Hallie Leighton, “Mission statement for this list”

Date:

Thu, 20 Jan 2000 04:19:57 -0500

From:

Hallie <hallie@womanhattan.com>

Reply to:

johnny@charm.net

To:

johnny@charm.net

Joseph Orduin asked:

But what is the purpose of “civilized discourse and…interaction” that would similarly imply a standard according to which we could use that “should”?

…

To whittle this down to a single question, by what standard do you use that “should”?

and later:

By what standards are you judging discourse to be “quality discourse”?

Well, a good way to try to determine the purpose of discourse is to examine what happens when it is impeded in some way. We have no difficulty recognizing instances when a lack of social lubrication prevents quality discourse. Fur flies, feelings are hurt. But what happens when the oil and glue is applied in overly liberal amounts and clogs the machinery?

The purpose of discourse varies from list to list, but let's talk about this list. Most of us are on this list because we can't have the conversation we like have here elsewhere. What characterizes this kind of conversation? Johnnies like to dig deep. We dig deep no matter where each of us chooses to stop and dig (hence multiple threads and no prescribed/proscribed topics of discourse).

We abhor shallowness. We'd rather risk the possibility of not getting along perfectly than be shallow in our discourse. We do value pleasant conversation and niceties, but when the desire to have pleasant conversation trumps the desire for deep conversation, deep conversation can be prevented. If one's top priority is to create a positive, nurturing group experience, this can keep a conversation at a shallow level.

I am working on a proposal for the mission statement for the FAQ. This is to clarify our mission, not to create one that is not already there.

There is an ethos to this list. There is also an unspoken ongoing mission. Even though I haven't seen it put into words, only rarely have I seen it misunderstood.

(Ethos, noun: the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution—Merriam Webster collegiate dictionary)

Below is not the proposed mission statement, but the idea behind my proposal. The actual mission statement would be a lot shorter.

The distinguishing characteristic of a johnny is an inquisitive mind. Not necessarily an intelligent mind (who can judge that anyway), but always an inquisitive mind. We have a high respect for knowledge, and when we converse, we treasure that above all else. Yes, we honor feelings, relationships, & communication (with varying degrees of success ;-) ), but we strive above all else to gain knowledge, to learn, and to dig as deep as we need to get this knowledge.

To repeat, we do value communication and relationships, and not just because they are a means to the end of attaining knowledge. If that were so, we would just be using our fellow j-listers. We value communication and relationships in themselves. But when we value them over the quest for knowledge, the latter is impeded.

When I refer to knowledge, I don't mean pedantic knowledge—we're not trying to win a game of jeopardy. (Although precise knowledge of facts often proves invaluable for our ends, so we value accuracy.) We seek knowledge and truth in a broader sense.

Yet nothing is too trivial for us to explore. We'll stop anywhere and dig.

This is the nature of a johnny. We question. We are not looking for answers. For the closer we get to the heart of a matter, the more questions arise. But we refuse to stop at a superficial understanding, even if we are going outside of our comfort zone. We try to be brave. We scratch below surfaces, pull the curtains on myths, uncover mysteries where others would be perfectly satisfied with pat explanations or blind attachment to previously held beliefs. We are suspicious of myths, knowing that one of the definitions of myth is “an unfounded or false notion.” For johnnies, love is never blind. Whether we talk about grammar, dietary laws, idolatry, etymology, movies, names of creeks & hills, ourselves, whatever, we are at least if not more interested in finding out about these things as we are about strengthening our relationships. We seek knowledge for knowledge's sake, not to feel good about ourselves individually or as a group or to strengthen our connections to our fellow johnnies, not that we don't hope to do that too.

I oppose banning any subject, even gun control, although occasionally it is appropriate to discourage it. However, as Ms. Lovenheim clarified re Ms. Fahey's position on gun control, we don't shy away from a topic because we don't feel good when we talk about it or because it makes us uncomfortable. We only avoid a topic when we have learned all there is to learn about each other's positions and to reopen the discussion would only cause a rehashing of these positions.

This does not rule out recipes, quips, personal anecdotes, and games from the ethos of the list. These things contribute to making the list lively. But any quip is fair game to set off a deep discussion, and vice versa. And often on this list even the quips are a way of delving. (Mr. Nease only makes quips as far as I can tell, yet I always find his posts informative and often thought-provoking.)

But why do johnnies insist on always getting our information straight, demanding that people make correct attributions, use precise definitions, accurate statements of fact?

Are we ignoring the forest for the trees? Are we just showing off?

No.

We have a reverence for knowledge. We show our respect for knowledge and truth by being careful and responsible about what we present as the truth, no matter what the subject. When we are unsure if something we are going to say (if is not an opinion) is true, we indicate as much (“I think…” “As I understand it…” “If I am not mistaken…”) We approach subjects we know little about with humility. We don't present vague notions as facts, and if we do we take correction. We don't spread rumors (unless we're gossiping about news from Annap/Santa Fe, but even then we specify that these are rumors and not facts). Even an assertion of fact when one is talking about a subject one knows little about can be called a rumor, and this gets in the way of our mission. Small untruths can mislead us in our search for big truths.

Sometimes we make mistakes, but we generally hold ourselves to high standards in our posts. We work on maintaining this high level. No one should be exempt from these standards. That would be called a double standard.

Hallie Leighton SF ’92

p.s. This post took two and a half days to write (off and on). Because of this and the specific subject matter, I would like to make an unusual request: If you find this post interesting and would like to respond, please wait 24 hours before posting your response. You can start composing the post whenever you like, but please do not post the response within 24 hours, even if you think you agree with it. If you do not honor this request, you run the risk of being disrespectful and might end up missing the point of the post entirely.