Events » Past Events » List Focus & Guidelines Revisited
Post #1 - Sent March 26, 2001
Hi All,
I am sending this test email to the entire list, even those of you who have your accounts set to No Email. This is the first time I have ever sent an email directly to the entire list in my 2.5 year tenure as List Admin.
I don’t wish to be intrusive to those who don’t wish to receive mail. However, an issue regarding the focus of the Sethnet list has come to the forefront during the past week or so and I want to be able to alert anyone who may wish to participate in this important debate.
It deals with the focus of the list and whether or not to allow posting channeled material other than Seth/Jane.
What may seem as a no-brainer on the surface has turned out to be quite a complex issue.
For those of you whose accounts are set to No Email, you can catch up on the discussion by reading the archives beginning around message #35600. There are some posts before that point too. (you can search on “List Focus”).
Some of you may need to go to the Yahoo! website and change your Sethnet account to Digests or Individual Mails.
Just go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sethnet/join
and follow the instructions.
Depending on the response, I may set up a poll in a week or so and open the issue to a non-binding group vote. Your participation is encouraged and appreciated.
If you need any help in getting into the Sethnet website on Yahoo! please send me a private email.
Thanks,
Paul H.
Sethnet List Admin
P.S. If you wish to be removed from this list, just hit the reply button and put the words “Please Remove” in the subject header.
Post #2 - Sent March 30, 2001
Hi All,
This is the next to last email that I will send to the entire list of subscribers on Sethnet, even those of you with your accounts set to No Email. If you sent me a note to remove you from the list and I didn’t, please accept my apologies, this has been the most sophisticated Admin activity I’ve undertaken to date.
Since we last left our hero, there has been a relatively strong response on the issue of “list focus” and the rules of etiquette that govern the list. I have received 40 private responses and there have been well over 50 on the public list. This is exceptional in terms of the usual kinds of participation on the list.
There has been a very creative outpouring of ideas, feelings, and opinions. It is said that for every letter written to a Congressional office there are ten others who feel strongly in a similar way but don’t actually take the time to write. I suspect that is true in this case.
Of the 819 accounts subbed to the list as of March 30th, 516 do not receive mail directly, and 303 do. However, many of those using the No Email option access the website and read and post from there. So the 90-plus people who chose to respond represent slightly over 10 percent of the subscribers.
As this is your list and my role is to serve your needs, I wanted to provide an opportunity for one and all to participate in a series of polls that I have created based upon the feedback received to date. The polls will be open for the next nine days, beginning today Friday (March 30, 2001) and ending next Saturday (April 7, 2001). This should allow adequate time for those inclined to respond to the eight questions.
During that time you can go back and change any of your answers.
Once the polls conclude, your choices are final and the results will be sent automatically to the list. I will also send one last email with those results to the entire list and then delete it (not Sethnet, just the customized email list I created to contact all subscribers).
To cast your votes, just go to the following webpage:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sethnet/polls
Please note! I have included a response to each question that reads, “It depends on other variables.” Choose this answer if you feel the wording of the question leads too strongly toward a gray or not adequately defined area. These polls are not scientific but an intuitive expression, so play with them and have fun.
If you have any problem accessing the Sethnet website hosted on Yahoo! feel free to send me a private email for assistance. Please be patient with my response time as this endeavor requires a large chunks of time to administer.
There has also been a tremendous surge of inner creativity bubbling up from inner layers to help stir to proverbial pot. For example, group dreams have become a nightly occurrence for me in the past week. Our inner selves are watching these probable events unfold with their usual curiosity, wonder, and ten thousand gentle whispers.
What are you “hearing”?
Please exercise your right to vote!
Thanks again for participating in this grand adventure in consciousness and experiment in democracy of the spirit.
As always,
Paul H.
Sethnet List Admin
P.S. If you wish to be unsubscribed from the Sethnet list, just hit the reply button and put the words “Please Unsubscribe” in the subject header.
Post #3 - Sent April 9, 2001
Hi All,
This is the final email regarding the issue of “list focus” on the Sethnet email list.
Overview
In mid-March a thread on the Gates of Horn magically morphed into the list focus issue once again. Enough people participated in that discussion to move me to encourage further public debate.
Since we opened our cyber-doors on October 1, 1998 the focus of the list and its three tenets have been stated as follows on our home page:
http://www.cafemuse.com/sethnet/
What is the focus and purpose of this list?
The Sethnet email list provides a forum to explore the ideas contained in the 40-plus books published by Seth/Jane Roberts, share personal stories of our own explorations of these ideas, and nurture the growing international community that shares an interest in the further understanding and practical application of these ideas. Oh yes, and to have fun as we pursue our “value fulfillment” in the process!
“You get what you concentrate upon. There is no other main rule.” Seth/Jane Roberts - The Nature of Personal Reality, session #617.
What do you wish to concentrate upon? Just about anything goes here that relates to the purpose of this list. All we ask here is we each observe three basic tenets:
1. treat YOURSELF with simple regard, and reflect that in your posts to others – flames are strongly discouraged and best taken offlist.
