--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
<petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
>
>
> OK Mike,
>
> You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
to
> Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not really all that
> interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
> find all that interesting.  No offense meant.

  Hey Pete!
Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
Charming Chod Practices!
Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
Improve Your Love Life!
Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
You laugh and cry – at the same time!
and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
So Come On In?
Vibes,
Flemming

>

Pete:
> You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed
> the following to
> Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not
> really all that
> interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list
> isn't a place I
> find all that interesting.  No offense meant.

Hey Pete,

Welcome to the group. I don't think I expect or anyone
expects that you want to learn anything about
Anthroposophy as a study, rather, you might be
interested in a expressing your understandings of his
teachings in regards to certain things that bother
you. Or you might not.

I think this list is a good one for debate as some are
anthroposophists and some are not. But what we do have
in common is that we appreciate Dr. STeiner's work.
The commonalities may end there:) but all in all its a
pretty outragiously honest and open group about their
understandings even when they differ from one another.


All good things,
Dottie





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

I'm not really all that interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I find all that interesting.  No offense meant.

I'll be the first to admit that my experiences with the Anthroposophists at the Waldorf school I'm associated with have been disappointing.  I'll try to keep an open mind and let everyone here convince me of how wrong I am.

I am not affiliated with PLANS in any way.

I'm sure Dottie can fill everyone in on the rest of the details of my personal life.

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
<petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
>
>
> OK Mike,
>
> You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
to
> Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not really all that
> interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
> find all that interesting.  No offense meant.
>
>

Oh shit....someone actually showed up???

Apologies to Barnaby.

Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have
admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what we see
as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by PLANS.
Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter - with
a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations that
are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to the
core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and luring
unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.

I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for formal
discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a smoke
screen that hides our individual motives and intent. I personally
have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution to
the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as the
guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.

I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
exposed.

And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in place
at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do also see
that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the idealistic
nature of WE.

It's the ideological warfare, and the high volume derisive rhetoric,
that impells me to speak out against it.

I could go on, but I'm off to work

Thanks

Mike

Thanks, If I decide I need a lecture on any of these things, I'll know
where to come <G>.

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "yogidahl2000"
<Dahl_flemming@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK Mike,
> >
> > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
> to
> > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not really all that
> > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
> > find all that interesting.  No offense meant.
>
>  Hey Pete!
> Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
> I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
> Charming Chod Practices!
> Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
> Improve Your Love Life!
> Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
> You laugh and cry – at the same time!
> and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
> Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
> So Come On In?
> Vibes,
> Flemming
>
> >

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@y...> wrote:
> Pete:
> > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed
> > the following to
> > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not
> > really all that
> > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list
> > isn't a place I
> > find all that interesting.  No offense meant.
>
> Hey Pete,
>
> Welcome to the group. I don't think I expect or anyone
> expects that you want to learn anything about
> Anthroposophy as a study, rather, you might be
> interested in a expressing your understandings of his
> teachings in regards to certain things that bother
> you. Or you might not.

Thanks for the welcome, Dottie.  We'll see how it goes.

>
> I think this list is a good one for debate as some are
> anthroposophists and some are not. But what we do have
> in common is that we appreciate Dr. STeiner's work.

Well, I may be a stick in the mud there... <G>

> The commonalities may end there:) but all in all its a
> pretty outragiously honest and open group about their
> understandings even when they differ from one another.

You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas here?

Pete

At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:

>You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas here?

This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion (on the WC),
namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each other. Do
lined-up dominos eat each other?

Tarjei

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher"
<mhelsher@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK Mike,
> >
> > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
> to
> > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it.  I'm not really all that
> > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
> > find all that interesting.  No offense meant.
> >
> >
>
> Oh shit....someone actually showed up???

Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.

>
> Apologies to Barnaby.

I'll say "thanks" for him.

>
> Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have
> admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what we see
> as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by PLANS.

I'm not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone else's ideas
here.  I have my own views and I'm sure they will be adequate fodder
for your concerns.

> Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter - with
> a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations that
> are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to the
> core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and luring
> unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.

I am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care to.
Keith is doing a good job of it on WC too.  I've never heard anyone
say "anthroposophy is racist to the core" so I don't know it that was
actually said anywhere or if it is an interpretation.  I will say,
however, that some of Anthroposophy's core principles have a racist
tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to have
a racist ring to them.

