BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Moderating the Temple

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 35

 
 
Evil Scientist
10:47 / 08.08.06
Lurid, I hope that didn't come across as a dig at Temple. It certainly wasn't intended to be one. I agree entirely that Temple is a great forum and it's one I read on a daily basis.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
15:36 / 08.08.06
DC: Speaking as an interested observer, I confess that what I saw in the original thread was a man's non-sedentary ritual from an accepted tradition (LBRP) getting welcomed into the fold and woman's non-sedentary ritual being dismissed.

I was unaware of SN's gender at the time I made both the first post and the elaboration/apology post. In fact, Giant Haystacks was good enough to mod my incorrect use of "his" in the latter.

We haven't really interacted much, Haus, and anyway we're essentially strangers posting on the internet, so I understand you can't know this. But for what it's worth, I would never, ever discriminate in the way you suggest. I'm not sure why you leaped to the conclusion that gender must have been the distinguishing factor here. I actually had far less bastardish reasons for being cool with Sin's (formerly M.A.R.'s) post while taking issue with SN's, which I didn't go into here because frankly I don't want to dive back into a mess I've already taken what I feel were appropriate steps to resolve.

My personal posting policy, and one which I took pains to follow in my dealings with SN, is to aim squarely at a poster's ideas when making a critique and completely avoid personal insults or attacks, and certainly to avoid discrimination. That said, I fall firmly on the "why don't you cry about it" camp on the current bullying issue. Start asking everyone to tiptoe extra-softly when responding crtically to a post, and eventually this board will lose its edge and spontaneity. While I think the occasional hurling of personal invective may turn some people off, I'd rather lose those people if the posters who stay get to continue enjoying Barbelith as a diamond-hard grindstone for their ideas. Just sayin'.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:44 / 08.08.06
I'm not sure why you leaped to the conclusion that gender must have been the distinguishing factor here.

Did I leap? Did I, in fact, say that gender must have been the distinguishing factor? Perhaps you might have another look at what I wrote, which may help to inform the finding of the correct register in which to reply. Close reading is rarely a sin and only occasionally a crime, and does wonders for the intellectual rigour of a board.
 
 
*
15:52 / 08.08.06
But for what it's worth, I would never, ever discriminate in the way you suggest.

All of us "would never, ever" do that, but we probably all do it from time to time, unconsciously, whether it's along the lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, or religion. Please stop acting like Haus has accused you of actions of evil terrorism like mass-murdering puppies with hammers. It doesn't help anything. If it's not true in this particular case you can explain that, as you did, without going all "would never, ever" on us.
 
 
illmatic
15:52 / 08.08.06
Hoping this doesn't become a big row: Doc C, Haus is saying that's a possible reading of your post that occured to him, rather than it *is* definitive one, and therefore you're a secret sexist sadist.

As you say, you've already addressed the issue to your satisfaction, and you've made a fair few apologies to SN, so I hope we can move on.
 
 
illmatic
16:02 / 08.08.06
I should add, that although, as id points out, we're are all capable of unconscious predjudice, I don't think it was in operation here, as Doc C. thought Saturn's Nod was a man, until I told him otherwise. I then modded for a change in gender descriptors in the thread as requested.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
16:04 / 08.08.06
Fair enough. Please forgive me if I misinterpreted your statement, Haus, or inferred extra emphasis. That was my bad. I don't think that the issue of whether you were definitely alleging discrimination or just pointing out a potential discriminatory interpretation is that central to the points my post, so--as GH said--hopefully this doesn't have to grow into a new and independent problem. But again, I'm sorry, as it seems I did a bit of leaping myself, and that's not fair.

Also, entity, I didn't think I'd responded with alarm or anger to Haus' post. I've tried to be calm throughout, and emphasizing my abhorrence of sexism (or any wrongheaded discrimination) with a "never, ever" was not an indication that I feel besieged or victimized. I hope it doesn't seem that way--it didn't think it did.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
16:10 / 08.08.06
Also, while I perhaps shouldn't have used "must" the way I did, and I do apologize for that, it seems that you were at least saying that the most prominent interpretation that occurred to you was one that involved an issue of gender, Haus. That's what I get from this:

I confess that what I saw in the original thread was a man's non-sedentary ritual from an accepted tradition (LBRP) getting welcomed into the fold and woman's non-sedentary ritual being dismissed. I hope very much that that wasn't the intention, but it DID COME ACROSS TO ME in an art-versus-craft and a somewhat gendered way. (emphasis added)

Maybe I should just shut up, but I don't see why trying to be reasonable and accommodating has to mean that I just say an unqualified "ok, sorry" to everything.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:19 / 08.08.06
Yeah, Illmatic, except that the LBRP remains a familiar, hierarchical, "art" boy ritual, and SN's methods remain unformed, non-hierarchical, "craft" and generally open to dismissal as woolly and feminine. I'd be more convinced that this on no level of consciousness affected the reaction if the reaction had not been sarky quotation of a song from Disney's Pocahontas. It's a minor point, but not one that relies on the ascription of specific gender to the particular participants.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
16:30 / 08.08.06
I'd be more convinced that this on no level of consciousness affected the reaction if the reaction had not been sarky quotation of a song from Disney's Pocahontas.

Please read my initial post in the "Meditation: Let's Talk Shop" thread.

Yeah, Illmatic, except that the LBRP remains a familiar, hierarchical, "art" boy ritual, and SN's methods remain unformed, non-hierarchical, "craft" and generally open to dismissal as woolly and feminine.

Uh. I was completely unaware of SN's gender, to the point of reflexively referring to her as a him. If anything, I wrongly leaned towards the assumption that SN is a guy, as GH pointed out. The fact that you're reading a subtle, subconscious misogyny into my post with that information in hand is actually making my head spin.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:45 / 08.08.06
Sorry, crosspost.

DC: I would agree that one of the things that I took from it was that you were identifying SN's techniques, consciously or no, with the fluffy and feminine - as mentioned above, the identification of her comments with lines from Pocahontas may have played a part in that. As stated above, however, I don't think that depends on SN being identified by you as male or female. The other element - art versus craft - ties into that, inasmuch as Evski mentioning, without detail, the LBRP followed by the loading of the LBRP by Sin with an extra lot of occult references was good form and SN's contribution was identified as bad form - I was left with the feeling that if she had whacked some Aramaic and a few archangels in there she would have been taken more seriously. That was, however, only a feeling, which can of course not be confirmed or denied.

However, this was my perception and will, of course, be partial and subject to my own prejudices. I would never claim to be able to say with utter confidence that I am acting absolutely without conscious or unconscious prejudice; all I can do is be prepared to question and be questioned by others and hope to exercise a degree of critical judgement regarding what I write here, and how it is received. I certainly don't want this to be a big fight.

And, yes, I get that you quoted Pocahontas in your opening post also. We can certainly take from this that you like Disney musicals - and hey, who doesn't? - but I don't see what that has to do with the conditions under which you choose to describe other activities in similarly Pocahontic terms. The Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, after all, involves waving one's arms about and speaking from the diaphragm. It is to the unschoooled observer perilously close to Eurhythmy; the presence of the steel dagger may be, for all we know, the only reason why the ritual as practised today does not involve jazz hands, the two elements being seen as collectively incompatible with modern ideas regarding health and safety.

Ooops. Crosspost again. I'll try again. If you are having trouble with the idea that one can use feminising terms to dismiss people you believe to be men, then I sympathise with your confusion, of course, and will seek to provide an example.

Ah, here we go. One of my spiritual teachers, the honoured Harold Redknapp (Ipsissimus of the Order of Iron) once described his acolyte, Florin Radiciou, as "a tart, a fairy and a little girl". Although he was subject to visions and opaque utterances, this does not mean in my opinion that he believed Radiciou to be a tasty confection, a winged sprite or a young lady of below average height. Rather, he was disdaining his behaviour as akin to the behaviour of a lady or effeminate man, and thus of lesser value than the actions of a real man, such as getting stuck in on a wet Wednesday night with a gashed head at Cardiff Arms Park in the second round of the Coca-Cola or performing an according-to-Hoyle ritual.
 
 
*
17:02 / 08.08.06
DC: My posting sequentially with Haus is going to make it look like I am pursuing this issue, but that's not my intention. The point that I do want to press is that there's a general sort of attitude, of which your "never, ever" post is one example in my opinion, that inequity of any kind is only perpetrated by easily identifiable bad people who are other than us. The only way to fix inequality is to recognize that very often it is perpetuated by good people who are us and who have really good, egalitarian principles. It's not that it takes acting in a certain way to create inequality— it takes effort to do otherwise. I stand by my belief that this board is an uncomfortable space for some groups of people (notably women and people who are not white) because of unconscious behavior practiced not by one or two ShadowSaxes but by the majority of people here, myself included. So by wondering whether that is what's going on in your post, Haus is not, in my view, singling you out especially nor is he attacking you; he's doing the board a service.

