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

14263Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan

Expand Messages
  • pete_karaiskos
    Apr 2, 2005
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher"
      <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
      > Hello Pete,
      > Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
      > like you've been busy :)

      1:30pm in CA and I'm still in my pajamas. I've got to stop for a
      while. I'll try to answer your post first.

      > --- 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.

      The prospect is appealing to me too.

      > >
      > > >
      > > > 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.

      Through our Ego of course.

      > 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

      I've checked my moral inventory, and while my ex took a few items with
      here while I wasn't looking, I seem to have most of it. I agree that
      we should examine our motives too. This should be a personal
      exercise, yes?

      > >
      > > > 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'd be interested in seeing that quote.

      > 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.

      Well, I'm all ears (OK, some mouth too, but I'll try to listen if you
      care to articulate what you mean).

      > >
      > > >
      > > > 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.

      If the discussion is honest and not intended as a personal
      confrontation, I don't that it would violate this. If you want, we
      can talk about it to some degree and I'll let you know if you're
      crossing the line - fair enough?

      > >
      > > >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 just said "OK" because I didn't want to make this a personal dialog.
      I think it's great you found inspiration in Anthroposophy. Many
      people do - and there are many things that are inspirational there
      because Steiner based a lot of Anthroposophy on traditional wisdom

      I'll break my rule and get personal about myself here for a minute,
      but only because I like you Mike. I was inspired by Steiner's ideas
      for many years too. But then things started eating at me. I
      witnessed the Anthroposophists around me and realized there was a lot
      of double-talk, people were not being honest. Some even admitted they
      weren't being honest. I started wondering what value there could be
      in a spiritual path where the tenet of honesty was not at the
      forefront. It was like something clicked. As I continued reading
      Steiner's materials, I started perceiving things that didn't sound
      right to me. I started placing post-its in the passages that troubled
      me. By the time I got to the Fifth Gospel, I realized I was done
      accepting Steiner on faith. At the Waldorf school, year after year of
      dishonest behavior, wacky teachers, insincerity, two-faced
      administrators, etc. let me realize how dysfunctional an environment
      my children were in. I changed from a Waldorf supporter to a Waldorf
      critic and this, of course, led the school to behave even worse around
      me. It spiraled into a public discourse about the school and their
      behavior. And so, here I am.

      > >
      > > >
      > > > 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.

      Well, I think a lot of critis are there for the promoting
      accountability and not so much for the foot-shooting.

      > >
      > > >
      > > > 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/

      At one time my family intended a move to Boulder (just before the
      Jonbennet Ramsey incident) and checked out both the schools (I
      presume) you are talking about. They seemed like good schools from
      the literature - but no mention of PLANS of course.

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic