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

Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan

Expand Messages
  • Mike Helsher
    Barnaby McEwan writes on the WC list: ***************************************************** The big boys on the AT list taunt me to come play with them (like
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Barnaby McEwan writes on the WC list:

      *****************************************************

      The "big boys" on the AT list taunt me to come play
      with them (like I
      really need THAT). There is some impled threat, like
      I'm a coward to
      come face them in their playground. It's the type of
      childishness that
      one sees when dysfunctional people gather. And who
      said there's no
      BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy? LOL!
      **************************************************

      Nice twist at the end I think. Typical of the twisted
      assinine attitude that correlates "dysfuntional
      people" with "BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy"
      in the same way that the holocaust is correlated with
      Steiner, so as to keep the flame burning in the WC
      shit house.

      For the record, I was quite a "dysfunctional person"
      for a long time. I've spent the last 20 years working
      on that. I think I've made some headway, but I still
      might have some dysfuntion in me; I promise to work on
      it some more.

      No threat implied by me. After all, it's just an
      e-list.

      But I do think that you are a coward.

      Mike







      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
      http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
    • serena_blaue
      Dear Mike -- I think that it was Pete K who wrote the post below -- Serena
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mike --

        I think that it was Pete K who wrote the post below --

        Serena

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Mike Helsher
        <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
        > Barnaby McEwan writes on the WC list:
        >
        > *****************************************************
        >
        > The "big boys" on the AT list taunt me to come play
        > with them (like I
        > really need THAT). There is some impled threat, like
        > I'm a coward to
        > come face them in their playground. It's the type of
        > childishness that
        > one sees when dysfunctional people gather. And who
        > said there's no
        > BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy? LOL!
        > **************************************************
        >
        > Nice twist at the end I think. Typical of the twisted
        > assinine attitude that correlates "dysfuntional
        > people" with "BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy"
        > in the same way that the holocaust is correlated with
        > Steiner, so as to keep the flame burning in the WC
        > shit house.
        >
        > For the record, I was quite a "dysfunctional person"
        > for a long time. I've spent the last 20 years working
        > on that. I think I've made some headway, but I still
        > might have some dysfuntion in me; I promise to work on
        > it some more.
        >
        > No threat implied by me. After all, it's just an
        > e-list.
        >
        > But I do think that you are a coward.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
        > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
      • pete_karaiskos
        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
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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.

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Mike Helsher
          <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
          > Barnaby McEwan writes on the WC list:
          >
          > *****************************************************
          >
          > The "big boys" on the AT list taunt me to come play
          > with them (like I
          > really need THAT). There is some impled threat, like
          > I'm a coward to
          > come face them in their playground. It's the type of
          > childishness that
          > one sees when dysfunctional people gather. And who
          > said there's no
          > BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy? LOL!
          > **************************************************
          >
          > Nice twist at the end I think. Typical of the twisted
          > assinine attitude that correlates "dysfuntional
          > people" with "BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy"

          One need not be twisted, just observant <G>. And the LOL at the end
          means I meant it in a kidding sort of way. I'll be the first to admit
          that my experiences with the Anthroposophists at the Waldorf school
          I'm associated with have been disappointing. I'll try to keep an open
          mind and let everyone here convince me of how wrong I am.

          > in the same way that the holocaust is correlated with
          > Steiner, so as to keep the flame burning in the WC
          > shit house.

          We can discuss that if you like. I don't think Steiner is responsible
          for the holocaust. I'd be shocked to find anyone who does, yet this
          kind of thing is apparently repeated here often and attributed to
          people on the WC list. I think an honest assessment would reveal that
          some people in their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of
          Steiner's work may have found support for some silly ideas, not just
          today but in pre-WWII Germany. Steiner did NOT cause the holocaust
          (do I get any points for this?).

          >
          > For the record, I was quite a "dysfunctional person"
          > for a long time. I've spent the last 20 years working
          > on that. I think I've made some headway, but I still
          > might have some dysfuntion in me; I promise to work on
          > it some more.

          I'll do my part to help you by pointing out when you're slipping.

          >
          > No threat implied by me. After all, it's just an
          > e-list.

          Thanks - I think I can handle myself - even in a hostile crowd.

          > But I do think that you are a coward.

          OK, well, I'm here so maybe you will change your mind about me. I
          don't know how long I'll stay though - as I said this hasn't been a
          place I frequent. What I experienced of this group over on WC wasn't
          all that interesting and discussions broke down frequently but maybe
          things might be better here in a different environment. For those who
          don't know me and require some introduction, I'm an outspoken
          disgruntled Waldorf parent. I am not affiliated with PLANS in any way.
          I'm sure Dottie can fill everyone in on the rest of the details of my
          personal life.

          Pete Karaiskos
        • yogidahl2000
          ... to ... Hey Pete! Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!! I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma s Charming Chod
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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.

            Hey Pete!
            Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
            I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
            Charming Chod Practices!
            Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
            Improve Your Love Life!
            Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
            You laugh and cry – at the same time!
            and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
            Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
            So Come On In?
            Vibes,
            Flemming

            >
          • Tarjei Straume
            ... You re implying that someone would be offended because there are people in this world who don t share their interest in a certain topic - whether it s
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:02 02.04.2005, Pete Karaiskos wrote:

              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.

