⫸STICKY⫷ Growing this forum- Suggestions for Improving P&S

[swilow]

^I had a good day, though weird due to odd anxieties. Hyper sensory actually, overwhelming but interesting.

I hope you did too.

 

[ForEverAfter]

My suggestion: I think there should be at least one religiously-inclined moderator.

Currently, this is not a very welcoming environment for religious discussion.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only religious member who feels alienated.

I wish a lot of regulars would stop confusing the discussion of dogma and the peculiar problems of large religious institutions with spirituality.

This is exactly what I mean.
Where are we supposed to discuss religion?
There is no Theology & Religion sub-forum.

Nobody is preventing anyone from starting threads about philosophy or (non-religious) spiritual topics.

Maybe people really want to discuss God and religion.
Why else would there be so many threads about it?

 

[swilow]

I'd be a bit concerned that overt specialisation of a sub-forum might cause more of a divide then anything. This forum used to be called Thought and Awareness, which was great at the time, but quite ambiguous when examined. That sort of caught the philosphical and psychedelic thinkings of the period, but the refinement of the forum's discussion topic really explicitly invited religious and spiritual debate, for the first time. May be it is time to branch off, but the forum traffic would suggest otherwise.

Its certainly true that religious topics outweigh philosphical topics decisively. Its pretty rare for a discussion on Kirkegaard to come up; I wonder if that is because not everyone has studied the philosophers; I really know very little formal philosphy (I would love to learn!). Whereas many have been exposed to spirituality since birth (and before ). Just briefly, moving laterally away from splitting to a new sub-forum, would you like to see more discussion of philosophy, or a changing of this forums overall remit?

FWIW, Foreverafter, you are quite correct in saying that none of the current moderators are religiously inclined (that I know of, at least- I could very well be) as far as following a specific religion or teaching or attending institutions, but probably the decisive factor in who is chosen to moderate this sub-forum is an interest in spirituality and philosophy. As a stereotype, there don't seem to be many voluntarily-inclined drug users who subscribe to organised religion.

Thank-you for your comments Foreverafter. I was actually hoping you would chime in eventually.

***​

More general:

So, what I'm reading a bit of is something like this:

-There is a perceived hostility towards organised religions here, which are erroneously related to all forms of spirituality. I actually totally agree. I wonder how best to approach this? I know that I am highly critical of religous institution but moreso dogma; but I really want to try and explore that in a more welcoming manner, into the future. I will personally make a real effort to change my own behaviour here; for that to have any meaning, perhaps a more 'global' compromise is needed. We need to strike a balance, and it needs to come from the 'believers' and 'sceptics' and 'undecided'. I am wary of censorship though I am value tolerance also. I'm also a big believer in approaching and communicating effectively (or at least attempting to) and tackling issues with the power of many as opposed to the few; I hoped this thread would serve as a platform in which to do that. So far, it seems to have which is great.

Am I correct in identifying this issue? I'm not too sure how deep this issue runs, and how common this concern is amongst forum members. Its been raised several times though and exists.

Would it be of interest for people to become aware of who the forum regulars are, in terms of who posts the most? I wonder if that would come as a surprise to any on top of the list. Because it might motivate those committed regulars to step up and "be the change". As I said, I think the best way forward is to modify the flavour of our arguments; this might make the place more welcoming to brief visitors, which I'm sure we would all like...

Peace

 

[drug_mentor]

Its certainly true that religious topics outweigh philosphical topics decisively. Its pretty rare for a discussion on Kirkegaard to come up; I wonder if that is because not everyone has studied the philosophers; I really know very little formal philosphy (I would love to learn!). Whereas many have been exposed to spirituality since birth (and before ). Just briefly, moving laterally away from splitting to a new sub-forum, would you like to see more discussion of philosophy, or a changing of this forums overall remit?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I would personally love to see more discussion of philosophy in this forum.

 

[Xorkoth]

I make an effort to remain open to any discussions... let me know if I ever come across as unwelcoming to religion. I enjoy discussing religion. I was raised Christian and I often identify with it now (after a period of rebelling when I was younger). I don't consider myself religious but I like to identify with and utilize the positive aspects of religions, and to me Christianity, at its core, is a beautiful thing with a great message. I go to church sometimes, I just can't identify as a religion because my views are too dissimilar overall and I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus any more than I believe in the divinity of everyone - that is to say, I believe we're all part of the divine.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The thing I don't understand about comments like these:

I would personally love to see more discussion of philosophy in this forum.

