The New And Improved Saragrahi

Dear Saragrahi Reader.

Please make yourself familiar with the "Site Guide" page and with the "Submissions" page which states the new and improved Saragrahi policies regrading this forum.  If you have any comments and suggestions they will be most welcomed.  Below you will find a general letter written by myself, "The Facilitator" of this forum. It basically describes and sets the mood for the reopening of this forum.

We should not assume that people are insincere.  But why should we assume they are sincere?  There is no sound reasoning to assume one way or the other.  What makes a lot of sense is that we let their words/actions speak for themselves.   If we find that the words and actions are sincere, all well and good, and if we find them insincere, equally well and good. 

Saragrahi is not one of those “why can’t we all just get along” type of places.  This is a discussion group.  And the theme running though all the discussions, hopefully, is discerning between shadow and substance.  Some of you are more keen to exercise this muscle, so to speak, and so you may be willing to risk being wrong and say your piece in an open forum.  Others are more comfortable being “safe” by being silent or making presentations in a manner which they consider “palatable”.  However, the exercise is to dissect things to see if they hold actual merit. 

The point of this exercise is to develop the ability to extract that which has substance and is valuable from the  fantasy, the castle in the air, the daydream, the illusion, the pipedream, the rainbow, the whim, the whimsy, the wishful thinking and, from the fanciful and extravagant plan or desire.  And in doing so, learning to stand with one’s convictions.  This is not just a matter of assessing the content of things, but sometimes the people who advance the ideas as well, which is something we all do anyway.  Nevertheless, some absurd social convention has it that we don’t do this openly.  But social convention is never the first concern of any Saragrahi.  Most social conventions are servants of group illusions, after all. 

What we have here is an open forum in which those who submit any type of article will stand or fall on their own merit and at their own risk.  And those who read the postings are totally free to choose what they want to read and disregard the rest.  As facilitator of this forum I will do likewise, choose what I want to read, choose what I write, choose how I want to present my views, and so can everyone else.  Why, then, should anyone observing (including the facilitators) any such exchange be negatively influenced; like saying they are disappointed, say that it is sick, say that it is offensive, or feel that they do not like what is being said, etc.?  If anyone has such sentiments, then it is their right.  However, it is also their right to, or not to, reply.  The onlookers (including the facilitators) can choose to follow the exchange or give it a miss.  As facilitator of this forum, I certainly feel no obligation to be a crowd-pleaser in a debate-type scenario, and neither should anyone else. 

If you are in an exchange with someone, you reserve the right to play your shots according to your lights, not by anticipating the onlookers’ (including the facilitators ) point of view and then make your moves.  It is fascinating to see that people feel that because they are observing two people in an intense discussion, that the participants must anticipate the audience (or the facilitators) and play to the audience (or the facilitators), rather than deal with the situation as they see fit.  Politicians do that, because truth is not their agenda, getting elected to office is their agenda.  But for us, truth is the agenda, as we believe it, not according to the masses. 

 If a reader does not care for someone’s approach or point of view, then the reader can move on to something that does appeal to him/her.  Or they can counter with a reply.  This makes good sense and it would be wonderful to hear any alternative that makes even more sense.  You have complete freedom to choose who and what you want to read, what you want to write, so that you will not feel alienated or annoyed to the extent that you would want to give up the whole website.  Our advice is that you should simply skip over the postings that don’t interest you, for whatever reason.  After all, you do the same thing reading a newspaper or magazine, so why should Saragrahi be any different? 

What is the value of condemning anyone else, what to speak of condemning just because he or she does not agree with our way of thinking?   Hence the following is a response to the basic question of “condemning” people, or to be more accurate, condemning the ideas of people. 

The value in dissecting something and calling a spade a spade is that we learn not to be taken in by shadow, believing it to be substance. The value is in our refusal to be taken in by the sweet and plausible lies that tend to slip by us daily in the guise of truth, of wisdom, when in reality half-truths are also lies, what to speak of complete lies. That’s the value. 

Nevertheless it is not a big deal if someone feels smug about being able to separate truth from falsity.  It would not bother anyone at all.  In any case, a smug sense of satisfaction is hardly the issue.  Learning to discern truth from illusion, even at the risk of error, that is the satisfaction.  As facilitator of this forum, I would say that those who get alienated and shut down by animated discussion are probably simply not fit for the Saragrahi-type enterprise.

Any comments in this regard would gladly be posted for as facilitator of this forum I think that this would be a great way to give rebirth, so to speak, to this forum which started to die over a year ago, and which has been “dead” for over 6 months now.