Soryu’s asking us if we should take on those “recommendations” from Shinzen were, by my understanding at least, largely rhetorical. With Soryu’s statements and tone within that talk it was clear he did not favor abiding by them at all.
The talk was so inappropriate[1] and derisive of Shinzen that the executive director and head of Care (the two other branches of the triumvirate you spoke of in another comment) immediately held a meeting with Soryu the next morning pressing him to begin receiving “help,” of the professional kind. Soryu didn’t concede to this.
I heard and was a part of multiple conversations with residents the next day who were either worried about Soryu’s mental health or were questioning if Soryu was truly as trustworthy as he claimed to be. One resident told me “well, I guess that’s the end of that long friendship (of Soryu’s and Shinzen’s).”
I named two of Shinzen’s demands, I can’t remember the third. Could you please share it? And what are the changes that you speak of that were implemented following this talk?
Also, I believe you phrasing them as “recommendations” from Shinzen as misleading. I understood them to be red-lines for Shinzen’s support. That Shinzen could no longer support MAPLE if these “recommendations” were not met.
If I’m wrong, one thing that could help clarify this would be finding and publishing the recording of the session (as all lectures at MAPLE are recorded). If that’s too public, we could also pick a few other people like Kaj Sotala to listen and give their takes.
I use the term inappropriate because hosting a community wide flash-impromptu meeting to berate someone with big standing in the community (helped found MAPLE, hosted multiple retreats there, ordained many MAPLE residents), without them there to represent themselves was not a healthy medium for resolving the situation
Soryu’s asking us if we should take on those “recommendations” from Shinzen were, by my understanding at least, largely rhetorical. With Soryu’s statements and tone within that talk it was clear he did not favor abiding by them at all.
If it was rhetorical (which I did not take it as), it was not treated that way within the community. The 3 recommendations were repeated many times, brought up and discussed in multiple group discussions, by multiple different people in leadership, discussed in all group meetings as well as leadership meetings, with, and without Soryu present.
Most of the changes I saw came around changing our admissions process to better filter people and doing a better job of explaining the rigour of the training.
Soryu had just had his close friend call him, screaming, and any attempt by him to talk or ask clarifying questions was met with him being screamed over. My sense of the situation was someone who had just dealt with that, nevertheless trying to take the feedback seriously.
Soryu’s asking us if we should take on those “recommendations” from Shinzen were, by my understanding at least, largely rhetorical. With Soryu’s statements and tone within that talk it was clear he did not favor abiding by them at all.
The talk was so inappropriate[1] and derisive of Shinzen that the executive director and head of Care (the two other branches of the triumvirate you spoke of in another comment) immediately held a meeting with Soryu the next morning pressing him to begin receiving “help,” of the professional kind. Soryu didn’t concede to this.
I heard and was a part of multiple conversations with residents the next day who were either worried about Soryu’s mental health or were questioning if Soryu was truly as trustworthy as he claimed to be. One resident told me “well, I guess that’s the end of that long friendship (of Soryu’s and Shinzen’s).”
I named two of Shinzen’s demands, I can’t remember the third. Could you please share it? And what are the changes that you speak of that were implemented following this talk?
Also, I believe you phrasing them as “recommendations” from Shinzen as misleading. I understood them to be red-lines for Shinzen’s support. That Shinzen could no longer support MAPLE if these “recommendations” were not met.
If I’m wrong, one thing that could help clarify this would be finding and publishing the recording of the session (as all lectures at MAPLE are recorded). If that’s too public, we could also pick a few other people like Kaj Sotala to listen and give their takes.
I use the term inappropriate because hosting a community wide flash-impromptu meeting to berate someone with big standing in the community (helped found MAPLE, hosted multiple retreats there, ordained many MAPLE residents), without them there to represent themselves was not a healthy medium for resolving the situation
If it was rhetorical (which I did not take it as), it was not treated that way within the community. The 3 recommendations were repeated many times, brought up and discussed in multiple group discussions, by multiple different people in leadership, discussed in all group meetings as well as leadership meetings, with, and without Soryu present.
Most of the changes I saw came around changing our admissions process to better filter people and doing a better job of explaining the rigour of the training.
Soryu had just had his close friend call him, screaming, and any attempt by him to talk or ask clarifying questions was met with him being screamed over. My sense of the situation was someone who had just dealt with that, nevertheless trying to take the feedback seriously.