As I write this, there's a good chance the Brin-L Constitution discussion will make it obsolete, which is a Good Thing. Kudos to Jeroen for making a concrete proposal in this regard.
---- In Buddhist insight meditation, one is taught that the way to dispell negative and fearful thoughts that emerge in the course of sitting is to plunge into them, analyze them, take them apart until one understands exactly what they are and where they come from, and when that's done you'll find the negativity gone. Brin-L is a lot like a long meditation session. Sometimes things are placid; sometimes things get nasty like now. When the nastiness arises the habitual response is to tense up, become harsh, and experience suffering. To deal with this reflex Brin-L needs to be like a big multi-brained Buddhist: take some deep breaths to restore emotional equilibrium, then penetrate the source of the problem with the mindfulness of a curious child interested not in recrimination but in truth and solutions. In short, be scientific about it. To that end: What are we arguing about, and why? Answer: a lot of us are worried about a warning that Eileen delivered to John that appeared draconian and abrupt, seeming as it did to come out of nowhere. Moreover, because Jeroen claimed that he had solicited the opinions of the other listowners, many of our monkeyminds lept to another big fear: that there might be some kind of listowner collusion in censoring opinions and tyrannizing listmembers with threats of banishment should they fail to toe some line determined unilaterally by them. Let's examine these fears. One, is it really reasonable to fear that Jeroen and Eileen are trying to be list-tyrants? I mean, really? I don't think so. For one, there is no pattern of behavior pointing to this conclusion, just one clumsily handled etiquette warning. Two, it's arguable that if they were consipiring in some way, they wouldn't still be arguing and debating with us how to manage the list. Three, there's nothing worthwhile to be gained from such a conspiracy, and Eileen and Jeroen aren't that stupid, IMO. Why destroy something good (Brin-L) for the sake of having a false sense of control over it? Such things are quite possible, of course, but current events do not fit a pattern of deliberate sabotage. Rather, there was a clumsy warning, a volatile response, an attempt to explain the warning that has gone somewhat awry, and more volatile reponses. If we want to understand what's going on, then the volatility needs to be put aside for a little while. Deep Breaths, y'all. Now, as things stand, Eileen has already apologized for the harshness of her initial warning, and she has confirmed that Jeroen did not "go running to mommy." She has also had some choice words <G> about listmember attitudes in general, which I'll discuss later. So, think hard about this. Under the circumstances, is there any reason to assume that either Eileen or Jeroen are out to "get" anybody, or to impose their will unilaterally on the list? Any reason that isn't simply an expression of purely reflexive libertarian paranoia? No. That doesn't mean our libertarian concerns aren't imporant in a formal sense, but IMO we can take comfort in the knowledge that nobody is actively or intentionally seeking to harm Brin-L or even John. Doesn't that feel better? Now we know that there's no enemy except the impulse to create enemies where unhappiness has arisen. (After all, we need to explain our unhappiness right?) Time for a bitter truth: can we swallow it? Point of fact: many of us Americans find ourselves very frustrated when trying to argue with Jeroen about a certain sensitive topic. The reasons may vary from person to person, but it's very easy to let that frustration erupt into suspicion when our minds have an ostensible reason to connect Jeroen with a perceived act of tyranny. We leap to conclusions. But the foregoing discussion, I think, shows that such conclusions are not credible. More deep breaths. It's time to cut Jeroen and Eileen some slack. Let's consider the truth of something Eileen said: that Jeroen has historically invested a lot of time not just in arguing points but in outside chores aimed at keeping Brin-L going -- handling the mechanical chores of listowner faithfully, maintaining a Brin-L website, and so on. I think it would be wrong to throw these considerations away over a nasty tiff like the one we're having now. Jeroen has a long history of investing his time in the well-being of Brin-L, which shoes a pattern of good intent towards the list. Don't ignore that, or throw it away. Another deep breath, and another question: Why did we react so strongly at all, with fear and anger rather than bemusement at the whole situation? I think this is connected with the state of the list in general. Eileen pointed out that Brin-L has been in a depressing cycle of arguments producing ill-will for a while now. We look back to a "golden age" when Brin offered choice topics for discussion and when Jo Anne handled hot tempers with grace and tact. We long to have that feeling of privilege again, and we are frustrated that we don't know how to bring it back. So, when bad things happen, that underlying bitterness jumps out and displays itself as a lack of patience and an abundance of suspicion and ire. But, as Dr. Brin himself would say, looking back towards a golden age is contrary to the spirit of our culture. Our modern scientific culture is supposed to see a golden age in the future, not the past, because we know we have the ability to understand and to exert (some) control over events. And although many of us have complained about a decline in the quality of Brin-L discussions over the last year and half, until now we've never really had a discussion about how to fix things. We've generally agreed that the list needs to be member-moderated as Dr. Brin wished, and that the quality of discussion depends on the behavior of members. But how to get the best from ourselves, what strategy and tactics to use, is not a question we've explored in any great detail. Now is the time, and the Brin-L Constitution thread is a good place to start. Also, as Buddhism teaches, regret and sorrow must be understood and then abandoned in order to move forward. In Christian terms, we should let Christ bear our anger and regret and accept his grace in order to move forward. In more atheist and engineerish terms, why cry over spilled milk? Let's clean it up and move forward. Again, the Brin-L Constitution thread is the place to start. We also have a suggestion on the table from Dan that listowner and etiquette-police fuctions be distinctly and formally separate, so there should be discussion about that. And, before pulling the trigger on that devastatingly witty and logically irrefutable post about somebody else's intentions, motivations, or character, let's always remember to take some deep, deep breaths. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
