Message from BK

[Soul_of_Shu]

So, yes; criticism is/should be allowed. Where else would you criticize BK but in the BK forum? (this is not a fanclub)

Ok, so I'm coming around to a BK related forum dedicated to discussing his model/ideas being a worthwhile option. Not as a kind of BK booster club, so to speak, free of constructive critique, but because those who arrive here inspired by the forum 's namesake, primarily interested in reading and discussing his work, and/or critiques thereof, would benefit from easy access to those discussions, rather than having to sort through all the other sections for BK related topics, now buried in among countless others. As for moderating the sub-forum, aside from insisting that the primary topic be focused on BK's ideas, should I apply the same spirit of flexibility as the GD section, where discussions may take unexpected turns, or should it be more in keeping with the topic-specific guidelines?

[Starbuck]

I'm extremely allergic to views like "but it looks bad!". that attitude is essetially what drives cancel culture. If this isn't the place where depth is allowed, (resulting in discusisons that might be perceived as "criticism towards BK") i don't know what to say.

So, yes; criticism is/should be allowed. Where else would you criticize BK but in the BK forum? (this is not a fanclub)

that's my opinion.

I dispose cancel culture too.

The metaphor I would use here is of a vegan cookery forum. People go on there to share recipes and appreciate a specific sub genre of food. Then a few vociferous posters pile in and extol the virtues of a raw meat diet. Surely they can go to the raw meat thread. thats healthy boundaries, not cancel culture.

[Martin_]

So, yes; criticism is/should be allowed. Where else would you criticize BK but in the BK forum? (this is not a fanclub)

Ok, so I'm coming around to a BK related forum dedicated to discussing his model/ideas being a worthwhile option. Not as a kind of BK booster club, so to speak, free of constructive critique, but because those who arrive here inspired by the forum 's namesake, primarily interested in reading and discussing his work, and/or critiques thereof, would benefit from easy access to those discussions, rather than having to sort through all the other sections for BK related topics, now buried in among countless others. As for moderating the sub-forum, aside from insisting that the primary topic be focused on BK's ideas, should I apply the same spirit of flexibility as the GD section, where discussions may take unexpected turns, or should it be more in keeping with the topic-specific guidelines?

That's tricky. Ultimately it would be best if it was up to the OP. as in : OP posts "ppl, could we get back on-topic please". But i'm not sure if that's feasible.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Ok, so I'm coming around to a BK related forum dedicated to discussing his model/ideas being a worthwhile option. Not as a kind of BK booster club, so to speak, free of constructive critique, but because those who arrive here inspired by the forum 's namesake, primarily interested in reading and discussing his work, and/or critiques thereof, would benefit from easy access to those discussions, rather than having to sort through all the other sections for BK related topics, now buried in among countless others. As for moderating the sub-forum, aside from insisting that the primary topic be focused on BK's ideas, should I apply the same spirit of flexibility as the GD section, where discussions may take unexpected turns, or should it be more in keeping with the topic-specific guidelines?

That's tricky. Ultimately it would be best if it was up to the OP. as in : OP posts "ppl, could we get back on-topic please". But i'm not sure if that's feasible.

Thanks Martin ... I'll wait for some more feedback on the moderation aspect, before actually setting it up.

[AshvinP]

Ok, so I'm coming around to a BK related forum dedicated to discussing his model/ideas being a worthwhile option. Not as a kind of BK booster club, so to speak, free of constructive critique, but because those who arrive here inspired by the forum 's namesake, primarily interested in reading and discussing his work, and/or critiques thereof, would benefit from easy access to those discussions, rather than having to sort through all the other sections for BK related topics, now buried in among countless others. As for moderating the sub-forum, aside from insisting that the primary topic be focused on BK's ideas, should I apply the same spirit of flexibility as the GD section, where discussions may take unexpected turns, or should it be more in keeping with the topic-specific guidelines?

That's tricky. Ultimately it would be best if it was up to the OP. as in : OP posts "ppl, could we get back on-topic please". But i'm not sure if that's feasible.

Thanks Martin ... I'll wait for some more feedback on the moderation aspect, before actually setting it up.

I just want to point out that I may be writing much shorter essays going forward, for a variety of temporal and substantive reasons, and would not mind if there is a separate section altogether for those going forward. I know that will probably mean less views, but I am more interested in helping people who are already interested in the content get a deeper understanding of that content, as I do when writing them, and perhaps get deeper discussion going, than simply exposing the content to more pairs of eyes who may only skim through it or go straight to the comments. It seems that the primary distinction people want to make here is between BK/analytic idealism and "phenomenological idealism", to borrow Eugene's term for it. I don't think you would really need to moderate this section at all, and then GD could remain as it is for everything else. And then maybe some like Eugene and Justin will feel more comfortable participating again - this was their original suggestion, after all. But that's just my thought at the moment, and I'm also not sure how Cleric feels about it re: his own essays or if he cares one way or the other.