>
> I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for formal
> discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a smoke
> screen that hides our individual motives and intent.

Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with regards
to myself.  I'm not interested in name-calling as I don't think it
benefits anyone.  Deciding *why* I feel the way I do is something
reserved for *me* - not for others to speculate.  So, if it's OK with
you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and not concentrate
on the people from which the ideas come.

>I personally
> have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
> experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution to
> the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as the
> guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.

OK.

>
> I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
> exposed.

Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability.  And that the
goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeat
the dumb stuff with other people's children.

>
> And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in place
> at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do also see
> that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the idealistic
> nature of WE.

I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can slaughter
chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care.  I believe, however,
that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy to
parents.  Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with the
philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
committing a horrible act of deceit.  Can I say that Steiner would not
have approved?  I don't think I can.

Pete:
> >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind
> Steiner's ideas here?

Hey Pete,

No we definitely do not fall like dominoes around
here. We fall :) but not like dominos for sure. And
sometimes we trip each other up but it's all good.

And yeah, we'll see how it goes. It's all good.

Best,
Dottie



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Tarjei,

If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might
not get along.

You don't like the shark analogy?  From what little I've seen here,
you guys seem to pick on each other quite a bit.  I could be wrong -
like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it hasn't been of
interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and it's quite
tasty <G>.

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
<cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
>
> >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas here?
>
> This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion (on the
WC),
> namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each other. Do
> lined-up dominos eat each other?
>
> Tarjei

Hi Pete,


Welcome! :)

Er...was Flake what you had in mind? :) ;)


Thanks,

Keith


--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
<petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
>
> Tarjei,
>
> If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might
> not get along.
>
> You don't like the shark analogy?  From what little I've seen here,
> you guys seem to pick on each other quite a bit.  I could be wrong -
> like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it hasn't been of
> interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and it's quite
> tasty <G>.
>
> Pete
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
> <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> > At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
> >
> > >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas
here?
> >
> > This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion (on the
> WC),
> > namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each other. Do
> > lined-up dominos eat each other?
> >
> > Tarjei

Keith,

I'm embarassed - you've lost me already.  Flake?  What's this in
reference to?  Shark meat?  Yeah, it can be a little flakey.  Is this
what you meant?

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "kmlightseeker"
<kmlightseeker@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
>
> Welcome! :)
>
> Er...was Flake what you had in mind? :) ;)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Tarjei,
> >
> > If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might
> > not get along.
> >
> > You don't like the shark analogy?  From what little I've seen here,
> > you guys seem to pick on each other quite a bit.  I could be wrong -
> > like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it hasn't been of
> > interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and it's quite
> > tasty <G>.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
> > <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> > > At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
> > >
> > > >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas
> here?
> > >
> > > This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion (on the
> > WC),
> > > namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each
other. Do
> > > lined-up dominos eat each other?
> > >
> > > Tarjei

Pete:
> I'm embarassed - you've lost me already.  Flake?  What's this in
> reference to?  Shark meat?  Yeah, it can be a little flakey.  Is this
> what you meant?

Maybe he means you only had a 'flake' (piece) of shark versus the big
tooth, mean, oh so mean, ferocious in fact, Tarjei :)  sitting in your
pool:))) with a big ol smile on his face :)

That's my interpretation,
d

At 18:47 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:

>Tarjei,
>
>If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might not
>get along.

If course I don't have a sense of humor. If I throw out a joke here, you'll
probably choke on it, so let's leave it at that. Btw getting along with you
(or anybody else for that matter) has never been my ambition, so I'm not
going to lose any sleep over us not getting along.

Incidentally, didn't Dan Dugan teach you that sarcasm doesn't work in
email? That's what he told me when I tried something like that. Then he
attributed to my not being aware of sarcasm not working in email, to
English being my second language. I don't see the logic in this, but
perhaps someone can help explain, preferably in Norwegian.

>You don't like the shark analogy?

Yes I do, but I was disappointed that you didn't do a little more homework
on marine life and specify that we are more similar to Sand Tiger sharks
than to the Grey Reef variety. <positively no fun intended>

> From what little I've seen here, you guys seem to pick on each other
> quite a bit.

