NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:14 pm

Free Thinker wrote:Had that advice come from another person in a kinder tone, I'd agree, but from you, it's very cold.

Apologies for that. As it happens, I speak only from experience.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:22 pm

anti-ses - time and again you have been asked to explain your background and agenda - you've continually igorned these requests. However your posts DO speak for themselves, and time and time again they read in supprt of the SES, not against as your "monikor" would imply.

For anyone here to take your posts seriously they need at least SOME explaination of your experience and your views - so I ask you one more time. Please explain.

As for advice re the "inquiry" *cough* - tell them nothing in your letter, just say you wanna complain.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:12 pm

a different guest wrote:anti-ses - time and again you have been asked to explain your background and agenda - you've continually igorned these requests. However your posts DO speak for themselves, and time and time again they read in supprt of the SES, not against as your "monikor" would imply.

I do not wish to reveal my identity. I do not know how I could explain my background and "agenda" without revealing my identity. Apparently, I have a pro-SES agenda. I've been going over my previous posts and I fail to find any reason for this impression. Please "enlighten" me about my own views. I think people find it slightly harder to criticize anything I post which appears not to fully back the actions of the "victims" simply because I'm not (nor have been, nor will be) part of the SES, so nobody can just churn out the brainwashing/sexist/immorality accusations which have been directed at others on these boards.

N.B. If Mike and others feel I do not belong here because I choose to remain anonymous, then that's fine with me. I only ever contribute when I think I can help the "victims" with their reconciliation/closure cause. Obviously, this isn't happening. I am quite happy to watch the PR show without comment. Please make it clear if this is the case.

concerned-parent
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:59 pm

Postby concerned-parent » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:16 pm

You're a bit of a bully aren't you, ADG? Why should anti-ses explain anything at all to you (although I note that in fact he has, more than once)? Does it say anywhere that this site is only for people who wish to destroy the SES? Does it say that everyone should explain their agenda? Do you ask everyone else to explain their agenda, ADG? Does it say that any other agenda than criticising the SES will not be taken seriously? Do YOU think that you can only take seriously those who knock every aspect of the SES? Why? Does it fit better with your preconceptions? I thought you stated a while back that you wanted to LEARN about this organisation because of the involvement of relatives of yours... I don't have any interest in you apart from in this; how dare you try to dictate what may be posted here and by whom. What is YOUR agenda?

I am a parent who was at one point considering sending their child to St James. My son in fact has a scholarship to another school. I still read this site with great interest and concern for the ex-pupils. I have no other involvement whatsoever with the schools or with the SES, and no desire to excuse them in any way. What has disturbed me however, as a complete bystander, is the way that those who have tried to put any other point of view have been treated. The whole tenor of this board has altered; at first it was ex-pupils who wanted (and dear god, deserved) resolution, perhaps an apology, but ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the way they were treated as children. And now? I understand - I think anyone reading this board would understand- that there is distrust of what has been put in place by the school. So why not have an intelligent discussion of how to get out of this impasse? Several here have attempted to do exactly that. But posts like this one ADG, how does it help? How?

Perhaps it is time for agendas to be put on the table, because it has been clear to me for a long time that there are many, and that this is more of a problem than distrust of the school. Some want resolution, some want revenge. Some want apology, some want changes to the school, others want to damage the SES.

What does the St James school want? I don't know, because those few from them or the SES who have attempted to post have been run off the board. I DON"T KNOW. Isn't this rather an important point? I have no comment on why they were run off the board, whether they should or should not have been, or whether they should even have stuck it out despite posts like this one from ADG (and this not even towards a member of the SES but towards someone who only tries to put a different viewpoint), but I do know that like me, no-one here knows what the school wants. That is a great pity. All there can be now is speculation, not the best basis for working towards some kind of resolution. Is this the way forward do you think, ADG? Do you want anti-ses to 'go away' as well? Is it a good and useful thing, this staus quo?

This is a serious matter for these ex-pupils, it is a matter of their own lives, of their families, of what they are now as a result of their school years. It is very important to them. It is not a playground game for them. If you want to help them then ask yourself what is it that THEY need, not what you want.

