Dears,
Sounds like an indictment. How will thee respond? Best, Hugh Lovel >Please Forward. Thanks. > >>I truly do not mean to bash anyone. It is just a shame to see such a >>wonderful concept turn into >>such bickering, anger and the need to prove or put down. > >Dear Chris, Allan, Hugh, Glen, et al, > >Well, that's one opinion. Everyone has one. We all tend to see things >through our own experiences and prejudices and I think that this is a >particularly prejudiced view. > >As I see it, there are two opposing forces at work in Steiner >Agriculture going on in the U.S. at this moment. I base this on many >facts, not the least of which is the absconding of term "biodynamic" by >Demeter & Co. But hey, let's not, for the moment, focus on all the >incredibly stupid and self-serving things that Demeter, BDA and JPI have >done in the past 20 years, let's focus on what's really going on. > >The two opposing forces are represented on the one hand, by those, >generally, in/on BDNOW who want to explore, expand, modify, improve, >innovate and apply hard science as well as, shall we say, 'not so hard' >or intuitive, metaphysical science to the notions and suggestions that >Steiner brought to the world in his lectures and through other means. >In other words, work to make it grow and become more effective and >acceptable. We're the group struggling to find a simple word to define >what we do and what Steiner did that's not "biodynamic". > >On the other hand, or side, is the group of people who believe in and >support the BDA, Demeter and JPI. These people represent the ones who >want total control (re: trademark) over all that is "biodynamic" in the >U.S. and beyond. I say "beyond" since the rulers at Dornach have >approved and financed the vapid, unethical treachery carried out by >BDA/DAI/JPI. (I digress.) Generally, this group can be characterized >by a LACK of desire to explore, expand, modify, improve, innovate, apply >hard science and develop 'not so hard' science or intuitive insights to >what Steiner offered. They are more interested in promoting and >preserving a religion than in helping others and by virtue of their >exclusive knowledge (as Lorand once told me "only for the BD >priesthood") and control of "biodynamics" in such a way that money flows >to their organizations and officially sponsored consultants, they >perpetuate their organizations rather than develop, legitimize, expand >and bring Steiner Agriculture to the greater world, as RS wanted. > >You may disagree with these characterizations. That's OK. This is how I >see it, however. > >There is a general dialog on BDNOW, which, on occasion, includes >bickering, anger, the need to prove and put down, as within any family, >but more often than not includes a lot of information about Steiner and >related practices that would never see the light of day in the BDA >journal, on the Demeter website/newsletter or in JPI publications. They >simply don't have the far ranging, wild-ass point of view of Steiner >that others do. (In looking for legitimacy, i.e. control, they have >lost their credibility.) They have limited imaginations and a limited >understanding of the Universal Laws and Principles underpinning >Steiner's work. Frankly, I don't think they even understand Steiner. >If they did, they'd be way ahead of us with new products and >innovations.) > >Forgive them. They don't understand BDNOW, one of the most used >listserve sites on the internet, and it's potential for spreading THEIR >point of view. > >Now I ask you the most important question in this missive. Have you >ever seen any attempt at dialog by the self-appointed "leaders" of the >"official" "biodynamic" associations - BDA, DAI or JPI - on BDNOW? >Maybe once or twice in the past. I'm talking now. > >Here's where the gauntlet is thrown down. IF THEY REALLY BELIEVED WHAT >THEY SAY AND PROMOTE, THEY'D ENGAGE IN THE DIALOG ON BDNOW and would >defend what they do and say vigorously. They don't. And it's easy to >figure out why. > >When was the last time you read an email from Anne Mendenhall (Secretary >of BDA and Director - Demeter), Chuck Beedy (Executive Director - BDA), >Andrew Lorand and Alan York (BDA approved BD consultants), Lincoln >Geiger (Board Member - Demeter and BDA), Heinz Grotzke (Associate Editor >"Biodynamics"), Jean Yeager (VP - BDA and Anthroposophy Association >Bigwig), Hugh Courtney (Director JPI and BDA), Ernie Harvey (Prez. BDA), >Christoph Altemueller (BDA Board) or Harold Hoven (Director - BDA and >gardener/teacher at the Rudolf Steiner College in Sacramento)? > >You don't and you won't. None of them has the courage of their >convictions to debate in public on BDNOW. They prefer the dark corners >of agriculture over which they think they have influence. That's why >they stole the trademark. They're not interested in any change or >excoriation that could erode their influence or hurt their pocketbooks. >Control is what they sell. Not enlightenment. > >If they really believed in what they were doing and believed in >Steiner's desire to carry his work around the world, they'd be on the >list. Pure and simple. > >(By the way, please notice that many individuals who are Board Members >of the BDA are also officers or directors in JPI and DAI, both of which >organizations receive "grants" from the BDA. No conflict there. >Right?) > >I think it would be really helpful if someone published the email >addresses of these individuals and sent them an email asking them why >they won't engage in any dialog with BDNOW members. Maybe they will. >Then maybe we'll see some REAL "bickering, anger and the need to prove >or put down". And maybe an increase in mutual respect. > >Here's a start: > >Chuck Beedy and the BDA Board of Directors >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Heinz Grotzke >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Jean Yeager >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Anne Mendenhall/Lincoln Geiger/Demeter >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Andrew Lorand >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >JPI >ask Allan Balliett > >So Chris. To stop the bickering, expand the dialog. > >Cheers, > >Greg Willis