Yep, and we don't get penalties for it and have to sit on the bench for a
week after a third warning. If you miss that merry-go-round, you can ask
some of the listmates if they'll play that game with you: Three strikes and
you're out.

>I could be wrong - like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it
>hasn't been of interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and
>it's quite tasty <G>.

So you're here not because of any interest, but because you're fishing for
sharks to eat?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Pete,

Yeah, sorry...a little joke/pun there. :)

Yes, you're spot on. Flake is used as a slang term in Australia to
mean take-away flake:

"Flake: Shark meat, used in fish and chips."

http://www.travel-library.com/pacific/australia/stybr-language.html

Anyway, there you have it.


Thanks,

Keith


--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
<petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> I'm embarassed - you've lost me already.  Flake?  What's this in
> reference to?  Shark meat?  Yeah, it can be a little flakey.  Is this
> what you meant?
>
> Pete
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "kmlightseeker"
> <kmlightseeker@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> >
> > Welcome! :)
> >
> > Er...was Flake what you had in mind? :) ;)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> > <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tarjei,
> > >
> > > If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might
> > > not get along.
> > >
> > > You don't like the shark analogy?  From what little I've seen here,
> > > you guys seem to pick on each other quite a bit.  I could be wrong -
> > > like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it hasn't
been of
> > > interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and it's
quite
> > > tasty <G>.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
> > > <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> > > > At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's ideas
> > here?
> > > >
> > > > This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion
(on the
> > > WC),
> > > > namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each
> other. Do
> > > > lined-up dominos eat each other?
> > > >
> > > > Tarjei

Dottie,

One doesn't eat shark's teeth, although there are those who display
them as ornaments - as a reminder of how even sharks can end up on the
dinner table from time to time.  How about some substantive
discussion, shall we?  Otherwise, I've got other things to do today.

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
<dottie_z@y...> wrote:
>
> Pete:
> > I'm embarassed - you've lost me already.  Flake?  What's this in
> > reference to?  Shark meat?  Yeah, it can be a little flakey.  Is this
> > what you meant?
>
> Maybe he means you only had a 'flake' (piece) of shark versus the big
> tooth, mean, oh so mean, ferocious in fact, Tarjei :)  sitting in your
> pool:))) with a big ol smile on his face :)
>
> That's my interpretation,
> d

At 19:08 02.04.2005, Dottie wrote:

>Maybe he means you only had a 'flake' (piece) of shark versus the big
>tooth, mean, oh so mean, ferocious in fact, Tarjei sitting in your
>pool:))) with a big ol smile on his face :)

Well as you know, Dottie, I can also be very affectionate and loving at
times, and if you introduce a few threads about Christ and the Hierarchies
and the Spiritual Sun and the Mystery of Golgotha, I'll participate
actively in showering our new arrival with so much love and affection that
his life will be completely transformed forever.

About fish and fishing:

"And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become
fishers of men." - Mark 1:17

Love, peace, and happiness,

Tarjei

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
<cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> At 18:47 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
>
> >Tarjei,
> >
> >If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we might
not
> >get along.
>
> If course I don't have a sense of humor. If I throw out a joke here,
you'll
> probably choke on it, so let's leave it at that. Btw getting along
with you
> (or anybody else for that matter) has never been my ambition, so I'm
not
> going to lose any sleep over us not getting along.

It hasn't been high on my list of life's priorities either.

>
> Incidentally, didn't Dan Dugan teach you that sarcasm doesn't work in
> email?

I was absent on that day of PLANS indoctrination class.

>That's what he told me when I tried something like that. Then he
> attributed to my not being aware of sarcasm not working in email, to
> English being my second language. I don't see the logic in this, but
> perhaps someone can help explain, preferably in Norwegian.

And this is relevant how?

>
> >You don't like the shark analogy?
>
> Yes I do, but I was disappointed that you didn't do a little more
homework
> on marine life and specify that we are more similar to Sand Tiger
sharks
> than to the Grey Reef variety. <positively no fun intended>

And this is relevant how?

>
> > From what little I've seen here, you guys seem to pick on each other
> > quite a bit.
>
> Yep, and we don't get penalties for it and have to sit on the bench
for a
> week after a third warning. If you miss that merry-go-round, you can
ask
> some of the listmates if they'll play that game with you: Three
strikes and
> you're out.

