he has not stated a single opinion arrogantly. Doing so would be very much against his spirit, IMO.

None of us can force anybody to believe anything-people believe what they damn well please. However, according to the decorum of these fora, every person's opinion is respected. One can disagree - but not disparage.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sun May 30, 2010 6:44 pm

Hi again, Hypatia,
You say that today, but I wonder if you would have said that in 1935 or 1615 before Campbell or Galikeo became famous.
Why not? Expert doesn't have to mean:
showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others


...which is the definition of 'superior' under consideration here.
But then I still have a question: WHY should it matter to ANYone, that a so-called "inferior" might be "less likely to take the 'superior' seriously' ?

If someone takes someone else's ideas "not seriously", then what harm does it do, as long as no force is involved? And if someone "assumes a position of authority" WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO FORCE IT, then what harm can that do to anyone with a mind of her own?

Are you trying to "protect" forum members from subjectively feeling pressured by strong words? If so, then it would seem to be a very weak forum.
It shouldn't matter either way. But it does, nonetheless. We aren't trying to protect anyone, per se. What we are trying to do is nurture an atmosphere. Again, those who assume a superior status invariably become insulting and firefights are the result. Way, way back I was involved in one of the first Internet forums. It didn't last because certain dominant personalities would not allow civil discourse. There was also a Jung forum sometime back, and Cindy can tell you more about it, that was very poorly moderated and dominated by a few heavy handed personalities... two of whom participated here, one was banned and the other would have been if he hadn't left on his own.

These personalities, and make no mistake, they are trolls, destroy forums. That Jung forum became so cantankerous it was shut down.

The pattern is always the same. What starts as an exchange of ideas turns into personal comments and insults that derail the conversation. Subsequently, forum participation drops off. As I said earlier in this thread, everyone who has earned a ban from this site considered themselves superior, made sure everyone knew they thought so through personal comments, derailed conversations and considered themselves immune to the Guidelines written up for this site by the managing editor of the Joseph Campbell Foundation.

We aren't protecting associates from each other. We're protecting this forum. This is why the Guidelines are written as they are:
1. Respect others: Should the opinion of another associate spark your anger or scorn, rather than your spirit or mind, please take a deep breath and consider before posting an ungenerous response. Flaming, the online equivalent of ranting, can seem terribly gratifying in the short term, but it is a very ineffective form of communication.

The same can be said of ad hominem attacks, wherein an associate who is unhappy with a fellow associate's post attacks the colleague him- or herself, rather than discussing the ideas in the post that caused distress. If something an associate says makes you feel like you want to howl, please do it in the privacy of your own home.

2. Respect others' opinions: These are Conversations, not Conversions. 'Conversation' comes from the Latin words con ('with') and verso ('opposite'). We expect diverse opinions to be expressed in these forums, and welcome them. Remember, just because you disagree with what someone has to say doesn't mean they don't get to say it. Of course, it also doesn't mean you have to agree; if you chose to express your disagreement, do refer to guideline #1, however.
Those are the ones that matter in this context. The bottom line is, address the ideas in the post. Respect that those ideas are of value to the person who wrote them.

Civility is expected, no? But that doesn't necessarily mean 'nice.'

Personalities won't be allowed to dominate this site with dogmatic and personally insulting rhetoric. As such, those who frequent this Forum generally appreciate the environment the Foundation is trying to nurture.

And we are tolerant to a fault sometimes. Since 2003, thereabouts, only four people have earned permanent bans. They all followed the same pattern. The vast majority of forum associates follow a learning curve and do just fine.

Note the word the Foundation uses for those who create a profile: associate. Comrade, ally, colleague. Self-styled Bosses, Generals and Messiahs need not apply.

Cheers,
Clemsy

....You posted while I was composing, Nandu!
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Locked