That said, I suspect at this point Haus has committed himself to following through with the reasoning, and I fear the issue may therefore become a distraction from other worthy aims of the thread.
 
 
*
17:05 / 08.08.06
On the other hand, when such great stories emerge from this line of thought as the above...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:07 / 08.08.06
I think I'm probably done, id. As you say, we're in danger of moving into generalities, which could be better addressed elsewhere.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:44 / 08.08.06
SN's methods remain unformed, non-hierarchical, "craft" and generally open to dismissal as woolly and feminine.

B-but, didn't SN mention free (which I took to mean automatic) writing? Because Grant Mitchell does that, and there's nothing woolly or feminine about him.

More seriously, but in the spirit of peace obviously, I'm not entirely seeing the art/craft distinction here. Aren't the kinds of methods being discussed (letting the mind run free in the country, trance-dancing, un-self-censored writing, drawing etc,) actually more overtly 'arty' in the classical sense, than they are craft-based? A strict form of meditation seems to have more in common with say, building a table than it does with composing a symphony or related, insofar as in the former case you'd follow a specific set of instructions in the (reasonable or otherwise) hope of attaining a defined result (something between enlightenment and stress relief, or a nice piece for the kitchen,) and in the latter, it might be counter-productive to be too rigid in terms of one's approach.

(With apologies SN, if I've mis-characterised your practice.

And, realistically, it might be better to discuss all this in another thread, if that seems like a plan.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:57 / 08.08.06
Ah, well, Alex, that's a perfectly fair thought, except that I was thinking of capital-a Art here, as in the practice of magic according to a defined and accepted system of rituals, in this case the duly-accredited Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Thus, as it induces the practitioner to talk to archangels, rather than to stones, and involves stylised movements of the body and sonorous incantation of words, as opposed to dancing and singing, it is with-a-k magic.
 
 
Quantum
18:58 / 08.08.06
Could we have the discussions on meditation and unconscious sexism in magic in the Temple as opposed to the Policy? Thanks.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:22 / 08.08.06
Really, McQuants? I thought that, since nobody actually seems to bring a case to be answered here in the Moderaty sense, it's been working quite well as a Temple lightning rod for offtopic arguments..

However. However, I think we can close off here. Ahem. I think we wandered off the point here. My first hint was the suggestion that the Lesser Rituals of the Pentagram originally featured jazz hands. Let's recap.

There's something that, among other people, Persephone and alas are very good at. I am less so, as we can see with the jazz hands, but you've got me so we may as well proceed.

What I was trying to do was to suggest a possible reason why, perhaps, you, Doc Checkmate, were surprised at Saturn's Nod's continuing anger, despite your status as a nice, rational, accommodating fellow, and perhaps also look at some of the roots of that anger, if anger it be.

It struck me that, intentionally or not, one form of rhythmic movement with chanting and talking to presences that might or might not be in a position to hear - the lesser rituals of the pentagram, with its status in western ceremonial magic - was being apparently privileged and given status as an acceptable topic of conversation, while another form was being dismissed with quotes from Pocahontas. Now, from my highly subjective perspective, this could be seen as touching a number of interfaces, among them structured/unstructured, ritual/improvisational, "Art"/(white socks to her calf like that chick from the)"Craft", high/hedge, masculine/feminine, hierarchical/individual - and so on. This may well not have been your, Doc Checkmate's, intention - indeed, I would find it very easy to believe that this checklist was not in your mind for a moment as you identified Saturn's Nod as our token Pocahonty. As you have declined to share your reasons for giving the LBRP mat space and Saturn's Nod's "insight meditation" (in her words) no mat space, in the belief that you have already said what you feel is required for a rational analysis to determine that the situation has been dealt with and the issue is now closed, I have to take this on faith, but I find that an easy faith.

However. However, you also believe that what needs to be said according to the demands of reason has been said - what you, an accommodating, rational man, believe to be the right balance of apology and forward motion has been struck, and you are surprised that Saturn's Nod might not have taken this reasoned and measured draft, drained it and been purged of anger.