Civility isn't a goal, it's an expectation.

>
> >I could be wrong - like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list
as it
> >hasn't been of interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten
shark and
> >it's quite tasty <G>.
>
> So you're here not because of any interest, but because you're
fishing for
> sharks to eat?

I'm here because people here taunted me into coming here - called me a
coward and so forth, and attributed things I said to others.  So, I'm
here.  Whether I feed on sharks or minnows is of little interest to
me.  Frankly, I'm already getting bored with the discussion here.

Pete

Thanks Keith.  I'm from California - the granola capital.  Mostly
flakes and nuts.

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "kmlightseeker"
<kmlightseeker@y...> wrote:
>
> Pete,
>
> Yeah, sorry...a little joke/pun there. :)
>
> Yes, you're spot on. Flake is used as a slang term in Australia to
> mean take-away flake:
>
> "Flake: Shark meat, used in fish and chips."
>
> http://www.travel-library.com/pacific/australia/stybr-language.html
>
> Anyway, there you have it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Keith,
> >
> > I'm embarassed - you've lost me already.  Flake?  What's this in
> > reference to?  Shark meat?  Yeah, it can be a little flakey.  Is this
> > what you meant?
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "kmlightseeker"
> > <kmlightseeker@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Pete,
> > >
> > >
> > > Welcome! :)
> > >
> > > Er...was Flake what you had in mind? :) ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> > > <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tarjei,
> > > >
> > > > If you don't have a sense of humor (sarcasm in this case), we
might
> > > > not get along.
> > > >
> > > > You don't like the shark analogy?  From what little I've seen
here,
> > > > you guys seem to pick on each other quite a bit.  I could be
wrong -
> > > > like I said, I haven't been monitoring this list as it hasn't
> been of
> > > > interest to me.  For what it's worth, I've eaten shark and it's
> quite
> > > > tasty <G>.
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
> > > > <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> > > > > At 18:24 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >You mean ya'll don't line up like dominos behind Steiner's
ideas
> > > here?
> > > > >
> > > > > This suggestion of yours contradicts your previous assertion
> (on the
> > > > WC),
> > > > > namely that AT listmates are [Grey Reef] sharks eating each
> > other. Do
> > > > > lined-up dominos eat each other?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tarjei

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
<cyberuncle@c...> wrote:

> Well as you know, Dottie, I can also be very affectionate and loving at
> times, and if you introduce a few threads about Christ and the
Hierarchies
> and the Spiritual Sun and the Mystery of Golgotha, I'll participate
> actively in showering our new arrival with so much love and
affection that
> his life will be completely transformed forever.

ZZZZzzzzzz

Dear Frank,

As always, thank you for this...

Musing the Goddess sends Her Sophia to those with eyes to see and ears to
hear....
JoAnn

At 19:26 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:

>And this is relevant how?

<snip>

>And this is relevant how?

Go figure it out.

>Civility isn't a goal, it's an expectation.

We all have our expectations, don't we?

>I'm here because people here taunted me into coming here - called me a
>coward and so forth, and attributed things I said to others.  So, I'm
>here.  Whether I feed on sharks or minnows is of little interest to me.

You're the one who introduced the subject of sharks, so it must be more
interesting to you than to others. (For the record, I haven't called you
anything or attributed anything to you.)

>Frankly, I'm already getting bored with the discussion here.

Who gives a rat's ass about what bores you?

Tarjei

At 19:31 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:

>ZZZZzzzzzz

"And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto
Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" - Matthew 26:40


Uncle Taz
http://uncletaz.com/

"To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an
addition of insult to injury."
- Benjamin Tucker

Tarjei:
> About fish and fishing:
>
> "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to
become
> fishers of men." - Mark 1:17
>
> Love, peace, and happiness,

Speak on my brother, speak on :)))d

Brother Tarjei:
> > Well as you know, Dottie, I can also be very affectionate and
loving at
> > times, and if you introduce a few threads about Christ and the
> Hierarchies
> > and the Spiritual Sun and the Mystery of Golgotha, I'll participate
> > actively in showering our new arrival with so much love and
> affection that
> > his life will be completely transformed forever.

