Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade
Chris, I wasn't preaching. Not exactly even sure what you mean by "spiritual materialism thing". I absolutely would not assume to know you or most anyone on this list. Look for a post I'm going to forward that Curtis scanned in from Harper's Magazine. Lewis Lapham is quite eloquent on the subject of what American's have to lose. Blessings, Jane > From: Chris Shade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:59:32 -0800 (PST) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade > > I get mad when people start onto the spiritual > materialism thing or when people think they know your > situation and can preach to you.
Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade
Jane, We all at some level like to place people into this or that niche. Because of your "loud mouth" and strong righteous positioning, it is easy for me to send a bit of bile your way to be symbolic of a bunch of people's sentiment about speaking your mind openly. "BD piety" I had actually coined for someone else, more acurate for my point would have been more like "eco-activist piety". Even though I niched you for my point, I reacted to what I felt was niching me into the role of timid bystander who still sucks from the tit of the mainstream. Again, I have spoken openly before, but now is not the time. > PS: A google search on you just shows off your phd I do not have a PhD yet, nor have I lined up a post-doc for when I finsh (soon). Thus the sensitivity. In this biz, until you are established, it is easy to snuff you out or just position you as a wing nut, but after you are established, you can speak up. For example, there is a man up for tenure here who has spoken out against the fertilizer industry and done very good work along those lines. However, his tenure was just blocked by levels above the department (this U. is heavily subsidized by AgBiz). His collaborator here, on the other hand, already has tenure and so is untouchable. so, the point is one of choosing your battles and not needlessly sticking your neck out. There also seems to be a generalized thing in spiritual cirles where more feministic spiritualities like to be vocal, whereas more patriarchal spiritualities like to remain anonymous about exactly who they are, while still quietly guiding/affecting the unfolding of events. I get mad when people start onto the spiritual materialism thing or when people think they know your situation and can preach to you. Peace, Chris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade
Very well said Jane. Gideon. - Original Message - From: "Jane Sherry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bdnow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade > I am glad you got to vent, Chris. > > May I please clear some things up? I am not invested in any outcome here. I > have decided to stay on this list for many years, in spite of the aggression > heaped upon me from time to time, such as being accused of being as bad as > Hitler, accused of being out of touch with reality, and now being accused of > calling you a lurker. > > I don't care who lurks, who speaks or what they say. Allan is concerned > about lurkers, or more appropriately: he is concerned that because of a lack > of securiity on the internet, that there are many valuable members of this > list who don't feel comfortable enough to speak out. I doubt that a password > protected archive would help all of them open up. > > I agree that there are many levels and ways of being an activist, and > working from "inside" is a good one. I hope you don't have to compromise > yourself to do so. I am not a sign waver, I get along with people from many > walks of life and I don't profess to have some special wisdom. > > When I joined this list, I lived in NYC and was always out front about who I > thought I represented on this list at that time: a consumer. That was in > 1996, I think & I belonged to a biodynamic csa and had been informed about > Allan's list when it was in it's infancy. I mostly thrilled to learn that > not only did the bd food I'd been eating for 6 years taste great and have > more life force than any fresh food I'd eaten, but it had a spiritual > component as well. > > My husband and I started reading Steiner, I did a workshop and stirred > preparation 500 at a NYAnthro society with Guenther Hauk and put the preps > (500 & 501) which I received from Ferdinand on my houseplants and the trees > out front and a little in Central Park for two years. Granted I read Steiner > really slowly, have a bit of trouble with the lack of a female centric > presence of any kind other than Sophia/Isis and had some lively debates > about it at that time. > > Then I was lucky to escape the city and learn more in a hands on way in my > own garden. Without this list, I doubt I would have learned anything about > bd other than how good some biodynamic produce tasted & felt in my body. > > I am not at all Bd pious, in fact I find that funny. When the mess between > Ann (Demeter) and Mr. Willis happened, I took it upon myself to contact Ann > to try and find out for the list how she felt she could trademark a term > that was in the public domain. I didn't get anywhere, but I was certainly > not pious about that stuff. If I am pious about anything, it is to get LOVE > into the world and to help people find their own path to spirit, not a path > proscribed by any particular discipline or religion or cult. > > In fact, I have also quite vocally criticized the bd movement, anthropops, > and even Allan. I'm an equal opportunity critic! :-) > > So don't get angry at me for speaking out in this forum for what I believe > in. I don't even care if people think I am a bd pious old guard asshole, now > that you have misjudged me and it's going to be in the archive. I have never > wished