I wish a lot of regulars would stop confusing the discussion of dogma and the peculiar problems of large religious institutions with spirituality.

Who is stopping anyone from discussing philosophy or non-religious spiritual topics? I get that people want to see more philosophical threads and less religious threads, but it's more a question of what thread people post in... isn't it? There's no conspiracy going on.

Personally, I prefer theological discussions to philosophical discussions. So I'm more inclined to contribute to those. But, I don't go around making a lot of religious threads or anything. As far as your suggestions go, I'm not sure what anybody can actually do? If you want to discuss philosophy, discuss it.

it just turned into more of a theology subforum

Can't it be both?

 

[sigmond]

fwiw:

I have no problem with theology. I was referring to a point in time when a lot of threads were created by someone who seemed to have a Christian agenda. It was a while ago and not much of an issue. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah, it seems more people on here want to discuss spirituality than philosophy (and I tend to be one of those). But I bet if someone created a thread on a philosophical topic, people would post in it.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I have no problem with theology. I was referring to a point in time when a lot of threads were created by someone who seemed to have a Christian agenda. It was a while ago and not much of an issue. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.

Oh, okay. Fair enough.
I misinterpreted what you wrote.

 

[drug_mentor]

The thing I don't understand about comments like these:





Who is stopping anyone from discussing philosophy or non-religious spiritual topics? I get that people want to see more philosophical threads and less religious threads, but it's more a question of what thread people post in... isn't it? There's no conspiracy going on.

Personally, I prefer theological discussions to philosophical discussions. So I'm more inclined to contribute to those. But, I don't go around making a lot of religious threads or anything. As far as your suggestions go, I'm not sure what anybody can actually do? If you want to discuss philosophy, discuss it.



Can't it be both?

I missed the part in your quote where I stated that I believed there was a conspiracy at play.

Philosophy is a relatively recent interest of mine, I do not currently have enough knowledge on any particular philosophical topic that I find interesting to post a thread which I would consider worthwhile, but I certainly hope to make such contributions in the future.

All I did was state that I would really like to see more discussion of philosophy in this forum. By that I meant discussion of topics which are relevant in contemporary academic philosophy, or discussion centered around the works of mainstream historical figures in philosophy.

I disagree that this particular issue simply boils down to what kind of thread people would like to post in. I think that making a well thought out and worthwhile thread on most interesting philosophical subjects is fairly difficult, much more difficult than making a thread asking people whether they believe in god or what they dislike about atheism.

Given that most discussion in this forum is centered around spirituality, some people who might otherwise take the time and effort to post good threads that relate to philosophy could be discouraged. I thought it might be valuable to throw it out there that there are some people who are interested in engaging in that sort of discussion.

I was responding to this question:

Its certainly true that religious topics outweigh philosphical topics decisively. Its pretty rare for a discussion on Kirkegaard to come up; I wonder if that is because not everyone has studied the philosophers; I really know very little formal philosphy (I would love to learn!). Whereas many have been exposed to spirituality since birth (and before ). Just briefly, moving laterally away from splitting to a new sub-forum, would you like to see more discussion of philosophy, or a changing of this forums overall remit?

I acknowledged the question wasn't directed at me, but I had an opinion on it and I chose to respond.

This is a thread aimed at gathering information about what the posters would like to see in the P&S forum. I don't see what is hard to understand about people responding in a way consistent with the threads aim.

 

[swilow]

^Thanks for the input drug_mentor. You're conception of this threads aim is correct.

I am in the same situation; my knowledge of formal philosophy is extremely limited and, truth be told, I am slightly intimidated by some of what are considered classic thinkers. I feel like an utter toddler in the realm of philosophy. So I have to be straight up and say that I don't think I'll start any threads on such. But the realm of philosphy is much deeper then that, and I think we do have a lot of discussion which end up revolving around ideas of ethics, semantics, frailty of language, difficulty of online debate... I don't mind those discussions, especially the unexpected ones. Lke vortech said, topics become interesting when new ideas and connections between idea's are made, and I think they often evolve organically through various topics.