2. focus on Seth/Jane’s ideas in sharing those experiences.
3. don’t post any “other” channeled material to the list.
The Poll
After soliciting and receiving public feedback for over a week, I put together a series of eight questions into a poll that attempted to best capture the intent of the debate.
The poll was then opened for nine days. A total of 166 people were able to navigate the Yahoo! system and cast their votes. 12 additional people voted by sending me their detailed views privately.
The Results
1. Should the _primary_focus_ of the Sethnet list be on the ideas expressed in the 40-plus books written by Jane Roberts?
Choices Votes % 166 replies
- Yes, I’m interested primarily in exploring the work of Seth and Jane Roberts. 113 68.07%
- No, I’m more interested in exploring any expression of the perennial philosophy that has equally valid, common elements. 38 22.89%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 7 4.22%
- It depends on other variables. 8 4.82%
2. My _primary_interest_ in participating on this list is in the:
Choices Votes % 154 replies
- practical applications of the Seth material to every day life. 40 25.97%
- exploration of subjective reality (magical approach, other lifetimes, dreams, channeling, inner senses, etc.). 8 5.19%
- “science” (the mechanics or “how physical reality works”) of conscious creation. 3 1.95%
- all the above as my primary interests change like the sands on a beach. 103 66.88%
3. Should there be _any_ rules governing behavior and etiquette on the list?
Choices Votes % 145 replies
- Yes, the first two existing rules of 1. treating oneSelf with simple regard and 2. reflecting that simple regard toward Others sets an adequate baseline for behavior and etiquette. 109 75.17%
- No, rules are too subjective anyway and everyone creates their own interpretation of appropriate behavior and etiquette. 17 11.72%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 8 5.52%
- It depends on other variables. 11 7.59%
4. My definition of _primary_focus_ is closer to which of the following?
Choices Votes % 146 replies
- Mention or tie in a Seth/Jane quote or concept in most of my posts. 68 46.58%
- Say whatever I please whenever I feel like it, as the impulses move me. 28 19.18%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 5 3.42%
- It depends on other variables. 45 30.82%
5. Should posting _anything_, including other channeled material, be allowed _as_long_as_it_supports_the_primary_focu s_ of this list, which is currently defined as the thirty-plus books written by Jane Roberts?
Choices Votes % 150 replies
- Yes, it’s all a creative expression of All-That-Is and I will either find it useful or else disregard it. 110 73.33%
- No, I’m here to learn about the Seth/Jane material. 30 20.00%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 1 0.67%
- It depends on other variables. 9 6.00%
6. It is a sign of a _healthy_list_ when a group splinters off and forms its own list.
Choices Votes % 139 replies
- Yes, this is a natural dynamic that reflects the inner, natural workings of the psyche. 100 71.94%
- No, a list should be flexible enough to accommodate everyone’s needs, desires, and expectations. 6 4.32%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 13 9.35%
- It depends on other variables. 20 14.39%
7. I am _more_interested_ in the ideas presented by Seth than in the ideas and poetry of Jane Roberts.
Choices Votes % 146 replies
- Yes, I prefer to focus on Seth. 63 43.15%
- No, I prefer a mix of Seth and Jane Roberts. 54 36.99%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 13 8.90%
- It depends on other variables. 16 10.96%
8. How _important_ is it that the results of these polls _be_binding_? In other words, if a majority of people, as defined by at least a 51% margin, wish to change the rules governing this list, should these polls be the final means to make a decision even if a “silent majority” of list subscribers doesn’t vote?
Choices Votes % 138 replies
- It is very important that these polls SHOULD be binding. 37 26.81%
- It is very important that these polls NOT be binding. 29 21.01%
- I don’t care one way or the other. 28 20.29%
- It depends on other variables. 44 31.88%
Conclusions & Suggestions
As a result of the discussion and polling process of the past three weeks here are my conclusions and suggestions:
As of today, April 9, 2001, we have 843 subscribers, 528 of which are set to No Mail, 315 who receive some type of mail. Though I have no way of knowing how many of the 178 who voted (166 online, 12 privately) receive emails, that 178 of 843 represents roughly 21% of all subscribers.
In terms of public opinion polls, this is a HIGH percentage of participation. In terms of public elections this is a LOW percentage.
In terms of the newness of cyberspace and learning to use the technology required to access it, I find this turn out to be extremely encouraging! We are still very much in the infancy of this new Internet medium, just like the early days of television and radio.
1. As far as who’s vote should or shouldn’t count, should they be more weighted toward those who are more or less vocal or participatory, I looked to the precedent used in public elections here in the USA; we each have the right to vote even if we do not avail ourselves of any information on the issues or the candidates. So a vote counts as a vote, whether you are a rabid poster, occasional poster, lurker, or don’t really care one way or the other.
2. Regarding the results of question #8 - “should the polls be binding?” - there is no clear mandate. The highest vote-getter was “depends on other variables,” meaning that some issues were not clearly stated in the question. Still, when looking at the results of the previous seven questions, clear patterns of intent are expressed. Therefore, I am using the polls as a measuring stick of the needs of the list and making the appropriate modifications based upon them. In that sense, the polls ARE binding:
- Regarding question #1 - the focus of the list - a majority of 68% voted to keep it on Seth/Jane Roberts. Though in questions #2, #4, and #7 that primary focus has no clear majority. So the focus stays upon the Seth/Jane material as a whole.