John M

Bagel
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Scotland

New Message David Boddy

Postby Bagel » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:25 pm

Hello Free Thinker

I have been reading this site for many months. I was considering St J for our child. The appeal of the school has ceased since reading about the inquiry and the SES involvement with the school. Like you I wonder about the inquiry.

in response to your posting thr 7 April may i suggest the following .[Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:02 pm????Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Furthermore, when you are dealing with David Boddy, you are dealing with a PR situation, since that is what he does best.

I don't have confidence in this inquiry and I'm not someone whom it will benefit at all.

Stanton - whoever you are ?!?!?! Not all e-mail programs or ISPs acknowledge sent mail receipts Furthermore, it simple means that SOMEONE opened the e-mail. It does NOT mean that the person to whom it was addressed read it. Furthermore, there is no paper trail with e-mails as they can so easily be changed. As others have mentioned, the only really reliable format, especially as evidence in court, is a registered letter mailed to the addressee, who then must sign for it PERSONALLY.]


My suggestion is:

C Betts the Senior Lawyer at Veale Wasbrough says shecan be contacted via email at VW. VW 's address is Orchard Court Orchard Lane Bristol BS1 5WS. Telephone 0117 925 2025. Which department does C Betts work for? Do her colleagues or indeed does she have any SES connections? Who is paying for this inquiry and to what end? If the governors are paying what is their brief to their solicitors? What is their agenda for the ex pupils? I fail to see how VW will end up helping the pupils if they are receiving a brief from the people who caused the problems in the first place. Surely VW are answerable to their paymasters? I may be missing something here. If I am please forgive me and please advise.

In the 1980's there was apparently a coverup when the Hounan expose was done. It feels like something similar will happen this time.

Who is representing the ex pupils? Have the agencies - NSPCC, Social Services, the CPA and the Richmond Education Authority been contacted to represent these pupils in an unbiased, confidential way? These agencies if they have the information from the pupils can act and if it is outside their aegis they will advise accordingly. At least if the governors wish this to be out in the open this is the time to do so and to do it involving all parties who can make a difference

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: New Message David Boddy

Postby anti_ses » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:50 pm

Bagel wrote:Who is paying for this inquiry and to what end?

The problem is that I doubt very much the "victims" will want to pay any legal bills for the Inquiry out of their own pockets. I may be wrong.

I agree with much of what you say, Bagel. I, however, do not know the answers to the questions you pose. If only some of the time spent criticizing the Inquiry on this forum was spent following the steps you have helpfully outlined, then a lot of progress can be made. Both for ex-pupils seeking to participate in the Inquiry and for the School itself. That is my agenda.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Putting my agenda on the table

Postby Tom Grubb » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:22 pm

I agree with concerned-parent that now may be the time for agendas to be put on the table. Here's mine:

As a former pupil of St Vedast who suffered and witnessed child abuse (and I use that term advisedly) at the school, I now seek acknowledgement of what happened and a full apology from the SES and those involved in the abuse, primarily Nicholas Debenham.

I have never sought an inquiry. The inquiry was the idea of David Boddy and his school's governors. However, I am willing to take part in an inquiry if it will facilitate the acknowledgement and apology I seek. For this to happen, the inquiry needs to be fully impartial and fair and needs to be seen to be so. I am not trying to wreck the proposed inquiry or put objects unfairly in its way. And, despite anti-ses's suggestion, I and many other former pupils who share my agenda do not just spend our time criticising the inquiry. We also spend time in private dialogue with Mr Boddy and others to help ensure that the inquiry, should it happen, is fair, impartial and properly conducted.

Finally, I personally don't want to run anyone off this board. I enjoy the robustness of the debate here and I enjoy reading contributions from those with different viewpoints.

Tom Grubb

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:25 am

concerned parent - you accuse me of being a "bully" and then spend a whole par bullying and flaming me.

As for my "agenda" it is well documented.

I don't think anyone wants to run anyone off these boards, but what DOES annoy quite a few of us is people posting as something they aren't. The reaction of Katherine Watson posting under "a jolly little monikor" being a case in point.

