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

14251Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan

Expand Messages
  • Mike helsher
    Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Pete,

      Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
      like you've been busy :)

      --- 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.

      Yes. We all might need more foreign exchanges to get over our "us
      and them" attitudes.

      >
      > >
      > > 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.

      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 -
      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.

      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 racist
      > tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to
      have
      > 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
      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.

      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
      whole.
      >
      > >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.

      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
      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.

      I think that one of the more positive aspects of a waldorf critics
      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
      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.

      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/

      Mike
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic