Richard Dress - Posted - 04/19/2011:  08:42:10

I believe that MM is too devoted to clear and logical thinking to be much of a success in the social sciences.  I also don't know what his position is on religion, because theists and atheists both stand on the same believer's ground, logically speaking.  But on banjo matters, I listen to what he has to say.  I hope he has not decided to stay away.

beenjammin - Posted - 04/19/2011:  10:42:38

"I believe that MM is too devoted to clear and logical thinking to be much of a success in the social sciences."

that may very well be true, but I wanted to point out that I don't think he's as out to lunch and that sometimes people tend to overlook thinking about their own perceptions and just type the first that comes to their head.

for me I actually agree that those prayer wishes should be put in the religion box and hence banned, but I don't get offended and don't really mind it....I just wish people could take criticism better and actually adopt some self-questioning and growth (in all things, even banjo). 

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/19/2011:  11:39:09

The problem with those intellectually honest people who think that cleaning religion from public spaces is a good thing is that they are easily confused with the hypocrites who are merely railing against one culture/religion and pushing hard for others (both secular and non-secular).  The latter or, if you will, the hucksters are popping up all over these days and their promotion of a hidden anti-cultural agenda tarnishes those few intellectually honest people (like MM).  I guess MM is hoping for an improved society but his efforts are being lost in the crowd of those who parrot the same concerns but who rather work to take down society.

Personally, I think MM's well-intentioned gestures to put a sort of a touch-up polish to a flourishing civilization is out of step with reality.  Our best and biggest civilization is being undermined at all levels by social termites--fixing that disease should be our first concern.

Right now religion is just a stand-in for a much wider and more basic conflict.  A conflict that can't yet stand up to the public gaze.  This seems pretty evident to me based on seeing so many people who are publicly and ostentatiously against our society but never say what kind of set-up they are for.

beenjammin - Posted - 04/19/2011:  12:33:23

I think I understand you RD but I'm curious as to what the "best and biggest civilization" you are referring to is?  Is it BHO?

about the cleaning religion from public spaces (read BHO), the issue seems to be more about interpretations over vague rules. its ok to ask prayers because apparently that's not being religious but don't bring up environmental issues over tone woods because that might be political. 

minstrelmike - Posted - 04/19/2011:  15:21:13

quote:

---

its ok to ask prayers because apparently that's not being religious but don't bring up environmental issues over tone woods because that might be political. 

---

That's the clearest post in pages.

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/19/2011:  16:31:32

beenjammin: I think I understand you RD but I'm curious as to what the "best and biggest civilization" you are referring to is?  Is it BHO?

----------------------------------------------------------

The civilization that permits such things as BHO and has the cultural/intellectual capital to realize the technology, wealth, and leisure to support such individual pursuits.  Can you imagine anything better that you can discuss openly?  But just as an aside, modern psychology recognizes prayer as a real phenomenon in it's own right.  One can talk about prayer without assuming any religion.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/19/2011:  18:01:00

To my mind, the rules boil down to Eric's "House Rules" and really belong to him.  No matter how the rules are written, re-written, interpreted or misinterpreted, they still belong to him, as part of his domain (website).

Beyond mere technical rules (like the rules of a board game, e.g., protocols such as where to post), the pursuit of “fair” constitutive, prescriptive (and proscriptive) rules, of applying them uniformly, will always be doomed to perceived failure by individuals (some more than others) at various times because of the seeming arbitrariness of the rules themselves, and their seeming uneven applications.  This all owes to the individuality and subjectivity of values in both making and applying rules.  But we're not dealing with a legal system here, or pluralism, or even a democracy here.  We don’t vote here, unless we choose to vote with our feet, e.g., reading but not replying, not logging in at all, or leaving BHO, etc.

The rules will never be perfect, even if endlessly codified, which would always be subjective and open, theoretically, to debate.  The mods will never be perfect, bless them for trying.  It's a love it or leave it (alone) scenario, in my opinion.  The mods have got easier, solvable problems to deal with here.  I think they try to do their best, considering that they're doing the impossible – trying to be even-handed, objective and fair to everybody at all times, but still having to make ad hoc decisions on subjective matters, based on either their personal values or somebody else's.  We're still stuck in the antinomian structure that we find in morality and law, of rules v. values.  