If someone wants to post "pro" ses views then they should go right ahead. Honestly. They should not post subtely pro views while masking themselves as something else.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:30 am

Concerned Parent - I'll attempt to address your point about pro-SES forum members briefly and succinctly. Having grown up in the School of Practical Philosophy in the US, having parents who attended for years before I was born, going to their youth groups, attending their adult classes, and finally leaving as an adult, the main issue I would have with pro-SES members here on this board would be their attitude regarding what has happened to other members here. I would direct you to NYC's posting regarding how her tutor responded when she brought up the issues addressed here.

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=275

Once you read it, you will see how this attitude about unpleasant issues and a way of treating "lower" members of the school with condescention is pervasive among the various schools. That isn't to say that everyone there is like this, but many are, no matter how nice they seem on the surface. I know her tutor and he's a nice, funny, guy. However, if this is the attitude of people not even closely related to those responsible or part of the group responsible for the abuse that occured in St. James, imagine what the attitude of some members of the UK schools is!

I don't wish anyone to be driven from this board unless it is someone stirring contension among the members here in order to take away our energy from more important matters. However, I would not welcome those whose attitude resembles NYC's tutor. I appreciate your honest, sensitive, yet questioning post, which contained many fair questions.

I think it's pretty fair to say that most senior members who were involved in St. James just hope this inquiry dies down and nothing comes of it because they will be in a lot of trouble if it goes through properly. Obviously some have changed or left the school and some are trying to make it better now. But the fact that many of the people who were intimately involved in the abuse are still members of the SES or teaching at St. James makes it clear that the school isn't trying all that it can. Were this a public school, at least in the states, a lot would have been done a long time ago. But my experience (and I've had a LOT of it) with both the US and UK schools is that they like to sweep these sorts of things under the rug and much of the philosophy taught involves ignoring negative thoughts, remembering that the world is an illusion, dealing with upper-class interests and doing service just for the school rather than in places where service is truely needed, I could go on and on. But it all ends up, for many people, with a twisted sense of emotions and reaction to unpleasant situations.

Does this make sense? I'd be happy to elaborate but I must eat dinner now.

Edited to Add: If you read my introductory post about the school in the US/NY, I'm quite open about who I am and why I'm here. If you read more posts, you'll notice and I and many other members here are not just here to trash the SES/SoPP/etc. Many of us have expressed fond memories, remembered good friends, and cherish some of the teachings we learned in the philosophy schools. For me, having had major emotional issues with my parents and with myself, speaking with others here helps me to figure out which problems I have are due to my years or my parents' years in the SoPP, and confirms others issues I've already realized. It helps me to discover who I really am, which ironically, is supposed to be the whole point of the SES/SoPP to begin with...

I have no personal animosity towards the NY school, (although as with any organization, I intensely dislike certain people there.) My issues deal with the repercussions of some of the adult school's teachings that end up affecting many members (but not all) negatively. I'll end with a very brief example I believe I posted earlier.

One summer, while my mother was on retreat at the main center in Wallkill, NY, I was staying with another family from the school, and at daycamp, I had an anaphylactic reaction (i.e., deadly) to cheese. While waiting to go to the hospital, I called Wallkill and asked to talk to my mother. The man who answered the phone said she was busy, and so I explained that I was extremely sick and on my way to the hospital. He refused to let me talk to her because she was in a meeting with Maclaren. I was crying and he still insisted so I got the counselor from camp (also a woman) to talk to him thinking he'd take an adult seriously. No luck, he gave her the same response. When I talked to my mother about it before she left the school, and she never remembered it happening even though we told her about it, she tried to make excuses saying that it was just that guy's personality. My response was what kind of organization holds its leaders words more important than talking to one's child who is going to the hospital and possibly dying? It's the atmosphere it creates that I take issue with, which for some members, allows the very negative aspects of their personality to be gorged.

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

Postby dan » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:01 am

You make some very good points FT about SES/SoPP induced behaviour in members and motivations of members.
...and doing service just for the school rather than in places where service is truely needed


...such as to their own family members, children etc!..the community? etc.

