[Reader-list] Dr. Prem's Eight fold path : Proposal for a reader-list protocol

[Prem Chandavarkar]

Dear Arnab,
Thanks for the honorary doctorate, although it appears that giving me the
title of "Dr." was meant as tongue-in-cheek critique (in which case it makes
perfect sense).

I realise I did not make myself clear.  I put this list forward as a way of
constructing a voluntary etiquette, and not as a set of legal rules.  So I
agree with you on Shuddha's term "list etiquette".  In that sense, your
response is useful, as my hope was that people would take the protocol,  and
critique, modify, reject, customise and otherwise transform it - and in that
process people may find some useful points in clarifying the list etiquette
they wish to observe.  The only hope is that some reflexive dialogue on the
reader-list may be useful.

Having said that, let me respond to some of your points (in blue).


> 1.How is a person denied the right to speak ( write?)
> on this list?


Nobody is actually and physically denied the right to speak.  But there have
been some recent responses in a tone that implies that the other is not
deserving of being heard.  I do not consider this ethically acceptable.



> 2.Ignoring an "offensive" post seems to be the best
> remedy as per clause (2), but that is subsequent to
> finding that the post is offensive, isn't it? But then
> I've already read the post. And irrespective of such
> proposals, it seems, all posts have been pursued and
> read. If I be blind to offensive writing on the list,
> then what is the use of ethical list protocol that
> Prem is proposing? Do not read, do not see--if that is
> the suggestion, then how does Dr. Prem's  'listening'
> feature? It is a call to stop listening.


I am not saying "do not read, do not see".  That would be nonsensical.  I am
saying "do not respond".  Sometimes I find an exchange on this list which I
do not find very constructive (my personal opinion, which I am entitled to
hold) to the spirit of dialogue that I assume this forum seeks.  I find that
if I respond to this exchange, I merely prolong it - so that is
counterproductive.  But if I just ignore it and only respond to exchanges
that I consider supportive of the spirit of dialogue, and others respond in
the same way, then over time the list will coalesce towards the types of
exchanges that a greater percentage of the members find mutually
beneficial.  This will come as an emergent order, rather than one imposed
from above.

> 3. What is wrong if , for instance, Shuddha speaks to
> me in order to  convince me, or be convinced? When one
> is convinced, doesn't one learn? Is trying to convince
> others , and not to coerce, an immoral principle?


This is a most useful critique, and I realise a clarification is in order.
The true problem is in repetition - if, whatever others may say, a person
keeps repeating the same didactic point.  This is propoganda, rather than
dialogue.



> 4. "If your desire is to convince, then please think
> > about whether a > discussion forum is a place you
> should intrude upon." Who is this you, Dr. Prem? If
> you've been talking only about "issues" and not
> "people" [ yr clause (5),] then how come you are
> urging people to opt out of the list? You should
> attack, going by your principle, the issue and not the
> people?


Another useful critique.  If this is a voluntary etiquette, its language
should be in the first person rather than third person.  It should be
phrased as "I" rather than "you".



> 5. Can  negation be accomplished without engagement? I
> think negation is the toughest job and new ideas in
> the world have been thrown open by so called negator
> and  not navigators-->( for instance by an  aggressive
> thinker like Marx.)He was also the harbinger of the
> most uncomfortable inventory of positive ideas.


As in point (3) above, the problem lies in repetitive negation rather than
one off negation.



> 6. Everybody should post an idea when s/he will able
> to help himself/herself with that!!!! ( clause 7)Why?
> What is the need of posting then? Does a dialogic
> "interaction" ( clause 8) call for such self-help
> project? I doubt Dr. Prem!


This one I do not understand.  I thought the whole purpose of the
reader-list is dialogue.  Why would you post a message if you were not
interested in a response that would be useful to you?



> thanking you
> yours in discourse and defeat
> Arnab


I have serious doubts about the "defeat" part.  There are very few people on
the reader-list who can match your energy in philosophical response :-)

Regards,
Prem