- The Sethnet list is a public forum that anyone can join. IT IS UNMODERATED, meaning UNcensored. Not one post has been deleted or subscriber banned to date. On the other hand, there are moderated lists where posts are censored in order to provide focus and continuity. However, the tradeoff is that you lose spontaneity and creativity along with the boorish and immature behavior (though moderated lists have their share of boorish behavior, creativity and spontaneity too).
While protecting the “freedom of speech” is an important value to me personally, it doesn’t mean I have to encourage boorish and immature behavior on Sethnet. I believe that there still needs to be guidelines, perhaps codicils
Those guidelines were voted on in question #3. A 75% majority voted to use tenet #1 as guidelines for appropriate behavior. Therefore, it will stand. However, since its intent may not be as clear as I would like, I’m redefining tenet #1 to read as follows:
1. aspire to treat YOURSELF with unconditional love, acceptance, and respect, and reflect these values in your posts to others (destructive criticism and flames are strongly discouraged and best taken offlist).
(Please note: I mistakenly separated tenet #1 into two parts on the poll, and called them rules 1 and 2. They are, in fact, both parts of tenet #1.)
- Regarding the posting of personal stories and the like in the context of list focus, tenet #2 stands by a clear majority as seen in questions #1, #2, #4, and #7. Therefore, tenet #2 remains essentially the same, with a clarification:
2. Please keep your posts relevant to the ideas expressed throughout the Seth/Jane Roberts’s books when sharing personal experiences.
- Regarding tenet #3: its original intent was to support the focus of the list on Seth/Jane, as this is not a Bashar, Lazarus, Abraham, Datre, Elias, Christ, Buddha, etc. list. (even though on some level we know these are all valid expressions of All-That-Is).
In question #5, a 73% majority voted to allow posting other channeled material to the list. Therefore, I’m modifying tenet #3 as follows:
3. When posting any supporting material, please keep it relevant to the primary focus of this list - the joint exploration of the 40-plus books written by Seth/Jane Roberts.
Summary
In summary, this debate has not been solely about tenet #3, allowing or disallowing channeled material, but more about the focus of the list itself and serving its ever-changing needs, having grown to over 800 subscribers and climbing steadily.
The debate has also been about appropriate etiquette for a group this large that now includes so many diverse people, sexual preferences, nationalities, interests, age groups, learning styles, yet are all connected by a common interest in the practical application of Seth/Jane’s ideas.
The debate has also demonstrated a clear need for other lists to spin off (or spontaneously form in parallel) that specialize on emerging collective needs, whether it’s channeling, lucid dreaming, alien phenomenon, weight loss, sexuality ... whatever. The results of question #6 reflect a 72% majority in this area.
And I’m not just talking about Seth/Jane lists, but conscous creation lists.
This means that we need to encourage others to step up and make the commitment to create, moderate, or facilitate spinoff/related lists. This is an important area of growing need in the online conscious creation community at large. Sethnet is one important part of that larger “online community” in my view.
All this to say that my vision for the Sethnet email list is not to be THE central Seth site or anything so naive and sophomoric, but instead a place of creative excellence, based upon essential values mined from the gems found in the Seth/Jane material that promote a cooperative, healthy web of related, ever-expanding conscious creation-related discussion forums and websites.
But that vision requires our participation! As always, we come back to the questions of Which You? Which World? As always, it’s our choice.
Kudos!
I would also like to extend a heartfelt THANK YOU! to each and every one of you for your participation, at whatever level you are comfortable with, in the Sethnet email list experience and this little experiment in cyber-democracy.
I’d also like to acknowledge the foundational efforts of Stan Ulkowski, Lynda Dahl, and the many folks who put their blood sweat and tears into Sethnet Int’l. from 1992-1999, without whose dedication and hard work, this list would not exist. What a long strange trip it continues to be!
Focus Upon The Message or the Messenger?
Finally, many of us believe that if these ideas are to ever take hold on a larger level there is a growing need to focus more upon the message and less upon the messenger(s). This is a powerful theme in Seth’s message:
“Do not place the words of gurus, ministers, priests, scientists, psychologists, friends – or my words – higher than the feeling of your own being. You can learn much from others, but the deepest knowledge must come from within yourself. Your own consciousness is embarked upon a reality that basically can be experienced by no other, that is unique and untranslatable, with its own meaning following its own paths of becoming.
“You share an existence with others who are experiencing their own journeys in their own ways, and you have journeying in common, then. Be kind to yourself and your companions.” – The Nature of Personal Reality, session 677.
“We meet ourselves time and again in a thousand disguises on the path of life.” – Carl Gustav Jung
Cheers,
Paul Helfrich
Sethnet List Admin
P.S. If you wish to be unsubscribed from the Sethnet list, just hit the reply button and put the words “Please Unsubscribe” in the subject header.