TRON: strategic nexus

I shall use this post and one in the play fortress blog to outline the strategic importance of TRON.

deepening on twitter

Twitter is mostly for shallow engagement. The 140 character limit enforces a conciseness which I welcome, and it happens to align to the minimalism we find in buddhism. We have a tendency to multiply out of all proportion the simple lessons that wise bods have come up with over 2000 years of exploration and experience. I'd like to use this post to expand on the first little experiment we've had on twitter with @JimWray @HaumanaDao @eve11@zhibDe and others with the tag #budsci for buddhist science.

So with this in mind, can we use the letterbox protocol (defined in the previous post below) and apply it to twitter in order to deeper our engagement meaningfully?

rule #1: tweet with the invitation for another to follow

This principle is simple. You are not allowed to write more than one tweet at a time.

rule #2: respond with the tag #budsci

We can use various filter or search facilities of nambu, tweetdeck or seesmic, or use tweetag. This enables new people to join in.

rule #3: refer to this post for new posters

It may also be useful to have a link to this post every so often just to explain the format, where we can continue discussion in the comments if necessary. Also, if a new tweeter just starts blethering, or one of us breaks a rule, or we think it is veering off, one of us can post a link to this blog to clarify the rules and to emphasise the ideals we are attempting to realise.

option #1: bid for several tweets

We can break with the single-post limit by requesting two or three or even more in order to convey a system of thoughts. Simply state a number, and it must be followed by an agreement by the number of people equal to the request less one's self. Eg, if I ask for 2 tweets, then all I need is one OK for me to go ahead and produce two sequential tweets. If I ask for 3 tweets, two other people must say ok in sequence, because in effect we are asking for their 'tweet-time'.

option #2: number statements

In order to keep track of them, and perhaps to refer to them. Perhaps all of them, perhaps just specific ones we wish to mark. If we feel there is a continuity; an amazing achievement may be that three statements follow one after another even though they come from different people.

option #3: colour threads

Using colours to indicate different threads. This is of course a category system and prone to all the problems thereof. Red (physical), orange (emotional), yellow (knowledge), green (will), blue (communication), indigo (insight), violet (god). Could allow individuals to create a specific colour, eg aquamarine, to pursue a particular line of thinking.

In this way, we avoid the pitfalls of standard communication, which I believe prohibit us from sharing our insights meaningfully. We are not thinking oppositionally, we are not presenting an argument leading to a conclusion, nor are we persuading. We are merely remarking, observing. We also shy away from making beautiful or poetic statements because it is not the word combination that interests us, but what how it helps us reflect upon our own experiences and insights. Also, there is no need to agree to disagree. Be very careful with questions, since they tend to shift focus to a past statement or to lead the reader to something the writer wants to continue with; consider using option #1 for a question-answer pairing.

Ideally, statements are reflective: it is not what is written that matters, rather what is read. Ideally, statements follow one another: it does not matter from which person they come, because accurate reflections of our conditional existence are true. Ideally, we go with the flow of the statements: always mindful that there are more people listening than there are 'talking', and that by making a statement we are directing everyone's attention. Ideally, we enable a deepening by remaining on a point/concept/topic; instead of flitting from one to another, with whatever our mind comes up with that is not the statement. Ideally, we are patient: whatever we have in our minds, what we know to be true, will come up at some point. Ideally, we are not pressing on, but drawing attention to: there is nothing being transacted, only resonate. Ideally, each statement has an ending to it; we should tend away from using words in such a way that they invite necessary specific explication.

Are we capable of this? I am sure to fail, but... I like the idea of trying. Imagine we are sitting together deep in meditation. Be mindful of the effect of words. Give plenty of space. And if we are lucky, over a few weeks, with perhaps only a dozen statements, we will be satisfied with our statements or at the least we will have learned lessons about our conduct.

Be well!