I think this is a tempest in a teapot, because we have much bigger problems to face in the world today.  At any rate, the problem of making and applying rules in a forum such as this can never be fully solved, and folks, at times, will just have to live with perceived arbitrariness in rules and their seeming out-of-control applications.  It’s a nice house to play in, after all is said and done.  I’m just glad to be here in the mix.  It's a very enlightened bunch of people here.

Tom 

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 04/19/2011 18:09:55

beenjammin - Posted - 04/20/2011:  08:28:28

Yes Tom, well said.  I hope my posts weren't taken as too confrontational (a little is ok), I just wanted to give my opinion that these issues are more complicated than many seem to give credit for.  they aren't just cut and dry.  There are many bigger problems to think about (like environmental regs) especially if this topic really were only about prayer wishes.

You won't find me in non-banjo related arguments on BHO again, its too much of a bummer.

cheers

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/20/2011:  08:59:00

beenjammin: I just wanted to give my opinion that these issues are more complicated than many seem to give credit for.

-------------------------------

I agree with this.  I detected sort of an elitist attitude (I apologize if I was off the mark) in your earlier post, so I pointed out some of the possible complexities, showing how well-meaning people can be exasperated with seemingly innocuous ideas proposed by others.  I was trying to hint that maybe your implied criticism was too simplistic.

But you got me thinking about your other implication that maybe our civilization isn't so great after all.  Here is a thought experiment:  can anyone imagine a different arrangement for our society that could include a BHO, or anything like it?  I challenge anyone to try it.  (It has to be practical and from a historical menu--no impossible innovations).

Is anyone willing to step up and publicly espouse what they really think?  I do.

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/21/2011:  11:29:53

Richard Dress wrote: "...can anyone imagine a different arrangement for our society that could include a BHO, or anything like it? ...Is anyone willing to step up and publicly espouse what they really think?"

I believe society should be organized around anarcho-syndicalist communes.  We could still have the BHO.

Edited by - Don Borchelt on 04/21/2011 11:30:22

Bill Rogers - Posted - 04/21/2011:  13:30:35

Don, I had no idea!

Ronnie - Posted - 04/21/2011:  14:54:47

Uhh.....youtube.com/watch?v=ViFQfGjvj_0

Edited by - Ronnie on 04/21/2011 15:00:59

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/21/2011:  20:04:10

bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/21/2011:  20:42:28

Here y'are Bill.  I think this is the one you were trying to post:

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/21/2011:  21:58:09

seems Don is getting political

maybe we should close him down?

Darrick - Posted - 04/21/2011:  22:26:42

Rules?  Rules in a knife fight?...like Harvey said to Butch in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  All I can say is this sight has been a big help for me as a newbie to the banjo.  I can't believe the issues related to the set up and playing of the banjo.  I think the moderators do a good job of keeping this site user friendly.

Darrick - Posted - 04/21/2011:  22:32:31

That's weird...my response was to a different topic.  Richard has his entries disappear completely and mine go through some worm hole and show up who knows where?  Oh well.

feldspar1333 - Posted - 04/22/2011:  15:19:09

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darrick

Richard has his entries disappear completely .....

---

 Really?  Did the BHO get some sort of upgrade?     Bravo!

Kidding Richard.......... 

Paul R - Posted - 04/22/2011:  17:19:01

I think Ronnie's on to something. 

Don, too! 

From his photos page: http://banjohangout.org/myhang...;albumid=0 

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/22/2011:  18:37:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

seems Don is getting political

maybe we should close him down?

---

Don is never at a "new low": how dare ye, boy!

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/23/2011:  13:11:04

Bring it on, boys!

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/24/2011:  02:39:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Borchelt

Bring it on, boys!

---

Richard Dress wrote: "...can anyone imagine a different arrangement for our society that could include a BHO, or anything like it? ...Is anyone willing to step up and publicly espouse what they really think?"  He offered:  “I do.”

Don gave a sobering answer: “I believe society should be organized around anarcho-syndicalist communes.  We could still have the BHO.”

Richard posed a sober question:  “... seems Don is getting political … maybe we should close him down?”

And the Grateful Dead asked long ago: “What would be the answer to the answer, man?”

I reckon BHO’s leading Pranksters, Diggers and candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, its very own vociferous Human Rights Champions, its uniquely uncompromising do-gooders par excellence need an answer, or a new cause.

Tom

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/24/2011:  05:18:30

Tom wrote:  "I reckon BHO’s leading Pranksters, Diggers and candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, its very own vociferous Human Rights Champions, its uniquely uncompromising do-gooders par excellence need an answer, or a new cause."

