Dear Roger, It is funny how small things and chance encounters can change our lives forever. Your trip to the organic conference seems to be one of those which are there for everyone. For me it has been trying to understand the logic and reasoning behind the current debate on the list about lurkers and active members I suppose that under the current terms of reference of dividing the membership into lurkers and non lurkers, or people who we need to be fearful of and those we dont need to be fearful of, because I do not contribute in the same amount as say Steve Storch or Lloyd Charles or whoever makes me a lurker and not as worthwhile a contributor as someone else. Is Hugh Lovel regared as a lurker because he conducts a watching brief on what is going on through the list. Would you classify Greg Willis as a lurker? Would you categorise Steve Diver as a lurker even although the information which he gives is spasmodic? How many times a year must a person contribute to the list to remain on it and not be considered as a lurker. Closer to home, the Education and Workshops officer of BACA Cheryl Kemp replies to mailings when she is able to supply valuable input that is able to help at the time. Sometimes she can go for months without commenting on any mailings. Does that make her contributions any less valuable? To categorise a list member on the basis of how much they contribute and what they say demeans the value of any contribution to the list. Many times mailings that go through the list are only of particular benefit to those who need to supply or obtain information. in many instances they are only of use to contributors in the US. The choice of whether to respond, or not respond should not be conditioned by whether you have been sitting on the periphery of the list as a lurker (so called), or you are a regular contributor Your statement to forget the science where Biodynamic Agriculture is concerned I hope is a little tongue in cheek, otherwise why would we be trying to develop new insights into the use of BD preps. As far as I know there has not been a great body of research work done on the use of 501 to support the action of weed peppers. It seems that Lloyd keeps on with the same message on his weed control methods without very much comment or discussion of the pro's and con's of his methods. How much commentary has there been from American farmers in the use of 501 to release locked up Phosphorus in the soil. Just a brief note to ensure that my name does not go on the official BDnow lurkers list. James Hedley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
> Allan Balliett wrote: > > >> 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. > >> *************** > > > An unknown length of time ago a man on the road to Damascus was struck > blind by an angel of the Lord. When he recovered his 'sight' he found > himself going somewhere else with a new name and purpose in life. > Allegorical probably but that is how the Bible tells the story of Saul > of Tarsus which is explainable on a spiritual level but scientifically? > No way. > > On a day in the year 2001 AD, a non-farmer, a person whose sum-total > knowledge of agriculture acquired over 50+ years could be written in > large print on a single sheet of paper, walked on to a grazing property > not far from Canberra Australia and said "This will make your grass grow > beyond belief", and dropped a small packet of granulated brown > substance into the farmer's hand. > > And at the visitor's explanation to his questions, the farmer's eyes > grew wide with disbelief. But fortunately he had a sense of humour and, > more importantly, a mind open enough to 'give it a go'. Now he has the > best grass in the district and he delights in telling everyone how it > got that way. > > BD is not orthodox science or spiritual science or any sort of science, > it is traditional (or cultural or old if you like) knowledge coupled > with the insights of Rudolf Steiner (and, since, others) and it is > attitudinal. If any person were to accept for just one moment that > humankind is a part or a component of the environment and not its lord > and master, that everything we think or do has an effect on the > environment, and that every other part of the environment has an effect > on us, his or her life would change for ever. I do mean 'for ever', not > just this life. > > NZ after attending the Organics 2001I cannot claim that the angel of the > Lord appeared to me and said "Roger, henceforth your purpose is changed, > go thou and do this." All I can say is that between boarding an aircraft > at Christchurch Conference at Ashburton and stepping off it in Sydney > not too long afterwards something very significant happened within me, > and the things I have seen, learned and done since then read like a kind > of fairy story. > > Try and explain that scientifically. > > We do not need proof, all we need is product, patience and perseverance, > and humour. Who in their right mind would choose to eat a tasteless > conventionally grown fruit, sprayed with whatever for 'protection', > harvested unripe, refrigerated until displayed and sold, instead of a > biodynamic one? Only someone who has never tasted the latter. There is > one store in Canberra that sells BD certified orange juice. It's on the > other side of the city and the juice costs twice as much than we'd like > to pay but, by golly, it's worth the drive and the money. > > Forget the science - make the bastards laugh and then give 'em an apple > and we won't go far wrong. > > James, the grass is growing in the BD paddock at Dalgety down the > gullies where I dowsed the underground rivers. There was none there mid > December, now it's thick and lush and flattened in places 'downstream' > as if there had been a burst of very heavy rain. Except there hasn't - > no more than 20 millimetres. On my last visit after Rosie and I had > searched fruitlessly for a close-to-surface outlet, I asked the devas > for evidence that the rivers and lakes did exist and to show us a way of > getting at them easily. The answer is growing before our eyes in the > gullies - and nowhere else. > > > roger > > >
