31166Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Spirit and Soul
- Apr 30, 2007Frank:
> You got it right, Dottie, but I think there'sHey Frank,
> aspect as well - people not knowing how to conduct
> themselves in groups, which is something that can be
> learned and practiced. There are volumes written
> this. You say we must agree. But what if we don't?
> This is where things often become conflictive in
> anthropop institutions. I consider it naive to think
> that we can *always* agree. So what happens if we
> don't? "Postponed till next meeting". No good,
> quo. There should be a plan B - which can be
> by majority if all else fails.
My thought is that we have to 'agree to disagree and
still come to an agreement'. And that would mean that
a majority rules in the end. But if we have all agree
that we will have disagreements but have to come to an
agreement in any case things are altered in the room.
Or at least this has been my experience. And usually
when we agree to disagree we are acting like adults.
Those that have their hearts set on one way or another
will be those with stick out like sore thumbs. And
that person(s) get to sit in and look at how they are
beholden to one way or another even against all odds:
The personality holds sway versus the eternal being.
Now, not everyone is interested in looking at
themselves so a good beginning for any group can be
words from Rudolf Steiner speaking about the need to
let go of antipathies and sympathies to a thing, the
personal needs, and look towards the eternal that is
not always so obvious.
It's difficult work but my experience is that once
some basic groundrules have been set things move so
much smoother than if they had not. And the basic
groundrule is that we are going to agree to disagree
and yet still come to an agreement.
All good things Frank,
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>