Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00339)

Jerry:

You make a good point that in a print magazine the reader has no
way to tell if some materials where omitted or altered. The
reader only sees what the editor wants seen. This allows for the
possibility of deception and manipulation.

On the Internet, though, everyone is self-published, so nothing
is altered, filtered, or distorted. Someone's original words go
out when and how that person chooses. And for mailing lists,
there is an archive to refer to, as well as fellow subscribers,
should someone later question what was said.

As you say, this allows for a level playing field in terms of
content. Everyone has an equal say as to what appears. Everyone
can write as much as they like, and can continue to clarify their
positions until they're satisfied that there is understanding, or
until they've come up against a brick wall one time too many and
tire of the effort at self-expression.

While there are definite openings for abuse when there is
filtering and control of information, there are also positive
advantages for it, in certain situations, and people will gladly
choose the control at times.

Control can be used for political purposes, for a group of people
to maintain power when faced with attacks or rival factions within
their organizations. But control can also be used to maintain a
consistent content and quality to materials, passing on the good
materials, and weeding out the materials of poor quality,
materials that are off-topic, or materials that are deemed
offensive to the readership.

The reason we pick a particular radio station over another is
based upon their selection of music. We'd be disappointed if a
New Age station started playing country and western music,
operas, or rap. The reason we subscribe to a particular magazine,
say DISCOVER MAGAZINE, is because we expect a consistent quality
of materials on a particular topic, in this case materials on
leading-edge popular science.

With mailing lists, the quality of materials and topics are
somewhat spontaneous, but are heavily influenced by those that
post the longest and post the most frequently. A list takes on a
particular personality, and attracts certain people, and drives
away others. Many people want something of more consistently good
quality than mailing lists, but find that moderated lists are too
rigid, stifled, lacking in creative expression. There's not yet a
good medium for them.

Mailing lists are a good place to try out various ideas that we've
been playing with, to put them in words and see how people react.
We can learn from the interchange, grow in our thinking, and be
better able to share our thinking in more permanent form like
print magazines and books.

Mailing lists are also a good place to air our organizational
concerns, to examine issues that are too hotly political for
anyone in power in a theosophical group to want to deal with.
Apart from the old topic of "who did what bad thing to whom when?"
that we can continually dwell on, which is good for assessing
personal blame but useless in building bridges and moving
constructively into the future -- we can discuss projects and

plans for theosophical work that would take us into the future.

Perhaps you could give us an update on Theosophical Resources and
mention how it'll help us bridge our differences and move in the
future into greater cooperation on theosophical projects to better
the world?

-- Eldon