>No, but all this shows is that BD organisations are out of touch with >the true wholism of Biodynamics. And so be it. >This is a point often made on this list. >Glen > > >Gil Robertson wrote: >> >> Glen Atkinson wrote: I d like to suggest BD is a complete system and the >>above >> are just part of it. >> >> You are welcome to do so, but can you show me a BD registering organisation >> that includes them in their requirements? >> >> Gil > >-- >Garuda Biodynamics - for BD Preps, Consultations, Books & Diagrams >See our web site @ http://get.to/garuda
Glen, Gil, Greg, et. al., I like Greg's presentation that the heart of BD is the remedies, and you ain't BD unless you work with the remedies (and do this well). But we know the Demeter Association has a trademark on the term biodynamic and often does NOT work well with the remedies. We also know that Steiner was about as wholistic (holistic) as it gets, and that if we associate anything with biodynamics it is Steiner. Steiner meant to see agriculture be all-embracive and work from what he called the "the wider spheres." So whenever I think of biodynamics I think of including everything--bar nothing. However, this is not the perspective of the neophyte who knows nothing of Steiner and can't possibly guess that biodynamic agriculture is so different from all the other reductionist stuff, Allan Savory's Holistic Resource Management excluded. (I gather that Savory would incorporate use of the Steiner Remedies into his resource management if it were clear to him how these worked.) Having said that I guess I can say I agree with Glen that, at least to me, biodynamics is good ol' wholistic agriculture and embraces everything--would embrace chemicals if only these contributed to the overall purity and vitality of what we grow. But words are meant to communicate. It doesn't matter what I mean by a word. What counts is what others think I mean. The word biodynamic or the term BD were trouble enough to communicate with back when Demeter didn't "own" them. Now, as far as I can see they are hopelessly tainted. So, though we may have a good idea of who and what we are, how to communicate this? I give up on using BD as a term. I see much more prospect in talking about the Steiner Remedies. If folks respond to "Steiner Remedies" I can explain further and introduce more about wholistic thinking. See where I'm coming from? We get into these discussions and it is like lawyers spliting hairs. But we must get clear on terms. On the other hand, when we can't we are free to use any terms or no terms at all. Good ol' Babylon. Kind of a lawyer's dream. To me the best thing that has happened to Steiner's work is that Demeter (Anne Mendenhall) has said "We own the term biodynamic and we control its use." Now if you want to really use Steiner's ideas in freedom you have to go beyond the term biodynamic. Now it is free. By raising the issue and trying to clamp a lid on things Demeter has done us all a favor. Now the box is open and the blessings have infiltrated the wider spheres. Reverse Pandora. Best, Hugh P.S. Can someone please post this on SANET? I'm off that list for now. --HL