On this day when we celebrate the ultimate Human Rights Champion, whose Word we try to humbly follow, however flawed our poor emulation, and though it bring us but mockery and disdain, let me repeat the words of a great American philosopher, Uncle Dave:

When Gabriel comes for to blow his horn,

Well you needn't pull back for you gotta go on,

So prepare yourself for the judgment day,

For you can't take money and buy your way.

Amen.

Edited by - Don Borchelt on 04/24/2011 05:33:12

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/24/2011:  06:35:19

Don gave a sobering answer: “I believe society should be organized around anarcho-syndicalist communes.  We could still have the BHO.”

Richard posed a sober question:  “... seems Don is getting political … maybe we should close him down?”

----------------------------------------

I was just joking.  Of course, he can't answer without getting political.

minstrelmike - Posted - 04/24/2011:  12:31:33

I knew you were 'joking' Richard.

Sarcasm is hard to get across on-line.

Hopefully, this post won't get deleted by the mods too.

plunknplinkntwang - Posted - 04/24/2011:  14:58:10

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - but possibly the most apt when considering the audience 

Edited by - plunknplinkntwang on 04/24/2011 14:59:10

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/24/2011:  16:29:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Borchelt

Tom wrote:  "I reckon BHO’s leading Pranksters, Diggers and candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, its very own vociferous Human Rights Champions, its uniquely uncompromising do-gooders par excellence need an answer, or a new cause."

On this day when we celebrate the ultimate Human Rights Champion, whose Word we try to humbly follow, however flawed our poor emulation, and though it bring us but mockery and disdain, let me repeat the words of a great American philosopher, Uncle Dave:

When Gabriel comes for to blow his horn,

Well you needn't pull back for you gotta go on,

So prepare yourself for the judgment day,

For you can't take money and buy your way.

Amen.

 

---

One can always count on good ol' Don Borchelt for steadfast ideas borrowing from the world's great philosophers and banjo raconteurs.  Is nothing profane?

Amun to dat. 

Hymns to Amun

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/25/2011:  05:15:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by plunknplinkntwang

 

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - but possibly the most apt when considering the audience 

---

To reiterate:  To my mind, the rules boil down to Eric's "House Rules" and really belong to him.  No matter how the rules are written, re-written, interpreted or misinterpreted, they still belong to him, as part of his domain (website).

Beyond mere technical rules (like the rules of a board game, e.g., protocols such as where to post), the pursuit of “fair” constitutive, prescriptive (and proscriptive) rules, of applying them uniformly, will always be doomed to perceived failure by individuals (some more than others) at various times because of the seeming arbitrariness of the rules themselves, and their seeming uneven applications.  This all owes to the individuality and subjectivity of values in both making and applying rules.  But we're not dealing with a legal system here, or pluralism, or even a democracy here.  We don’t vote here, unless we choose to vote with our feet, e.g., reading but not replying, not logging in at all, or leaving BHO, etc.

The rules will never be perfect, even if endlessly codified, which would always be subjective and open, theoretically, to debate.  The mods will never be perfect, bless them for trying.  It's a love it or leave it (alone) scenario, in my opinion.  The mods have got easier, solvable problems to deal with here.  I think they try to do their best, considering that they're doing the impossible – trying to be even-handed, objective and fair to everybody at all times, but still having to make ad hoc decisions on subjective matters, based on either their personal values or somebody else's.  We're still stuck in the antinomian structure that we find in morality and law, of rules v. values.  

I think this is a tempest in a teapot, because we have much bigger problems to face in the world today.  At any rate, the problem of making and applying rules in a forum such as this can never be fully solved, and folks, at times, will just have to live with perceived arbitrariness in rules and their seeming out-of-control applications.  It’s a nice house to play in, after all is said and done.  I’m just glad to be in the mix.  It's a very enlightened bunch of people here.

Tom 

minstrelmike - Posted - 04/25/2011:  13:33:08

I'm not actually looking for perfect rules.

What I want is equal enforcement by the mods of the rules and since there aren't any even poorly-defined terms used in the main rules, we don't get equal enforcement because we dont' have equal understanding.

Is the rule really that prayer requests are not a religious topic? I find that hard to believe.

Of course, I cannot address the contentious prayers because every time I give an example, the post is deleted BECASUSE IT IS CONTENTIOUS yet the mods say prayer requests are not contentious.