I was not an SES member myself but my parents still are. I know members were told not to take/keep family photos or attach great importance to anything which distracted from the SES philosophy. How can anyone obey such rubbish !? - but thousands did. This is so clearly an attempt at controlling members minds, dictating a structure of preference onto the most personal part of peoples lives.

I am reminded of a scene in Damien Omen 2/3, where Damian is preaching on a hillside to thousands of respectable looking 'devil worshippers' only in my memory I see McClaren preaching to thousands of scarily obedient SES members as lightning strikes and the clouds part...

What persuades (a diminishing number) of people to sell out 100% of their free time and energy to a cult like the SES ?
Dan

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

School duties

Postby erikdr » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:20 pm

truly needed.... such as to their own family members, children etc!..the community? etc.

I know members were told not to take/keep family photos or attach great importance to anything which distracted from the SES philosophy. How can anyone obey such rubbish !? - but thousands did.

What persuades (a diminishing number) of people to sell out 100% of their free time and energy to a cult like the SES ?


Well, discussion is going over the top again a bit I'm afraid, time to counterbalance..

:agrue:
1. Who says that service towards family members and children is in general less selfish than SES duties?
A case where the kid needs to go to hospital is clearly a case where SES (well SPP in the case) should have stepped aside, but comparing a Wallkill/Waterperry retreat with bringing your kids to the 3rd sports event in a week? Maybe even more for the pride of the family than for the benefit of the kids?

2. The picture was/is not always black and white. I did do my SES (well SvF) duty and even for 2 years a third evening with study, but next to this also volunteer work in society. And though tutors sometimes had difficulty working with me if agenda clashes came, quite a few of them admired me also doing outside work. And if commitments already existed when the School increased its load, e.g. changing the retreat schedule from 3 a year to 24 a year (every fortnight!), generally spoken SvF also allowed me to continue with those commitments towards other parts of society and e.g. be absent from the weekend retreat between Sat 9 AM and 5 PM.

3. With most of the reactions here, I feel people are throwing away the baby with the tub. Spirituality and un-selfish behaviour is really more worth to me than solely selfish attachment to career and family - but true spirituality finds a balance between the movement and 'normal life and duties' and even transforms those normal events into the Spiritual. Cults like SES are not always good in finding that balance...

So yes, selling out 100% of your free time to a cult is not that good.
Especially if the cult has big traces of Ego and selfishness for the local Guru.
Selling out that same 100% to 'Mercedes and Cola', like a locally well-known song compares the mammons of the West with the mammons of former East Berlin, is exactly as bad.

Any votes for finding a balance?
With folded palms,

<Erik>

afitz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: London

moaning about SES

Postby afitz » Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:15 pm

When I left SES some 4 years ago after 8 years in the school I made a pact with myself that I would never speak ill of the school....not the case for so many bitter people on this site look at all these malcontents and people with minds out of control slinging mud like there is no tomorrow. I left because as a gay man I felt that it was no longer the place for me, but that is my issue not SES's issue. I gained enormously from the wisdom and love of the place and no I am not naive enough to think they did not make mistakes (what organisation doesn't) they, however, offered such a stimulating atmosphere (and still do) to work in and learn in. I say to those who attended school as children and those adults who were even more involved in the school than I was ........ let go ....... move on......get a life..................


Anthony Fitzgerald (left middle school in 2001)

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:39 pm

Well, lots to respond to here, but I don't have time because unlike afitz, I DO have a life, and today I am doing birdwatching with my family, and then doing some volunteer work.

I'm afraid I'll have to clarify some of my comments about service because I don't think you understood my meaning. I'm not talking about service to the SES versus time spent with family.

I think afitz' post is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my post about pro-SES posters. Not that you, Afitz, are pro-SES but your attitude of "let go ....... move on......get a life.................. " is NOT what we need here. Most of us HAVE moved on, let go, or gotten a life. However, the acts of moving on, letting go, and getting a life, for most of us, have involved dealing with the repercussions of our years in the SES - whether it be emotional issues, physical abuse, or even lighter matters.