anyone on this list to have employment problems either. I simply have > the courage (or foolishness) to say what I believe and if that means you > don't like me or won't give me work, then so be it. > > I believe we ALWAYS have choices, contrary to how things may appear at a > difficult crossroads. So when Lloyd says sometimes people don't have a > choice (children, aging parents to care for, rent to pay, whatever), I > simply don't agree. If you think you don't have choices, then you won't. I > know that there are always choices. > > I have NEVER told people they have to use preps or they're not bd. Frankly, > I think you're taking all your frustration out on me cause I have a 'big > mouth' and am NOT afraid to say what I think. Your anger at me is really > misplaced. > > Your information on this list has often been of interest to me and I > continue to read your posts. If my attitude bothers you, Chris, don't take > it personally, just delete my posts. > > Pax, > Jane > > PS: A google search on you just shows off your phd > > > From: Chris Shade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:30:40 -0800 (PST) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Re: (What do we have to LOSE/GAIN -was Lurkers) For Chris Shade
I am glad you got to vent, Chris. May I please clear some things up? I am not invested in any outcome here. I have decided to stay on this list for many years, in spite of the aggression heaped upon me from time to time, such as being accused of being as bad as Hitler, accused of being out of touch with reality, and now being accused of calling you a lurker. I don't care who lurks, who speaks or what they say. Allan is concerned about lurkers, or more appropriately: he is concerned that because of a lack of securiity on the internet, that there are many valuable members of this list who don't feel comfortable enough to speak out. I doubt that a password protected archive would help all of them open up. I agree that there are many levels and ways of being an activist, and working from "inside" is a good one. I hope you don't have to compromise yourself to do so. I am not a sign waver, I get along with people from many walks of life and I don't profess to have some special wisdom. When I joined this list, I lived in NYC and was always out front about who I thought I represented on this list at that time: a consumer. That was in 1996, I think & I belonged to a biodynamic csa and had been informed about Allan's list when it was in it's infancy. I mostly thrilled to learn that not only did the bd food I'd been eating for 6 years taste great and have more life force than any fresh food I'd eaten, but it had a spiritual component as well. My husband and I started reading Steiner, I did a workshop and stirred preparation 500 at a NYAnthro society with Guenther Hauk and put the preps (500 & 501) which I received from Ferdinand on my houseplants and the trees out front and a little in Central Park for two years. Granted I read Steiner really slowly, have a bit of trouble with the lack of a female centric presence of any kind other than Sophia/Isis and had some lively debates about it at that time. Then I was lucky to escape the city and learn more in a hands on way in my own garden. Without this list, I doubt I would have learned anything about bd other than how good some biodynamic produce tasted & felt in my body. I am not at all Bd pious, in fact I find that funny. When the mess between Ann (Demeter) and Mr. Willis happened, I took it upon myself to contact Ann to try and find out for the list how she felt she could trademark a term that was in the public domain. I didn't get anywhere, but I was certainly not pious about that stuff. If I am pious about anything, it is to get LOVE into the world and to help people find their own path to spirit, not a path proscribed by any particular discipline or religion or cult. In fact, I have also quite vocally criticized the bd movement, anthropops, and even Allan. I'm an equal opportunity critic! :-) So don't get angry at me for speaking out in this forum for what I believe in. I don't even care if people think I am a bd pious old guard asshole, now that you have misjudged me and it's going to be in the archive. I have never wished anyone on this list to have employment problems either. I simply have the courage (or foolishness) to say what I believe and if that means you don't like me or won't give me work, then so be it. I believe we ALWAYS have choices, contrary to how things may appear at a difficult crossroads. So when Lloyd says sometimes people don't have a choice (children, aging parents to care for, rent to pay, whatever), I simply don't agree. If you think you don't have choices, then you won't. I know that there are always choices. I have NEVER told people they have to use preps or they're not bd. Frankly, I think you're taking all your frustration out on me cause I have a 'big mouth' and am NOT afraid to say what I think. Your anger at me is really misplaced. Your information on this list has often been of interest to me and I continue to read your posts. If my attitude bothers you, Chris, don't take it personally, just delete my posts. Pax, Jane PS: A google search on you just shows off your phd > From: Chris Shade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:30:40 -0800 (PST) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What do we have to LOSE/GAIN Re: LURKING was Re: Personal > Security / Insecurity > > I have had it with your BD piety. If you had half of > the wisdom you you think you have, you would see that > not everybody involved in social change is running > around as an acitvist waving signs and telling people > they should use preps and become enlightened. Change > happens on may levels, and some are less plainly > obvious because they deal with change from the inside.
