fundamental questions

Today, I finally started to wonder about what I have believed [assumed, more accurately] to be the function of my participation here. By that, I don't mean, 'I have doubts and concerns about what I'm doing here'-- that has certainly been the case in the past, from time to time. Usually when I come hard up against unexpected differences that are tricky to articulate.

I mean something more basic than that: do I see this 'place' as a social gathering of people sharing an unusual interest/ group of interests [the 'cocktail party' previously joked about]; a debating society whose purpose is to hash out and decide a range of issues; a professional society where research can be presented; a virtual educational institution or 'continued education' opportunity; a guru-less sangha-- ? Or something else that I haven't imagined?

My sense is that if sometimes I've felt at cross-purposes, it's because I haven't really clarified what the purposes are for myself, let alone what the common purposes are. So that I've met postings enthusiastic about something or other as if they were the opening remarks of a debate on the merits, or a problem-solving session about philosophical questions. And since an interest in philosophical questions is a personal peculiarity, and I have spent some time engaged in debate, as an extracurricular activity-- ditto, study of logic and rhetoric-- it leads me to transgress the rules of social conversation.

So-- no conclusions, yet: just the beginnings of thinking about...

For me I think it's a few things. I know several of the members here "in real life," so it's a way to chat with them about practice related stuff or interesting ideas we've come across or books or videos we've seen and so on. And in the process I get to chat with the members that I don't know offline, but enjoy listening to and talking with also. It's like keeping up with what people are doing at the water cooler at work.

I have to say that in large part I get more out of offline conversations with colleagues and mentors than I do with forum-based conversations. I often talk to people on skype or email about more detailed specific issues or concerns or ideas that are more personal. But there is often overlap between those conversations and these conversations (here and on the few other forums I frequent). It's the same as the overlap between the conversation I'd have in a group meetup at a bar, restaurant or event, and the private conversations I might have afterwards with those same people.

One thing that I have ambivalent feelings about is the public nature of the forum - that is, although discussion is only among members, anyone in the world can read it. So I tend to edit a bit, because not every thought or experience in my life is for public consumption. Perhaps that's less true for younger people who engage more freely online, but it is relevant for me.

I don't have a local "sangha" - my dearest practice-related friends are scattered far and wide around the world, so this is a bit of a social hub for some of them.

I didn't really have any 'should' in mind when I opened this question; it just had occurred to me that we might all be working from different assumptions, and starting with myself-- I don't even know what they are. I get a clue when there are unforeseen disagreements, that they must be in conflict somehow, that we must be defining terms differently. I gather, having looked in on a number of such groups, that there are different 'hierarchies of value' in play.

The subject matter of spirituality, of course, is notoriously slipperier than that last skinny little piece of soap in the bathtub; so I'm not in any big hurry to try to nail this stuff down.

Well, just to address the public/private question, Chris, it's a toss up, though I lean towards preferring it were private.

The fact of it being public allows readers to see some conversations which may be helpful in some way to them I suppose, but really, is there any "teachable moment" here that can't be found elsewhere? If it being public is about providing some good example of viewpoints or something, I think there's an arrogance in that that we should all reflect on. Even on my own blog, I don't think I am saying anything that has not been said many times before, I'm just trying to make it simpler and in plainer English and reiterating my favorite bits.

If it were private, that would feel better to me, and I would engage with it differently. However, I would be cautiously aware that some people enjoy cutting and pasting things to other locations without thinking about privacy (as we often see on forums, when people post their email conversations, without necessarily asking the other person involved). So I might still be a touch more "edited" here than I would be in a private email or skype conversation, at least until I knew everyone. There are some number of members here who aren't active or I barely know.

My 2 cents.

"it would be interesting and valuable if all of you would express what you think your purpose is in participating here and what you think our overall purpose should be." - chris

I participate here because:

1. I find it extraordinarily helpful to hear the perspectives and experiences of more advanced practitioners and to receive their indefatigable support. Thanks!

2. It helps me 1) to see that I operate from a viewpoint that is certainly not universal; 2) to appreciate differing viewpoints; and 3) to accomodate other viewpoints in my own understanding, i.e. to synthesize information.

3. It's fun and I relate with people who are similarly devoted to spiritual practice.

4. My parole officer told me I had to.



I'll have to chew on the second half.

I guess the prime motivation for me is that there are few places to talk philosophy, once our school years are past; and of that handful of places where I might participate, this one fits best and is most civil and congenial. That said, my orientation is more lighthearted than fraught with intention-- and I have to disclaim any intent to convince anyone of my viewpoint. I try to be as clear as I can, and I don't have any problem admitting to being full of opinions and preferences, as well as a sneaking urge to crack wise. But I'm all for everyone else granting themselves the same latitude; I think of all of us as peers and colleagues in this strange enterprise of conversing around and about 'the ineffable.'

Some days I think I'm 'Buddhish'-- or even identifiably 'spiritual'-- and some days I think not, but my appreciation for the principle of 'see for yourself' is the constant.

There are possible ways for it to develop that would send me packing: someone appointing him/herself guru/authority/teacher/leader/top expert. A tsunami of piety or other form of orthodoxy, like the intolerant atheism seen elsewhere. An upsurge of proselytizing for some system or other. The issue of public vs. private doesn't really grab me-- possibly a failure of imagination on my part. I don't see myself being of much interest to many people on the planet; my circle of acquaintance is rather small.

Similarly, I don't look for any purpose beyond the pleasures of thinking and conversing [in written form].

I'm here to schism.



("The Dharma Underground spawned the Dharma Overground, which spawned KFD and OE when the first Great Schism occurred, and then KFD had its own series of schisms, one of which spawned The Dharma Forum Refugee Camp whose members include some of the early DhO members, which one day will probably split and form something else.")

Further schisms are called starting your own forum and/or blog.

tom, in the interest of further schisms (and in case you haven't already), I'd like to invite you to take a look at http://sitwithme.ning.com/ and see if that may serve your purposes. I still am holding on to the dream that someone may actually use that site for something, someday.

to maybe try and answer the question, why am I here? I came here to be able to discuss more varied topics than one can usually articulate on DhO and KFD and to do so in an atmosphere that is more peaceful, accepting and open to various points of view. Thank you all for providing that!

Eran, Kate and others, I agree that the atmosphere tends to be "accepting and open" - but ironically that is because the participation is not "accepting and open." Personally I'm a fan of the smaller group with some commonality (if not in practice/tradition, at least in a sense of respect, disinclination to oneupmanship, maturity, or whatever it is). But it is kind of funny/sad that it has to work that way. It works that way in real life, too.

I also appreciate that many of us don't practice the same way at all, but still manage to have interesting discussions.

PS - Tomo, I ran into the guy who's dragging your body around. He said he's getting tired and wondered if you want to stop for pizza and beer so he can shake the kinks out of his arms.

I agree that the atmosphere tends to be "accepting and open" - but ironically that is because the participation is not "accepting and open." Personally I'm a fan of the smaller group with some commonality (if not in practice/tradition, at least in a sense of respect, disinclination to oneupmanship, maturity, or whatever it is). But it is kind of funny/sad that it has to work that way. It works that way in real life, too.


-ona

Two concepts come to mind : 'popular delusions and the madness of crowds' and 'the human scale'-- they're related, in that they reflect the amount of input to which one can be responsive, and the number of interactions that feel personal; ignoring the limits of my capacities results in overwhelm and fatigue, I find.

Yeah, just an observation. I always preferred small group settings (in any setting, from parties to classes to shopping), so this setup is more comfortable for me, personally. Some people thrive on the bigger group settings, and that's fine for them.

I was just being silly.