Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

I am employing a warning system in hopes of deterring the disrespectful behavior to other members which seems to have become so fashionable of late. For now, the first yellow card thrown will be a warning which expires in 30 days. Thereafter, they will be tracked by a points system which could ultimately result in membership restrictions or even banning.

If you do not follow membership rules, then you can expect to receive warnings when break them. I will respond in a manner which I deem fair and appropriate when I see a post or it is reported to me directly. Do not ask me thereafter to read through a threaded argument to decide who instigated the matter or who might have been the greater offender. The point is not to protect specific members from insult or even worse to stifle otherwise lively interaction, but instead to restore an atmosphere of respectful discussion among peers. A distressing pattern of thread discord has been weaving through the forums over the past few months and it will no longer be tolerated. So mote it be.

THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE - Forum Rules and Etiquette

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

A single question, good doctor: I've finished reading over #8 of the Rules and Etiquette and find myself unfamiliar with what "appreviations" are. Is this some strange ritual from a forgotten place that I've ... er ... forgotten? Something weird from beyond the veil? Should I be frightened by its awesomeness? I beseech thee, tell me so I might slumber again!

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

I was unaware that there was a formal code of rules and etiquette for this site. Alerted to its existence, I've looked for it, but can't find it. :confused:

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

Thank you, Phil! I really hadn't seen that before. By good judgment or perhaps good luck, I don't seem to have offended against it very much. I do wonder about rule 4 though:

Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members or minors.

Specifically (to edit):

Members should not post messages which can disturb minors.

I don't think I've posted anything of the sort myself, but I've seen posted links to video clips that would have given me nightmares when I was little. They seemed appropriate to this site, but (unless today's brats are much more hardened that I was) are likely to disturb minors. The government seems to agree that horror material is likely to disturb minors hence (or so I assume) age restrictions on who can watch horror films at the cinema or buy/rent horror DVDs.

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

Perphaps it would be best read as Members should not post messages which can disturb other members without their prior consent.

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

Unfortunately, I fear that it is not a word after all, but instead a misspelling of the word abbreviation. It sounds wonderful, however, and I suggest we adopt it forthright to define a sense of "apprehensive reservations".

It appears that I must proof-read and amend this document. Per the final item note, it was generated by another party and distributed as a standard for forum rules and etiquette. As for the scope and weight of this particular rule, the intent is to prevent pornographic material from being displayed. TLO limits membership to persons of the age thirteen and older per COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule) guidelines. Since the vast majority of membership is comprised of adults, it is understood that adult conversations will be held. I only ask that material of pornographic nature be avoided. Sexually explicit text is typically acceptable in the context of literature, though I do recall a piece being submitted to The Repository which was so offensive that I immediately removed the content and banned the user. It was their first and only interaction with the site and the content was grossly pornographic and contained graphic references of pedophilic nature. The intent with this particular rule is not to stifle contribution and interaction within the site, buy instead to maintain a reasonable level of content responsibility given the fact that this is a public web site. Most content is viewable to site visitors without the requirement of membership, therefore care must be taken when in the public eye. I will amend the verbiage of this document very soon for the sake of clarity and dispelling any unintended appreviations the document might otherwise instill.

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

I should have read this before I posted on the Supernatural Thread. I'm not used to warnings. My wife usually just whacks me across the head.

Re: User Warning System Deployed
 

It should be noted that warnings will only be issued for what I consider to be gross infractions. Differences in opinion are are to be expected and even encouraged to a certain point. The major concern is when offensive comments are intentionally directed towards other members. I realize that there is ultimately a fine line to be drawn with consideration to content, but the isolated occurrences which I have seen should have been obvious to all parties concerned. If you are a person who by nature exhibits an insensitivity to the feelings of others without intentional malice, the warnings should serve as a signal of encroachment for future considerations.

A snippet of my previous social commentary on the subject:

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

So mote it be.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Might I suggest a slight amendment to the rules (or at least a recommendation for good practise)?