However. However, the desired state of affairs having not apparently been achieved, one might have to start thinking about why that might be the case. You, Doc Checkmate, have kindly offered to listen to any further comments by Saturn's Nod, although you do not see why and how she remains angry, which you will no doubt approach with the same sense of yourself as possessed of reason, calm, good manners and equanimity in the correct quantities to determine what is appropriate action on both sides.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:23 / 08.08.06
Oopsy - hit send early.

Onwards!

However. However, while it is far from my place to comment on that perception, might it be possible that we are yet involved in the creation of further binaries - indulgent/demanding, rational/irrational, appropriate/inappropriate - which serve to reinforce feelings on both sides?

I'm a huge-ass fan of rationalism - rather more than is healthy, as many of those who have been around a little longer will no doubt tell you, with or without variations on the word "cunty". However, it's important to remember that rationalism itself is a behaviour adopted to fulfill an emotional need, which need is often the need to be visible to self and others as reasonable. Sometimes, rationalism has to give way at least somewhat to empathy, or else one is reliant on one's own ideas of what constitutes good and bad behaviour, what is appropriate and where to stop.

So, I guess my point is that rather than make it clear that you feel you have done what is appropriate, but that because you are an accommodating and rational person you will listen to further discommoding and irrational speech, it might be worth looking at the possibility that the mechanism by which the decision of what was appropriate has been reached is itself part of the problem here.

Of course, there may no longer be a problem, which would of course be an ideal solution, and would mean that we can all laugh, love and hopefully learn.
 
 
EvskiG
00:30 / 09.08.06
Hoo boy.

I haven't seen this thorough a Maoist self-criticism session in decades.

As a semi-long time and semi-prolific poster on the Temple, and as someone who I don't believe ever has been accused of being a bully, I'll offer my perspective.

Gypsy Lantern is quite good at playing Socrates. In fact, as far as I'm concerned he's the best reason to read the Temple -- or Barbelith.

I believe I've been practicing this stuff longer than he has (although not as passionately or as well), and I've repeatedly benefited from his pointed criticism in the Temple. When I talked about magical subjects without the benefit of personal experience, he sharply called me on it, and spurred me to rethink my entire perspective on magic. A couple of years ago, I pointed out what I perceived to be rudeness on his part, and he promptly apologized.

Most of the other regulars accused of rudeness or bullying (Quantum, Illmatic, etc.) likewise appear to me to be trying to challenge untested assumptions, spur interesting discussions, and improve the level of dialogue in the Temple. And for the most part, in my opinion, it's been incredibly successful. It's been wonderful to see newbies like Doc Checkmate, xk, and AmberLeo come to the Temple, find their places, and hold their own in the rough and tumble of ideas. Hell, the Temple is now the best it's been in years.

I'm not a moderator, but at this point it looks like any real dispute in this topic was resolved a few pages ago. No one seems to have been acting with hostile intent, and there's a safe space for newbies and the sensitive if they want it.

While I suppose people can keep grinding if they choose, I really don't see the point.
 
 
Quantum
02:07 / 09.08.06
since nobody actually seems to bring a case to be answered here in the Moderaty sense, it's been working quite well as a Temple lightning rod for offtopic arguments.. Haus

If that's the way the thread is going, okey dokey. Meanwhile, if the conscious or unconscious distinction betweeen Art and Craft is inherently sexist* wouldn' that make an excellent and thought provoking thread in the Temple?

*I think it is
 
 
illmatic
04:40 / 09.08.06
Quants, there is a thread on sexism in Magick that Mordant started, that you could copy the relevant stuff into. Sorry but won't have time today to do it myself.

Some other questions that occur to me - to what degree is sexism/patriarchy reinforced by monastic type institutions vs. "female", "folk" levels of practice? What different characteristics and intentions do these institions have? Can they be seen as gendered?
 
 
illmatic
04:51 / 09.08.06
I'm actually lying. I probably will have time. Who am I trying to kid.
 
 
Ticker
17:24 / 09.08.06
GH, I bumped it up for you.
 
 
Ticker
15:50 / 10.08.06
Belief can be a very charged thing as we all very well know from just being in the world.

The Temple seems to be a great place for examining/exchanging but I think we might need some helpful pointers on how to do this without stepping on sensitive toes posted someplace?

Here EmberLeo states what is obviously not intended to be an offensive comment in the Sight of Blood thread, but how to gently show that it is without silencing the dialogue?
What's a perversion to EmberLeo is something very holy to me and other people.

I hope my response was in the right, um, vein but we all need to be cautious of wearing polyester in someone else's tabernacle.