Not so brotherly Pete, asleep in the pew :) :

> ZZZZzzzzzz

Uncle Taz y'all gonna get a dose of my brother Pete real quick. Whew, d

Pete wrote;

"Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with
the philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
committing a horrible act of deceit."

"superstition-based institutions"
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=20520

"Organized superstitions might be more socially supportable if their
creed included a provision accepting the organized superstitions of
others. Unfortunately, modern religions do not practice tolerance.

If evidence is not needed, why exclude any superstitions? As Sam
Harris notes in The End of Faith, "there is no more evidence to
justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than
there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon
churning the seas."

Most of us know that William Jennings Bryan was the lawyer for the
prosecution of Scopes, a biology teacher who in his classroom
violated Tennessee law forbidding the mention of evolution. What we
may not know is that William Jennings Bryan was a three-time
democratic presidential candidate and Woodrow Wilson's secretary of
state. After the Wilson administration Bryan devoted himself to
campaigning around the nation on behalf of state laws banning the
teaching of evolution. For Bryan faith always trumped religion. "(I)
t is better to trust in the Rock of Ages than to know the ages of
rocks; it is better for one to know that he is close to the Heavenly
Father than to know how far the stars in the heaven are apart."

That was then. This is now. A few months ago, a dozen science
centers, mostly in the South, refused to show Volcanoes, a science
film funded in part by the National Science Foundation. The film was
turned down because it very briefly raises the possibility that life
on Earth may have originated at undersea steam vents."

In January 2002, in a major speech revealingly titled "God's Justice
and Ours," delivered to the University of Chicago Divinity School,
Scalia favorably cited Paul's announcement, "For there is no power
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." And Scalia
declared that the death penalty is God's will.

"In a rational world the burden of proof as to which is fable would
fall on the Church. But there's the rub. For when it comes to
organized religion, no burden of proof is required. On the contrary,
by definition, religion requires faith and faith renounces evidence.
Taking a proposition "on faith" means to consciously and willfully
refuse to examine the facts.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of
defense for intelligence explained why he knew he would win his
battle against Muslims in Somalia. "I knew my God was bigger than
his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

...it "has even been contended that public authority with its
dignity and power of ruling, originates not from God but from the
mass of the people, which considering itself unfettered by all
divine sanctions, refuses to submit to any laws that it has not
passed of its own free will."

Bradford comments;

So all in all, all of us are involved with a very profoud rift, an
ever growing divide in what is science, what is the value of our
children's education and what is faith? Now thousands of schools
have popped up like mushrooms that will only teach Biblical
Literalism as a Biblical safeguard against their children having to
digest, what their parents were taught to believe from pulpits as
godless science beliefs. Most of science theory today is merely a
shifted form of faith.

Waldorf education goes along with what is termed Goethean Sciences.
But it also uses a very proven yardstick of educational and
psychological development. The Change of Teeth, puberty bring on
clear cut changes, and as quoted above, Zeus, the Greeks, the Gods,
Buddha and the Bible are all taken into consideration in the early
grades and the young child sits in a consciousness that is full of
wonder as to the mysteries of the world. This capacity of wonder is
so profound and under such attack in our culture but the issues are
all lopsided. Children in the early grades are full of interest in
these large people and carry a brought forward respect and full
fledged wonder or willingness to feel and understand all the
greatness of humanity. Waldorf thinks that the child brought this
capacity of wonder with it.

The yardstick of education in Waldorf moves along with the ripening
and intellectual observations of everything from plants, minerals,
ancient history, ART, math... and the there are several unique
differences in a mature approach to eduaction. One difference is the
Emotional Intelligence, Intellectual Intelligence and Athletic
Intelligence, is also grasped by any educator worth his salt, and is
also cultivated within WE as what type of balance, of talents and
capacities a child has and begins to develop. Afterall everyone is
absolutely different and unique, yet the pattern of human beings is
very observable.

