14251Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan
- Apr 2, 2005Hello Pete,
Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
like you've been busy :)
--- In email@example.com, "pete_karaiskos"
> > > OK Mike,
> > >
> > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the
> > toplace I
> > > 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
> > > find all that interesting. No offense meant.Yes. We all might need more foreign exchanges to get over our "us
> > >
> > >
> > Oh shit....someone actually showed up???
> Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.
and them" attitudes.
> > Apologies to Barnaby.
> I'll say "thanks" for him.
> > Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and
> > admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about whatwe see
> > as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed byPLANS.
>fodder for your concerns.
> 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
I think that's great. But there is always the question of how we
form our ideas, or views. Peter S. told me once that *all* our ideas
are formed within social contexts. My personal experience with pre-
cognitive and lucid dreams tells me that not *all* of them (ideas)
are formed that way. Steiner gave creedence to the idea that we as
individuals, can consciously (most of our thinking goes on without
our couscious attention)form our own concepts, but we need to do
allot of work understanding our motives first. This is where
the "seraching and fearless moral inventory" that is suggested in
the 4'th of the twelve steps correlated well with the beginning of
the POF, for me anyway
> > Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter -
> > a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligationsthat
> > are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist tothe
> > core") that are getting published twice on the internet, andluring
> > unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.to.
> I am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care
> Keith is doing a good job of it on WC too. I've never heard anyonewas
> say "anthroposophy is racist to the core" so I don't know it that
> actually said anywhere or if it is an interpretation.If I can find the time, I will look it up. But it was Peter
Staudenmaier that made that claim a few years back.
I will say,
> however, that some of Anthroposophy's core principles have a racisthave
> tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to
> a racist ring to them.Many people read the words and come to that conclusion. I have come
to the opposite conclusion based on my life experience.
> > I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for
> > discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as asmoke
> > screen that hides our individual motives and intent.regards
> Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with
> to myself. I'm not interested in name-calling as I don't think itwith
> 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
> you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and notconcentrate
> on the people from which the ideas come.It's ok with me, but it leaves me hangin. I think that understanding
our personal motives for why we think the way that we do, is very
important for us as individuals, and for the human species as a
> >I personally
> > have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
> > experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution
> > the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see asthe
> > guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.That's it? just OK?! I think that we all find what ever it is that
we are looking for. I found inspiring principles; you found racist
principles - why?
> > I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff
> > exposed.the
> Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that
> goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeatI think that one of the more positive aspects of a waldorf critics
> the dumb stuff with other people's children.
organization, could be that there is a means to promote
accountability. But PLANS keeps shooting themselves in the foot.
> > And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in
> > at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I doalso see
> > that it is hard not to have as such, especially with theidealistic
> > nature of WE.slaughter
> I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can
> chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care. I believe, however,to
> that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy
> parents. Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.the
> People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with
> philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents arenot
> committing a horrible act of deceit. Can I say that Steiner would
> have approved? I don't think I can.I don't think that he would approve either.
My experience was that I was handed pamphlets about Dan Dugan and
Plans when we first visited two WE schools in CO. one of them has a
very informitive web site : http://www.fortnet.org/rsws/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>