I'll post more later but I'll leave saying that what enabled me to move on was figuring out how the SES had affected me in so many ways, and how to change that so that I could be a person with a normal emotional life.

concerned-parent
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:59 pm

Postby concerned-parent » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:15 pm

Concerned Parent - I'll attempt to address your point about pro-SES forum members briefly and succinctly. Having grown up in the School of Practical Philosophy in the US, having parents who attended for years before I was born, going to their youth groups, attending their adult classes, and finally leaving as an adult, the main issue I would have with pro-SES members here on this board would be their attitude regarding what has happened to other members here. I would direct you to NYC's posting regarding how her tutor responded when she brought up the issues addressed here.

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=275

Once you read it, you will see how this attitude about unpleasant issues and a way of treating "lower" members of the school with condescention is pervasive among the various schools. That isn't to say that everyone there is like this, but many are, no matter how nice they seem on the surface. I know her tutor and he's a nice, funny, guy. However, if this is the attitude of people not even closely related to those responsible or part of the group responsible for the abuse that occured in St. James, imagine what the attitude of some members of the UK schools is!

I don't wish anyone to be driven from this board unless it is someone stirring contension among the members here in order to take away our energy from more important matters. However, I would not welcome those whose attitude resembles NYC's tutor. I appreciate your honest, sensitive, yet questioning post, which contained many fair questions.

I think it's pretty fair to say that most senior members who were involved in St. James just hope this inquiry dies down and nothing comes of it because they will be in a lot of trouble if it goes through properly. Obviously some have changed or left the school and some are trying to make it better now. But the fact that many of the people who were intimately involved in the abuse are still members of the SES or teaching at St. James makes it clear that the school isn't trying all that it can. Were this a public school, at least in the states, a lot would have been done a long time ago. But my experience (and I've had a LOT of it) with both the US and UK schools is that they like to sweep these sorts of things under the rug and much of the philosophy taught involves ignoring negative thoughts, remembering that the world is an illusion, dealing with upper-class interests and doing service just for the school rather than in places where service is truely needed, I could go on and on. But it all ends up, for many people, with a twisted sense of emotions and reaction to unpleasant situations.


(quoted only as reference to which post I am mostly replying to, see above for full post)

Free Thinker, I had read your posts and the ones of NYC that you refer to. Yes I understand your point -and I agree with it- that there is a connection between these behaviours and those which allowed and maybe caused what happened to the St James pupils. I understand your outrage at the attitudes that you and NYC detailed, but would you agree that -now- something new is required or there will simply remain a bitter stalemate forever. I would like to try to make a point here in a relatively theoretical manner and yet make it clear that this is neither just for the sake of discussion nor with the intention of trivialising anything. These 'tutors' dismissed your need to speak to your mother as less important than a meeting she was in (and in my opinion the fact that you were ill is virtually irrelevant, what matters is that you needed your mother and your need was dismissed) , and dismissed NYC's concerns and also the issues raised here. Yet you yourself posted above "However, I would not welcome those whose attitude resembles NYC's tutor." So, what next? Is that the end point? Your posts show a clarity of mind, Free Thinker, but it is not clear at all what you would consider to be a satisfactory conclusion, I mean in the sense of some sort of personal resolution. It seems to me that like so many posters here you also wish for acknowledgement, and for those such as NYC's 'tutor' to demonstrate a different attitude. For them to be convinced and also to try to make amends. I don't know, and I feel uncomfortable speculating about what you want or need because it is speculation and because I know that it probably isn't something that can be summed up in a line of writing anyway. But whatever it is, whatever your personal aim is, then it makes sense to find a way to achieve it....

Apologies for being blunt, but I find myself unimpressed by your theories about what it is the SES and St James want. You may be right but you may be wrong. I just don't know, and I would ask that you accept the possibility that neither do you. I think there is a great danger in ascribing anything to ALL of 'them'. They are people, individuals, just the same as the posters on this board are people, and therefore, logically, they do not all want the same thing. It is as one dimensional to refer to all of the SES sweeping stuff under the rug (I know you didn't write it exactly like this but I am just trying to make a point) as it is to refer to all the posters on this forum wanting revenge. NYC's tutor for example; perhaps he believed the stuff he told her. Perhaps he did not but felt that his tutor knew better than him. Perhaps he is ambitious and believes he knows how to behave to get somewhere-or-other in the organisation. Perhaps his personal experience was so at odds with what is written on this site that he found it easy to dismiss it. Perhaps he is particularly stupid or arrogant. Perhaps he has a tendency to be impressionable. I can speculate, but I do not know. Whatever, he is a person, a man struggling to make sense of his life, and once he was also a small boy with all his curiosity and liveliness, and his hopes and trust and his potential. Perhaps he too needs a little patience and understanding? Perhaps just as much?