I've been trying to think of where would be best to have dialogue with other people doing this sort of complex work around pain/suffering/endurance. I don't think the BDSM and Magick thread works even though it has some of it in there. If anything perhaps I should start a thread on the Ordeal Path which is a bit more open than sex magic or blood magic? What you kids think?

I'd like to have a place for differing views but I'd also like a place where folks doing this work can ask questions of each other without fear of being judged. I think the BDSM and Magick thread does that really well but I suspect the title is causing some folks to not participate because what they are doing isn't derived from a BDSM stand point. Shit, I'm just talking myself into an Ordeal Path thread, aren't I? Bleargh.
 
 
EvskiG
16:49 / 10.08.06
As you recognize, the comment at issue wasn't intended to be offensive. You expressed your request for greater sensitivity to something that is important to you. No further comments which you might deem offensive followed.

In fact, for better or worse, nothing at all followed.

While I only speak for myself, I don't see that any more formal response from the moderators -- including "helpful pointers . . . posted someplace" -- is necessary or desirable.

As you suggested, you can start a new topic with your own ground rules for the Ordeal Path. At least in theory, that should make everyone happy.
 
 
Ticker
17:00 / 10.08.06
I wasn't posting the above as a Mod request but rather a question surrounding the idea of engaging with other people's personal belief systems. ...not directed at any one person either.

I suspect this isn't just an issue unique to this topic that can be dealt with by the creation of a new thread. More of an operating principle about how we discuss difficult points of belief productively.
 
 
electric monk
19:17 / 10.08.06
There are some general guidelines in the wiki. Is that the kind of thing you were looking for?
 
 
Ticker
19:37 / 10.08.06
thanks, monk.

Yeah but in rereading it I can see why adding 'play nice' is redundant to the board as whole. I think EmberLeo and I have sorted it all out. I'm aware there's a prejudice in the greater culture regarding these topics but every once in a while I'm caught off guard with a poke to the eye. Which I believe was just a random elbow on the dance floor in this case.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:33 / 11.08.06
but every once in a while I'm caught off guard with a poke to the eye. Which I believe was just a random elbow on the dance floor in this case.

Sometimes I feel like reading barbelith is my Ordeal Path.
 
 
Ticker
16:28 / 11.08.06
Sometimes I feel like reading barbelith is my Ordeal Path.

::GRIN::
 
 
Ticker
12:55 / 18.08.06
Okay the Wanker has stated a desire for the thread to stay open:
God Is Imaginary.

If we can create meaningful dialogue in this existing thread I'm all for it, but I'm wondering if a new less phobic one might not be better?

If there was a thread that started with racism, homophobia, or misogyny I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving it to just transform (hopefully).

I understand the benefits of displaying the process but there is also a line of offense and I'd call it 'fighting words'.

What do others think?
 
 
Seth
13:38 / 18.08.06
I can see that perspective, but I'd personally like to have the chance to post a little to khorosho on the ground that they've laid out. I don't see that we're offering an endorsement of their ideas and their way of putting it across because quite a few people have objected in the thread itself. I'd be wary of locking the thread itself because it might be misintepreted as surpressing a debate on the topics raised.
 
 
Char Aina
13:44 / 18.08.06
i think that religion exists in a wierd place for most people, myself included.
i find it's hard, very hard, to deal with.

i think that being raised in a religious tradition is often(or at least feels like) a form of mental slavery, and that breaking out of slavery is never an entirely beautiful process.

i certainly hated the churches of my esxperience and, by proxy, many christians and christian atitudes for a while after being allowed to go free. i was being prejudiced, sure.
i was filled with prejudice because every person i met from the tradition because over my whole life, members of that vague group had made me feel exceedingly uncomfortable, and in some cases made me feel like i was not a proper person or worthy of proper consideration.

that thread was clearly started by someone with issues(perhps a lot like mine), but i think that there may be more use examining those issues that there would be in keeping them off the board completely.

i dont agree with what is being said over there or the way it is being said, but i do think that the conversation that may result could be of benefit to some board members, specifically myself.
 
 
Ticker
14:33 / 18.08.06
I agree that an exploration of the topics raised is a grand idea, however I feel the need to address the disrespect and intolerance in the thread's summary and start.

If there was a summary that read 'oh when will those uppity women get back to being barefoot' I wouldn't stand for it. Nor, 'Cure for homosexuality you should know by now', or simesuch rubbish.

Can we at least consider a summary re-write?
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 35

 
  
Add Your Reply