I think it would be good form not to reference unpleasant or malicious comments posted elsewhere. This would minimise collateral damage to TLO in addition to sending out a clear signal that the TLO forum is independent.

We should be grateful that some of those who already post in a variety of other forums have stated that they will steer clear of the TLO lest arguments spill over into here and poison the atmosphere. I think this is a sensible decision which benefits everybody.

It's easy to forget that democracy and freedom of speech often needs to be fought for and then defended. Personally I've become an advocate for light-touch censorship in response to a) the internet and b) becoming a parent. I disagree strongly with Aleister Crowley's selfish doctrine that 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.

Many discussion forums become soured by conflict, immature moderation or dictatorial ownership. The TLO is in my opinion almost unique because it provides a liberal and broad church where all but the violent are welcome to worship. It also scores highly on the diversity of intellectual discussion, to say nothing of its peerless graphics, varied content and technological wizardry. What's more, the group proprietor doesn't breath down our necks seeking to influence opinion or encouraging us to buy his books. I think that sets a fine example not least because it encourages others to modestly reference their own work rather than aggressively market it.

For these reasons I think the discussion forum is definitely worth defending. If the cost of this fortification is a potential infringement of liberty in extreme cases, then so be it.

JK

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Just a side note regarding Crowley's quote, as this is often a very misunderstood statement: I realize this is off topic, so I'll make it brief. From my understanding of Crowley and Thelemic beliefs, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" in no way means "Do whatever you want". It means follow your true Will, information only our 'higher self' is privy to. Crowley firmly believed that if everyone followed their true Will (which is far beyond material wants and needs), everyone's actions would work in perfect harmony to a higher order, much like a school of fish moving in concert and not bumping into one another. This isn't just my reading of his famous quote, but also many Crowley scholars and Thelemites. It's too bad Crowley had only limted success following his own ideals.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Crowley was distracted from his true will by drugs and alcohol. Not only that but, he was as mortal and fallible as the rest of us.

I like his other quote: "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star".

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Better get this in while I can then. Thanks for alterting me to Ex Occidente Press via the whole tv group squabbles.

Completely wrong place to ask but you haven't came across a certain Crowley quote regarding Arthur Machen's fiction and mystic truth have you?

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Didn't Crowley have a copy of Machen's House of Souls, which he'd annotated with all sorts of glowing praise? I don't know if some of these remarks have been published somewhere in the world of Crowleyiana.

Mark S.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Wow - that copy sounds like a book collector's dream.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

You are going to hate me.

Yes he did. I've read it.

It was in the Courthauld Institute over 25 years ago. It holds a special collection once owned by a collector of occult books. You needed to make a special application, and you were not allowed to copy any passages. A librarian stayed in attendance and made sure you weren't copying it by frequently checking your notes. As I recall there were only about a dozen annotations, and Crowley's writing was difficult to read.

It detailed a series of Magickal experiments with Soror something or other and Soror Aegnis. Possibly coded sex-magic.

Just because Machen did not think highly of Magickal societies did not mean he didn't believe in Magick. He just thought that the societies had gotten it wrong. He, A E Waite and his two assistants however, had gotten it right.

He said.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Thanks for that Morgan, its really interesting.
Out of interest why were they so against any copying of certain passages? If there were so few annotations one would think several people could quite easily memorise a set number each and make copies later.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

I have no idea why. It was one of the conditions that the original donor made when giving them this collection. I can't remember the name of the donor, sorry; but the collection was catalogued under his name.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

@Julian: In slight contradiction to your post, I'm sorry if I offended you in that alt.cthulhu discussion thread. It certainly wasn't my intention.

Ahh ok thank you.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Morganscorpion

Was it the Gerald Yorke collection by any chance? (They also have one of the three original copies of the Waite/Machen volume The House of the Hidden Light)

Mark S.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

That was it!

