Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14202Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan

Expand Messages
  • pete_karaiskos
    Apr 2, 2005
      --- 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.


      > 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.
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic