Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan
- --- In email@example.com, "Mike helsher"
>1:30pm in CA and I'm still in my pajamas. I've got to stop for a
> Hello Pete,
> Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
> like you've been busy :)
while. I'll try to answer your post first.
>The prospect is appealing to me too.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "pete_karaiskos"
> <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
> > > > OK Mike,
> > > >
> > > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the
> > > 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.
> >Through our Ego of course.
> > >
> > > 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 what
> we see
> > > as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by
> > 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-I've checked my moral inventory, and while my ex took a few items with
> 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
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
> >I'd be interested in seeing that quote.
> > > Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter -
> > > a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations
> > > are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to
> > > core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and
> > > unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.
> > 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 anyone
> > 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.
>Well, I'm all ears (OK, some mouth too, but I'll try to listen if you
> 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
> > 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.
care to articulate what you mean).
>If the discussion is honest and not intended as a personal
> > >
> > > I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for
> > > discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a
> > > screen that hides our individual motives and intent.
> > 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 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
> > you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and not
> > 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
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 just said "OK" because I didn't want to make this a personal dialog.
> > >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 as
> > > 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'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.
> >Well, I think a lot of critis are there for the promoting
> > >
> > > I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff
> > > exposed.
> > Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that
> > 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.
accountability and not so much for the foot-shooting.
>At one time my family intended a move to Boulder (just before the
> > >
> > > 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 do
> also see
> > > that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the
> > > nature of WE.
> > I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can
> > chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care. I believe, however,
> > that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy
> > parents. Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
> > People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with
> > philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
> > 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/
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.