Stifling debate is stifling debate; it is not clarifying the rulez.

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/25/2011:  13:53:04

Tom wrote: "I think this is a tempest in a teapot, because we have much bigger problems to face in the world today. "

Yeah, true, but the BHO rules don't let us talk about most of them, so... 

Bill Rogers - Posted - 04/25/2011:  15:27:39

Hey MIke:  Read rule #5.  

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/26/2011:  10:18:33

Simple. 

Banjo Hangout allows for non-argumentative posts about political and religious topics (e.g., prayer requests), at the moderators’ discretion.  This may come across as long on ideas, but being a banjo player, I would not be heartbroken by someone telling me I wrote long posts or had too many ideas (like licks), one after another.  Banjo players need to be bursting full of ideas and answers to a multitude of musical problems, oh, and sin, as in “missing the mark”.  Nobody’s perfect, even (especially) in cyberspace.

As outlined in its rules, the Banjo Hangout is not a political or religious debating society.  Its need for rules and moderators does not base itself on democracy when it comes to rule application and enforcement.  Its rules are plainspoken, not based on a fictitious community of equals, theoretical pluralism or even freedom of expression, where folks can regurgitate whatever they want whenever they want, especially as regards sensitive political and religious matters. 

Posts that are viewed as “stirring up the pot” may get deleted, or somehow slip through the net, lol.  I think it has to be done on a subjective, ad hoc basis, because we’re all individual and subjective, and the mods don’t all have to agree about everything/anything.  Maybe if they see a pattern of argumentative posts questioning BHO rules, which are baby rules a child can understand, and they continually delete such posts, it’s not that they are being insensitive to their own insensitivity.  Maybe they’re sick and tired of having to do it and deal with the consequences, i.e., more of the same carrion (carry-on), lol.  It’s a dead issue because Eric and the mods know what they’re doing, sorry boys and girls. 

The power of some (BHO’s god-like mods – in deleting posts) over the powerlessness of others (mere-mortal posters – in having posts deleted) may appear arbitrary or unfair, to realists and idealists alike, especially if they constantly set themselves up for it.  Maybe this happens for a simple reason: BHO does not (and could not) operate as a utopian community with sacred shared values and equal voices in all things; it’s not the be-all-end-all-online-community paradise where the antagonism between domination and individualism melts away by a philosophical magic wand. 

Everybody gets a chance to use the “talking stick”, to hit the “Reply” button, so it isn’t so bad.  Still there is a real and upfront hierarchy here, by necessity, and some are appointed to exercise control over others in very subtle ways: so what! 

This is not sneaky politics and it's not despotism, even if it may appear as “censorship” when it banishes controversial topics/people or refuses to fuel potentially explosive debates that dog other online domains, e.g., YouTube, which is often a disaster in the Comments section).  I think common sense prevails here, and it’s child-friendly. 

Eric and the Mods make a great band!

It seems to me that BHO rules are straightforward and down to earth – easy to understand by anybody who tries, unless one chooses to push up against them and make a lot of noise about them.  People can create a lot trouble for themselves by fighting over CS.   

Perhaps a less controversial discussion about rules in society – without debating them – needs to reflect upon the not-fully resolved historical debates in religion, morality and legal philosophy.   I do not seek to harass the mods about their handling of impossible political and religious issues.  If you’re looking for trouble, well, you’ll find it – anywhere.

Even with good intentions, being too certain of and arguing one’s own personal position, over and over, can be a nuisance.  Being trapped inside our own reality-tunnels (Robert Anton Wilson) is what keeps us going in circles, locked into an incomplete model, trapped in our own rigid thinking and values, or worse, hypnotized or trapped by somebody else’s thinking and values.  Let go!

I’m offering a few links, not for debate but for private study, looking at the age-old problem of “Antinomianism” in social-religious movements, also some germane links to modern legal philosophy, including the Critical Legal Studies (CLS or Crit) movement (Harvard – Roberto Mangabeira Unger) and American and Scandinavian Legal Realism (University of Copenhagen – Alf Ross).

In Unger’s “critical legal studies” perspective, we have the problem of the one and the many: antinomies which require and yet render impossible the separation of the universal (theory, reason, rules) and the particulars (facts, desires, values), leading to a “prison-house of paradox whose rooms (do) not connect and whose passageways led nowhere.”