Alongside this triadic educational contemplation comes the Goethean
Sciences, math and observational insights that give the student
clear cut foundational and objective examples that they can witness
in experiments and draw conclusions from. In the realm of botany,
math, the stars, minerals, Algebra and music, everything can be
clearly grasped and marvels and the ripening thread of WONDER
maintained, as to the order and beauty of the universe as opposed to
the Big Bang and various Darwinian retreds. The Atomic table is a
very ordered system as well, yet Science itself, has created a
belief system that is merely a shift to a belief, but not an actual
proof, even when good, great and wonderful insights are added to the
sciences...we still have a tendency in culture to give vast credit
to materialism and that any human being is just merely a collection
of matter is both a medical and an educational belief.

So, I propose that the educational arguments and divisions that we
are all in, in culture are emotionally charged and we are wrestling
with SUPERSTITION BASED INSTITUTIONS that arise both in the Sciences
and in the mushrooming fundamental literalism of Biblical
Schools...and Goetheanism is a safeguard and a middle ground that
preserves the intellect, allows it to maintain objective
observations of almost anything on the planet once a Waldorf student
has graduated to high school. Waldorf allows an openness to all
phenomena and attempts to preserve the foundations of WONDER.

Now all this appears at the gates of raising a child and the
conflicts are terrific and the politics are heated and the name
calling horrific. We are beset on all sides in a conflict as to what
a human being truly is, where a human being truly arises and comes
from, and is the universe a patchwork of chaos; or what is the
nature of science and theory and is there such a thing a materialism
as a belief system? We are immersed in these issues and Waldorf
eduaction is just one piece of a gigantic puzzle that humanity faces.

But once you enter into the math, music, science, botany, atomic
table and mineral studies...and particularly, anatomy and biology,
Goethean insights are some of the healthiest for the intellectual
ripening of students who will become members of the vast human
community. IMO.

And that is why the argument at the WC with disgruntled parents
reflects a vast, vast unsettling, as it should be, in the paradigms
of current culture. And Waldorf is not your little average safe
materialism and standard model of public education nor is it
anything to do with Biblical literalism. It has a great deal to do
with the maturity of the parents who are faced with these daunting
issues.

JoAnn:
> As always, thank you for this...
>
> Musing the Goddess sends Her Sophia to those with eyes to see and
ears to
> hear....

Hey Frank, I also would like to thank you for your translations of
the good book. I was thinking about how I never could see people as
enemies and while reading your Miryam 84 it ocurred to me that when
Jesus says 'love your enemies and forgive them' it has to do also
with the great learning we get from the experience of what was
wrought between us. It's not just about the other person is
shortsighted or whathaveyou rather it is about the great lesson that
came from the dissing person.

I am constantly in situations wherein I am asked to forgive but I
have come to the point I have nothing to forgive as it is not my
place to do so. So in this I have been looking at what the act
inspired in me of my own person. And this month has been such an eye
opener to how what can look like an enemy is another sister spirit
helping me to grow. But to those that do not look to growth and only
to what is good and bad a great understanding of Jesus's words
of 'love thy enemy and forgive them 70 x 7: they have helped us to
learn about ourselves.

Thanks again,
Dottie

Hi Pete,

What would you like to discuss? I've had good experiences of Waldorf
education and my main gripe with the critics is their endless
attempts to explain away positive stuff. It is, of course, the
mirror image in some ways of some waldorf promoter's attempts to
explain away negative stuff.

My take is that the negative stuff is there and does happen. I even
feel considerable sympathy for someone who tries waldorf and has a
bad time. My area of disagreement is the explanation section.
Waldorf critics explanations of why people have bad experiences can
be pretty far afield of the truth in my opinion.

From things you've said here, it sounds as though you  haven't
thoroughly researched the positions expressed by the waldorf
critics. You may not actually want to be associated with these
positions, and if you vocally participate on the list, you will be
seen as thus associated.

Cheers!

Nana

Waldorf student, parent, grandparent and ex business manager

Er... Christ was far more interesting than Steiner, and unlike
Steiner, He tended to speak the truth.

Pete

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
<cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
> At 19:31 02.04.2005, Pete wrote:
>
> >ZZZZzzzzzz
>
> "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and
saith unto
> Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" - Matthew 26:40
>
>
> Uncle Taz
> http://uncletaz.com/
>
> "To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is
indeed an
> addition of insult to injury."
> - Benjamin Tucker

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
<petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
>
> Er... Christ was far more interesting than Steiner, and unlike
> Steiner, He tended to speak the truth.
>
> Pete

Could this be an unsubstantiated generalization?

Nana