Dave pointed out :
The idea was to put down all the stuff I wish someone had told me. I too am deeply disappointed by the reluctance of the traditional "names" to explain their knowledge. I have been re-reading some of their old articles -- I know they have that level of understanding. But why is the explanation not publicly shared anywhere? If anyone has gone thru a formal training program like Emerson College, I would be curious to know if they feel like they got the explanation. I think the expectation is that it takes several years to get it all across. Consequently, the "names" don't feel they can teach enough in just an article or two. It also seems to me that there is a bias against internet technology. I agree it would be better to communicate face-to-face but here is a tool that permits dispersed, rural populations to share in a process; it seems crazy not to take advantage of it. O well.re is the chill of peer disapproval, which follows the the 'there can only be one
There is still a great propensity to hide the candle under the bushel, also. And theway' school of biodynamics.
Case in point of the later was Hugh Courtney's presentation on Stella at ACRES in which the flow of his presentation was lost to those unfamiliar with biodynamics because he was continually apologizing for voicing ideas contrary to what some people in biodynamics 'apparently' believe. (Such as the idea that Maria thuns work cannot be replicated.)
Another example would be the 2nd Regional BD prep making conference that is coming up soon. I didn't get invited again this year. Can anyone imagine why? I moderator a lively discussion group, I assemble a pretty remarkable conference each year and, damn, I'm a biodynamic farmer on top of that. OK, I accept that outsiders must stay outside, but what about the rest of you?
Didn't anyoe else on this list get invited to this "congress"?
Isn't it something important to discuss with anyone who is a motivated supporter of biodynamics?