(Think of that massive veganism thread. That went really crazy, massively off-topic, but for me, it became really more interesting 50 pages in when it veered away from the main theme and introduced idea's that you wouldn't expect. I actually closed the topic and re-opened it at a members request (which I appreciated ). I'm so glad I did reopen as it provided something new. Not to everyone, and it was certainly an emotional topic and repetitive at times, but it gave me (and others) pause for thought. That was an ethical discussion, neither strictly spiritual nor philosophical.)

I wonder if a focus on spirituality is somewhat expected in a broader forum relating to drug use. For whatever reason, aspects of western culture have seen certain drugs as spiritual. Given that Bluelight is quite deeply linked to the global psychedelic subculture, I suppose people of certain persuasions might find themselves finding Bluelight and sticking around. All speculative; of course there is no way of knowing whether my assumption has any validity, but it feels somehwat plausible as a hypothesis.

Any user should feel free to start any topics they want to, as long as it follows the basic rules here. I don't care how crazy it is, if you think its interesting, go for it. If the community think its worthwhile, it'll gather steam and become a discussion; if not, we can move on.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't see why everyone isn't qualified to make threads about philosophy.
Philosophy is not something that requires education, IMO.
Academic philosophy is largely bullshit.

Philosophy should be accessible to everyone.
I don't see why fancy terms or academic references are required.

Maybe you shouldn't overthink it / question whether or not you're capable of making a "worthwhile" thread. I don't know if everyone thinks like that, but - if so - maybe that's the reason people don't post as much philosophy stuff. You don't need to be familiar with Camus, or Kirkegaard.

I've studied academic philosophy at University and it's a bunch of horseshit as far as I'm concerned.
Fuck Friedrich Nietzsche... Philosophy is broader than these handful of pontificating historical assholes.

I don't like academic philosophy. I think it's (largely) a bunch of crap... I don't believe in the idolization of philosophers or writers... people don't have to be educated in philosophy to be able to discuss it... I object to the idea that philosophical discussions should be dominated by the ideas of a handful of historical figures. That, to me is nonsense.

if you want to make a philosophy thread, go ahead.

 

[herbavore]

I just had a slightly humorous thought (well, it was funny to me): do we really need to grow the forum; I can't even keep up with it now! I had a vision of myself running along with my cane in hand saying, "hang on, hang on, I'm pretty sure I had something to say about that topic and we are already on page 4?? How the hell did that happen? And when were these other two dozen interesting threads started?"

 

[Noodle]

Arguing the validity of dogmatic thought is boring to me. I'm too old to care about why other people cling to very particular views on things. I am free to not choose a camp. I am also free to make my own choice to agree to disagree about a lot of things people groupthink about. I'm a believer in Christ and his core messege. I just think his messege was twisted a bit more than one time in the re-writes of an oral tradition. Science isn't a bad religion either.

 

[drug_mentor]

I am in the same situation; my knowledge of formal philosophy is extremely limited and, truth be told, I am slightly intimidated by some of what are considered classic thinkers. I feel like an utter toddler in the realm of philosophy. So I have to be straight up and say that I don't think I'll start any threads on such. But the realm of philosphy is much deeper then that, and I think we do have a lot of discussion which end up revolving around ideas of ethics, semantics, frailty of language, difficulty of online debate... I don't mind those discussions, especially the unexpected ones. Lke vortech said, topics become interesting when new ideas and connections between idea's are made, and I think they often evolve organically through various topics.

If I recall correctly you started the main philosophy thread I found interesting and contributed to, namely the ethics of veganism one. You seemed to have a pretty solid grasp of the relevant ethical issues in relation to that debate. Which topics in philosophy interest you the most?

 

[Foreigner]

Spirituality and philosophy mean different things to people so we're going to have all kinds of threads appearing along that spectrum. We should be less concerned about content and more concerned about how people are treating one another in the discussions and those are the only problems I see, if any.