[Jim Cross]

So, yes; criticism is/should be allowed. Where else would you criticize BK but in the BK forum? (this is not a fanclub)

Ok, so I'm coming around to a BK related forum dedicated to discussing his model/ideas being a worthwhile option. Not as a kind of BK booster club, so to speak, free of constructive critique, but because those who arrive here inspired by the forum 's namesake, primarily interested in reading and discussing his work, and/or critiques thereof, would benefit from easy access to those discussions, rather than having to sort through all the other sections for BK related topics, now buried in among countless others. As for moderating the sub-forum, aside from insisting that the primary topic be focused on BK's ideas, should I apply the same spirit of flexibility as the GD section, where discussions may take unexpected turns, or should it be more in keeping with the topic-specific guidelines?

I agree with Martin. But I do think the comments should be focused clearly on BK and his ideas and shouldn't be allowed to wander off into extended comments/debates on subjects and topics unrelated to the original topic and mostly unrelated to BK. There needs to be some flexibility but if the comments wander too far then the purpose for the dedicated forum is lost.

Glancing at the General Discussions now it looks like one of every three or four topics would fit into the new forum but some of the comments in some of them - Criticism, for example - may have gotten pretty off track from the original comment and BK. There seems to be extended expositions of Nietzsche and Heidegger mingled with other stuff.

[Jim Cross]

My view of moderation would be that it should be nearly the same as the topic specific moderation with just a little more flexibility with topics mostly starting with an implicit or explicit tie in to BK and his ideas.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I agree with Martin. But I do think the comments should be focused clearly on BK and his ideas and shouldn't be allowed to wander off into extended comments/debates on subjects and topics unrelated to the original topic and mostly unrelated to BK. There needs to be some flexibility but if the comments wander too far then the purpose for the dedicated forum is lost.

Glancing at the General Discussions now it looks like one of every three or four topics would fit into the new forum but some of the comments in some of them - Criticism, for example - may have gotten pretty off track from the original comment and BK. There seems to be extended expositions of Nietzsche and Heidegger mingled with other stuff.

Well, this is where it becomes problematic for the moderation aspect ... If, for example, someone starts a topic about BK's model of 'dissociation', seeking further explication/elaboration, or reflections on it pro or con, and that then spins off into the direction of NDEs, or lucid dreaming, still loosely related to dissociation, which then in turn spins off into Steiner's, or some Tibetan Shaman's take on astral bodies/planes, etc, and then Cleric chimes in with one of his protracted musings about how that relates to the Thinking of higher order beings, is that still fair game and related enough to the original topic?

[Ben Iscatus]

Well, this is where it becomes problematic for the moderation aspect ... If, for example, someone starts a topic about BK's model of 'dissociation', seeking further explication/elaboration, or reflections on it pro or con, and that then spins off into the direction of NDEs, or lucid dreaming, still loosely related to dissociation, which then in turn spins off into Steiner's, or some Tibetan Shaman's take on astral bodies/planes, etc, and then Cleric chimes in with one of his protracted musings about how that relates to the Thinking of higher order beings, is that still fair game and related to the original topic?

Yes, true. Problems only tend to arise when one poster says another poster is (clearly or obviously) wrong, then goes into huge digressive detail, instead of gently suggesting an alternative pov. I'd say it was a behavioural issue. .

[AshvinP]

Well, this is where it becomes problematic for the moderation aspect ... If, for example, someone starts a topic about BK's model of 'dissociation', seeking further explication/elaboration, or reflections on it pro or con, and that then spins off into the direction of NDEs, or lucid dreaming, still loosely related to dissociation, which then in turn spins off into Steiner's, or some Tibetan Shaman's take on astral bodies/planes, etc, and then Cleric chimes in with one of his protracted musings about how that relates to the Thinking of higher order beings, is that still fair game and related to the original topic?

Yes, true. Problems only tend to arise when one poster says another poster is (clearly or obviously) wrong, then goes into huge digressive detail, instead of gently suggesting an alternative pov. I'd say it was a behavioural issue. .

This is a terrible idea for the reasons you point out, Dana. Not only would it be a major burden on you as moderator, but would restrict the content of threads so much there would be little point in anyone participating. Anything that motivates people to provide less content in their comments or not comment at all is a bad idea. But I won't go into huge digressive detail on this point