The problems of formulating rules, applying them fairly and in a balanced fashion is endemic:  it exists in modern legal systems, in finding equitable and enforceable solutions to the problems of order and freedom in civil societies.  See Knowledge and Politics – Roberto Mangabeira Unger. 

For an alternative view and a thoughtful critique of Unger and his earliest work:

Greg Bahnsen reviews Knowledge and Politics

I think the Banjo Hangout is overwhelmingly fair and functional and gets rid of a lot of unnecessary problems and issues by nipping them in the bud.  It's very forgiving too!  Now, how does one stop certain posters from writing longwinded posts?  

I will not delete, oh, cannot delete this post after fifteen minutes:  I’ll leave that up to the mods, whom I have faith in.  It’s not my Job. Haha. 

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 04/26/2011 10:33:12

jazzylynne - Posted - 04/26/2011:  10:37:52

Hmmm what can we do about long winded posters????  Is there a rules for that I missed

bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/26/2011:  10:45:44

quote:

---

Originally posted by jazzylynne

Hmmm what can we do about long winded posters????  Is there a rules for that I missed

---

Do you feel that there should be a law governing the length of posts?

the-fish - Posted - 04/26/2011:  11:08:54

I am amused that this is still going

minstrelmike - Posted - 04/26/2011:  13:17:16

quote:

---

Originally posted by jazzylynne

Hmmm what can we do about long winded posters????  Is there a rules for that I missed

---

I use the pagedown function.

Surprisingly enough, that works for all posts you dislike, even the one filled with the sort of political and religious stuff the mods do let occur on here. I know I can pagedown thru them too, but soi can anyone who dislikes the stuff I post.Kind of a quid pro quo do-unto-others thing that seems unequally applied on all threads.

minstrelmike - Posted - 04/26/2011:  13:20:45

Political or Religious Topics: Posts which are political or religious in nature are generally prohibited, although non-argumentative posts are allowed at the moderators' discretion (ie, a "Please pray for so and so" topic is fine).

======================================

Bill, my obviously wrong interpretation of this rule is: Whatever the mods decide is what goes.:

And here I am wasting my time talking about equal enforcement for all.

Sorry for trying to inflict such liberal ideas on a site that only wants to be a community.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 04/26/2011:  17:05:46

Richard Dress - Posted - 04/26/2011:  18:14:45

I am surprised no psychologist or psychology student has stepped up offered to help out here.  I am under the impression that a non-religious person can pray for a religious person, and vice-versa.  Of course, a religious person can pray for another religious person and a non-religious person can pray for another non-religious person.  If someone makes a prayer request, for example, you can't know if it is 100% religious, 50% religious or 0% religious unless the poster declares it.  Then the post could be suppressed for being religious if the mods decide to exercise their authority.  But what about the posts that just ask us to pray for someone?  We can't in good conscience ask the mods to suppress that kind of post, can we?.  I can conceive of an atheist who might pray if he thought that the prayer had some sort of Jungian efficacy, a believer in the power of positive thinking, focusing the good energy, etc..

Jody Hughes - Posted - 04/26/2011:  21:12:41

Perhaps you all need to start with a definition of prayer?

Perhaps someone can tell me how to "pray" without being religious, because as it is I can't think of a way.

WHAT would I be praying to...whatever I'm "praying" to is obviously capble of granting human wishes (lol), thereby making it religious...whether that be a banjo, tree, the universe, genie, whatever...In addition, it becomes religious because whatever I am praying to may not be an acceptable object by someone else.  It is clothed in a belief that not all fellow men share.

Prayer isn't the same as positive thinking and focusing good energy.  For example, I can think today is going to be a great day, that is positive thinking, but it's more of a Declaration than a prayer.  It's not necessarily directed to a specific thing, it's not "Lord, I hope this day is Good" (yay, got to quote a Don Williams song). 

It could be interpreted as today I am going to make my day good, I'm saying it in advance to influence my actions throughout the day.  Is that necessarily a "prayer", if so then it's too oneself. 

The reason I'm having a problem with that at the moment is because then it would seem prayer and thinking could be reduced to the same thing?   

You all are in my "thoughts" as we debate this lovely topic :P :P

feldspar1333 - Posted - 04/26/2011:  21:20:46

Thank you Jody.  Nice post.   I just didn't have the energy to go there tonight.....

Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/27/2011:  05:03:43

Oh Lord in Heaven, can't we just all get along?