I agree that theological threads need more protection because bandwagoning happens pretty easily in them. It's hard to have a good discussion about scripture without someone showing up and saying Christianity is evil, God doesn't exist, yada yada. I'm not religious but I'm well versed in several scriptures and I don't feel like I ever get to really talk about them usefully.

On that same note, I think the overall tenor and theme of most threads should be preserved unless there is a clear communal tendency to veer off course and discuss something else. When the same two people show up in every thread and turn it into 4 pages of their personal discussion, back to back within hours, before anyone has a chance to weigh in, it gets tiresome. I personally avoid such threads because it feels like what I have to say will always be overshadowed by these people. I think it should be SUGGESTED, but not required, that people wait at least 12 hours before replying to others in a thread.

The tendency to listen to disagree or agree, rather than listen to understand, is a problem. I appreciate debate but sometimes a thread very obviously is not inviting people to engage, yet people do anyway. If people are sharing their views passively and suddenly someone shows up to antagonize them, I don't think that's always a good thing. The OP should set the trend of how the thread will go. If people disagree they can do it civilly instead of eating each other's heads off.

On the whole, topics should stand upon their own merits so I don't think we need to change the nature of the kinds of threads posted here. In my time as mod I saw this forum go through phases of intellectualism, then new ageism, then theologism, etc... just let the trends do what they will.

As for philosophy I was never academically trained in it so I'm never going to be able to partake in those high level discussions with abstract terminology. I relate to things as best I can from my lived understandings... and that's the kind of unspoken invitation that should be issued in the discussions.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Maybe we shouldn't be making comments about particular (albeit unspecified) forum members?

Who are the same two people that show up in every thread?
For the record: I don't contribute to the VAST majority of P&S threads.
Admittedly, sometimes when I do, I get carried away.
I usually regret doing this back-and-forth stuff.
(I've cleaned up this thread.)

I don't think it's helpful to talk about "certain" users behind their back.
This is what upset me. It's rude/elitist and cowardly, especially if you don't name them.

I wish a lot of regulars would stop confusing the discussion of dogma and the peculiar problems of large religious institutions with spirituality.

Since it isn't clear who comments like this are directed at, numerous people might assume they're about them.
And the wording is too strong. I mean: are a lot of regulars really confused about spirituality? Is that fair?

I think it should be SUGGESTED, but not required, that people wait at least 12 hours before replying to others in a thread.

That is a good suggestion, and I will try to take it on board.



The thing is, though, I think some people disagree with you.
Some people want to have a rapid discussion.
The vegetarian thread benefited from this.
(It also detracted, at times.)

 

[swilow]

^Thankyou for doing some cleaning up, I appreciate that. Also to drug_mentor, thanks for that.

I think it should be SUGGESTED, but not required, that people wait at least 12 hours before replying to others in a thread.

I also think that's a good suggestion. Thanks man

 

[Foreigner]

ForEverAfter, I wasn't singling you out. The problem I described existed long before you arrived on the scene.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm glad it's not me. But, it doesn't matter if it's me.
It's a bit bitchy to single anyone out. Isn't it?
(I thought it was me, for the record, and it contributed to my depression).

Personally, I don't see any seriously problematic regulars around here.
But, then, I only browse about 5% of threads.

Have you tried talking to them directly?

Nobody's perfect.
A lot of people on this forum have psychological problems.
A lot of people have addiction issues.

Maybe whoever you're talking about isn't your favorite contributor, but I don't think anyone is ruining this forum. Maybe they don't like your contributions, either? Maybe they have serious social problems?

If they're not going away, maybe we should just get used to them (whoever they are)?

I wish a lot of regulars would stop confusing the discussion of dogma and the peculiar problems of large religious institutions with spirituality.

I don't see how this is a suggestion.
Functionally, all it does is make people feel unwanted.
I fear that we might be discouraging people, and that's not fair.
This is an open forum. Theological discussion should be just as welcome as anything else.

I realize that we all find certain people frustrating.
I find you frustrating sometimes, Foreigner.

As for meth (is that who we're talking about?), I like his contributions more than most.
Same goes for Nina, although - admittedly - I was getting seriously fed up with the "channeling" threads.

Why don't you just man up and say who it is that you're talking about?
This doesn't feel right to me, regardless of how you attempt to justify it.