14202Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan
- Apr 2, 2005--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike helsher"
>Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.
> --- In email@example.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> > OK Mike,
> > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
> > 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???
>I'll say "thanks" for him.
> Apologies to Barnaby.
>I'm not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone else's ideas
> 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.
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 - withI am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care to.
> 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.
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.
>Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with regards
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that the
> I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeat
the dumb stuff with other people's children.
>I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can slaughter
> 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.
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>