              You're implying that someone would be offended because there are people in this world who don't share their interest in a certain topic - whether it's anthroposophy, archeology, chemistry or cultural anthropology or whatever. In certain situations this may be the case. For instance, if a student interrupts his teacher or professor in the middle of a class or lecture and says that this school is not a place for him because he is not interested in, say, geology, the tutor may experience that as rude. But I don't see how that can apply to a public e-forum.

              I'll be the first to admit that my experiences with the Anthroposophists at the Waldorf school I'm associated with have been disappointing.  I'll try to keep an open mind and let everyone here convince me of how wrong I am.

              Everyone here? Speaking strictly for myself, I probably don't know a single anthroposophist you have experienced at the Waldorf school you're associated with, so how can I possibly have an opinion about how you have experienced people I have never met nor even read about? Still, you expect that *everyone here* has that necessary personal knowledge and experience?

              If you had said something about some friend of mine here on Oslo who also happens to be an anthroposophist and perhaps a Waldorf teacher, I might put a word in. But I never waste effort trying to convince anyone of anything.

              Your statement on the WC:

              *****************************************************"
              "The "big boys" on the AT list taunt me to come play with them (like I really need THAT). There is some impled threat, like I'm a coward to come face them in their playground. It's the type of childishness that one sees when dysfunctional people gather. And who said there's no BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy? LOL!"
              **************************************************
              I would challenge you to quote a professional psychologist who agrees with your definition of 'dysfunction' here. Playfulness and childishness are usually the opposites of dysfunctional characteristics.

              As for bullying, I'm probably one of the rottenest apples here, but I don't see what that has to do with Waldorf. I'm in the telecom and utilities industries, not education. I've never worked in a Waldorf school.

              Diana is confused about this, like she is about most things. She keeps telling me that I must stop lying to my clients, whom she defines as Waldorf parents. It's true that some of my personal telephone service customers also happen to be Waldorf parents, but I don't lie to any of them regarding quality, prices, service agreement, etc. and we have excellent customer service only a phone call or a mouse click away. A little while ago, I asked Dan Dugan if he would become my business partner in the Bay area so we could make some money together, but he thinks my company is another cult.

              (My advice to Serena and others here is: If you write to "critics" off-list, stick to topics that have nothing to do with anthroposophy nor e-groups. Write about your family or pets or business or techincal things about computer and internet, but leave anthroposophy and e-groups to on-list discussions and don't respond to off-list emails from "critics" addressing such on-list topics. Just a suggestion.)

              I am not affiliated with PLANS in any way.

              A lot of people who apparently support their agenda and contribute to their propaganda machine say that. An important aspect of PLANS' strategy is to collect as many Waldorf horror stories as possible, preferably embellished and exaggerated. So you don't have to be affiliated with them to be a supporter and a part of their team.

              I'm sure Dottie can fill everyone in on the rest of the details of my personal life.

              I haven't followed this very closely, but the way I understand this, you have been publishing details of your personal life that you thereby invite any interested parties out there to comment upon. Dottie seems to have volunteered with her response to this request on the WC, which was immediately labeled an "ad hominem argument" by the moderator. The definitions of ad hominem arguments and of what is on-topic and what isn't, seem to be subjects of increasing importance on the WC list.

              Cheers,

              Tarjei
              http://uncletaz.com/

            • Mike helsher
              ... to ... Oh shit....someone actually showed up??? Apologies to Barnaby. Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have admiration for RS
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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???

                Apologies to Barnaby.

                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.
                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 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. 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.

                I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
                exposed.

                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.

                It's the ideological warfare, and the high volume derisive rhetoric,
                that impells me to speak out against it.

                I could go on, but I'm off to work

                Thanks

                Mike
              • pete_karaiskos
                Thanks, If I decide I need a lecture on any of these things, I ll know where to come . Pete
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, If I decide I need a lecture on any of these things, I'll know
                  where to come <G>.

                  Pete

                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "yogidahl2000"
                  <Dahl_flemming@h...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- 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.
                  >
                  > Hey Pete!
                  > Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
                  > I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
                  > Charming Chod Practices!
                  > Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
                  > Improve Your Love Life!
                  > Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
                  > You laugh and cry – at the same time!
                  > and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
                  > Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
                  > So Come On In?
                  > Vibes,
                  > Flemming
                  >
                  > >
                • pete_karaiskos
                  ... Yeah, it s kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith. ... I ll say thanks for him. ... I m not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher"
                    <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- 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.

                    >
                    > 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.

                    > 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. 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.

                    >
                    > 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.

                    >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.

                    >
                    > 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.

                    >
                    > 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.
                  • Mike helsher
                    Hello Pete, Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks like you ve been busy :) ... following ... place I ... Yes. We all might need
                    Message 9 of 10 , 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
                    • pete_karaiskos
                      ... 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. ... The prospect is appealing to me too. ...
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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
                        knowledge.

                        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.


                        Pete
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.