*************** I have reviewed my contributions to this list over the last year. Counting my last post but not this one, I have made 76 posts to BDNOW!, most of which have been of a technical nature.Nonetheless I am considered a 'lurker' by the list owner. Interesting, isn't it?
Frank, Frank, Frank... For heaven's sake, we both know you are not a lurker. You are one of the most profound posters to this list but, let's face it, your appearances here have been infrequent as of late. It's a shame, of course, that someone will read in the archive that you are a lurker but will probably never see that the accusation was a jest that was commuted right here.
Frank - For me, this list is not about world-domination via BD. To me, BD Now! refers to a forum where someone wants to get some help or assistance in their thoughts about biodynamics or in their practical projects can turn to more experienced practitioners for answers and support. I know there is a lot of zealot talk on this list. A lot of "conversion" talk and what not. For me, the circumstances are strictly one of 'pearls before swine.' Myself, I do not have enough energy or time to put pearls before swine any longer.Probably at least part of the problem is that my introduction to biodynamics came first through Rodale and Pfeiffer, and only second through Secrets of the Soil and beyond; I am probably canalized to be sure, looking at ascertainable and independently verifiable data as a proper jumping off place, rather than believing entirely in what seems to me to be a rather loose, 'quasi-magical' version of the story.... I like getting the arithmetic right and knowing what scientists outside the 'biodynamic' circle are saying....it seems to me these were the sorts of things Steiner set Pfeiffer on his path to do, which resonates with what Greg Willis has said in his recent post... I think if we want 'BDNOW!' we'd best have either the mentor system Allan talks about, or else a program where people can get irrefutable physical evidence of the kind Willis discusses, so that we can put 'Steiner remedies' on a scientific basis that even skeptics must accept.
As you know, we are postulating a spiritual science here that operates beyond the perceptions of orthodox science. It is very very difficult to create a proof of our system within a lesser system. Having experienced the power of biodynamics in food and in soil, I have no need to 'prove it' to anyone. Having seen 'organic trials' conducted at the local ag research center, I have not hope for a proof of biodynamics under those circumstances.
Just as they are dismissing Elaine right now. Those of us who have our noses in the soil foodweb are, as usual, gaining a rather distorted view. From those outside of Elaine's world I continually hear that she has provided 'no science.' Now, from others who are working successfully within her world but have become disassociated from her personally, there is considerable criticism that she is more of an evangelist than a teacher, etc etc.Doc Ingham has done some work of this type, but much more should be done. It should be thought of as crucial to the whole task, to find a way to initiate people in the validity of the remedies so that it can be repeated and demonstrated in classrooms, workshops and field trials globally. If that can't be done, then perhaps the rest of the world is right to dismiss Steiner along with Thun as mere perpetrators of myth.
My point is not to criticize Elaine, whom I think is a wonder of the modern world, but to point out how even 'science' cannot not be readily established in the face of 'industry.'
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify why your chose that particular link.As far as losing a job because of one's expressed views, here's a tale to impress anyone: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id118.htm
I'm sorry, Frank. I don't see anything in that article as controversial on a neighborhood level as, for example, people admitting that they think that if cow shit is stirred for from 1 to 24 hours it has become a tonic beverage for humans. Remarks such as these appear on this list some times. I like people to be able to share what they actually do with their preps and teas. Such remarks, accessible to Google can impair an individuals opportunity to do good deeds in their community, though. Who wan't a 'kook' on their school board, for example? Last night on the local news they were advocating checking anyone you meet through google and, if serious about them, through a private detective who, can you believe this?, can get cell phone records...
You make this sound selfish. The situation I was describing was,again, a public education opportunity (It was a farming position, also) at an established non-profit. In this location I could have exposed 1000s of young people a year to the living nature of biodynamic gardens. But why would any sensible manager who operates totally in conventional reality be interested in publicly supporting an individual who, for example, has stated in the archives that he thinks that in one of his past lives he dated the then voluptuous Miss Hugh Lovel?I am sorry Allan had a bad experience in the job market. But, to cave in to fear is not really the answer.
I hope his foot is feeling better,
Still not small enough to fit in a shoe, Frank. Thanks for the good thoughts, though.
-Allan