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

On the subject of respectful conduct... I find the concept of respect somewhat problematic. For example, if I really had 100% respect for someone else's views, then it seems like my own views should therefore be identical to theirs. And if they aren't, then I should change my own views to bring them in line with theirs.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the very fact that I have differing and maybe even opposing views seems to indicate that I have less than total respect for the views of a person I disagree with.

This is a problem for me, and it doesn't necessarily mean I dislike or have contempt for the person I disagree with, but it is troubling. I acknowledge that I might be in the wrong, also.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

I disagree with an intrepid sense of whole-hearted reservation. I have from the outset of my inception been inclined to be so insecure with my mindset as to offer the benefit of the doubt to the other side of my reason. Not to say that just anyone can sway my tower of illusory comprehension, but no doubt most all are allowed free reign to gnaw at the foundation of my beliefs.

In any event horizon, it should be clear that TLO should never stifle contrary opinions, as I myself endeavor in without end. I am not certain how to best define the boundaries of this mythological awareness called respect, other than an approach that should not stifle response by instigating negative emotional reactions.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Me. too.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

I, also.

And I think is is possible to respect another person even if I don't agree with their point of view, as long as they present themselves and their arguments in a civil fashion and accord me the same level of respect. If someone tries to shove something down my throat and will brook no rebuttal, then I will not respect them, even if I agree with what they are saying.

I missed whatever events begat the necessity for this thread, but I will say this: on the whole, TLO is about the most civilized and convivial forum I have come across on the internet. The level of social discourse found on these boards is worlds above some others that I frequent, and for that I am grateful.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Were it not so, I would respect hardly anybody! :D

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

At the moment, I would define respect for another person as 'appreciation for what seems like a sincere desire to get at what is true.' I can have that kind of respect for a person even if I disagree with them.

For example, I don't believe that god exists, but I can respect a person who does if I think they believe it is true that god exists. If a person says "I don't know if god exists, but I believe because it makes me feel better," then I feel under no obligation to respect their belief. I would respect their honesty regarding their belief, though.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

With regard to religious beliefs, a sincere desire to get at what is the nature of truth may be at least as significant as a sincere desire to get at what is true.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

Odalisque,

Could you expand upon this point?

You are getting at something that troubles me. Namely, whether it is actually possible to get at the truth. Is it possible to make a true statement? Is the truth something that can only be suggested or hinted at? Does the truth always hide itself?

Even if there can only be a finger pointing to the moon, it seems to suggest that the moon exists somewhere beyond the finger.

Re: Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed
 

What I had in mind is that truth is not as simple as it may seem. If I say that the sun rose this morning, I'm making a true statement within the realm of ordinary discourse. Within the realm of scientific discourse, it is not true. The observed event is actually the earth rotating, not the sun rising. Yet, I believe that it is still, in some sense, true that the sun rose this morning. Suppose, instead of this, I say that the goddess Nut, having swallowed the sun last night, gave birth to it this morning. It is a third take on the same event, this time viewed in the realm of mythic discourse. The three statements (rising sun, rotating earth, Nut giving birth) may each be true within their own realms of discourse, although (if viewed as belonging to a single realm of discourse) they contradict one another. Each may in its own way have something valid to say about the event, or about ways in which we may experience the event.

My feeling is that truth is complex and multi-layered, and that the realm of religious discourse may (at least sometimes) provide an additional layer of truth. My opinion is that people who suppose that there is only one valid (truthful) realm of discourse are mistaken. When people take mythic and/or religious statements (these two may not be the same as one another) as belonging in the same realm of discourse as science, I think that the result is grotesque.

When I assert that Hat-hor was the hand that masturbated Atum at the first time (which is something that I would assert) I am making a very different statement about the creation of the universe from a scientist talking of the big bang. But both, I assert, are valid within their own realms of discourse.

Whether truth is knowable depends very much on what one sees as the nature of truth.

To give another example, we may regard a work of fiction as true in that it illuminates the way things are (or may be). The fact that none of the people (whose actions are described in the work of fiction) have ever lived in our world does not change the fact that the work is truthful.