I don't know. I have re-read the accounts by those pupils who did meet up with their abusive teachers. From what was described this seemed just as important for those former teachers as it was for the pupils. I am a Tibetan Buddhist; for me the idea that the past may be repaired little by little in the present is a very strong one and one I have personal experience of. It is an active process, it will not happen by itself. It requires some effort, and all effort is helped by being very clear about what the aim is. The agenda, if you like. However it is not for me to bring in my beliefs to an already rather muddied pond. So I will say only that this 'them and us' division, this hounding for which there are undoubtedly many more equally weighty reasons than the ones you post here, this is going in the opposite direction if it is some sort of acknowledgement you want. Please understand that I have no wish to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but I can tell you that this will not help reconciliation. Can you see a way that it may help reconciliation? I myself cannot.

I would like to hear from the St James schools what they would like to be the outcome of this inquiry. I would particularly like to hear from them what they see as the way forward for the schools, what exactly they would like to see fostered at those schools in the future. Is it all just a recruiting ground? Or are there some loftier ideals - I get the impression that there was once such hope and love for those schools, that they were founded with great principles and goodwill. They made mistakes, such bad, bad mistakes. Actually, appalling mistakes. You suggest that all they want to do is bury/ignore those mistakes - perhaps it is so. But if it is not - if they tried to explain otherwise, could you not find it in you to listen to them, even to wish them well for their future? A future built on a thorough and informed understanding of what went wrong in the past? Can they therefore be allowed to post without being howled down? Can they be allowed to post without what they say being seen as anything other than a start, a starting point for a dialogue? If they make mistakes then let them apologise and let them carry on. I am an outsider here, but from what I have seen of the treatment of posters such as Katharine or the lesser example of TB (another poster who was not a member of the SES but treated even more virulently) - from what I have seen, I would not attempt to post here if I was them. This is such a shame, such a lost opportunity for everyone.

Something really marvellous could arise from this situation. I am so heartened to hear that dialogue is carrying on between the pupils and David Boddy. I am also glad to see posters feeling free to be able to post positively about their experiences.

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Get a life!

Postby erikdr » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:45 pm

but your attitude of "let go ....... move on......get a life.................. " is NOT what we need here. Most of us HAVE moved on, let go, or gotten a life. However, the acts of moving on, letting go, and getting a life, for most of us, have involved dealing with the repercussions of our years in the SES - whether it be emotional issues, physical abuse, or even lighter matters.
I'll post more later but I'll leave saying that what enabled me to move on was figuring out how the SES had affected me in so many ways, and how to change that so that I could be a person with a normal emotional life


Okay. As it was clear before, I do more or less back Anthony (afritz) and I too am clearly not pro-SES.

I think that quite a lot of the debate is about what is 'normal emotional life' and what not. Let's try to state a few common goals for all of us ex-SES people:
* Getting our life going
* With emotional balance
* And a clear place for spirituality in our life, as that's obviously what we longed for and made us choose the SES earlier. (Or, in case forced upon you as a kid: probably, as long as you don't totally hate your parents and their upbringing, you also have some need for spirituality.)

Now these goals MIGHT include
"dealing with the repercussions of our years in the SES - whether it be emotional issues, physical abuse, or even lighter matters. "

But that dealing can usually NOT be simply bashing against
'the organisation', 'we as a simple victim' etc. etc. And neither telling that all was/is wrong with SES and Vedanta/Gurdjieff, after all in teachings it has quite some overlap with Xtianity (and in behaviour 90% or more with Xtian cults). Find a balance! Admit that there were good sides too! Don't fall into negative resentment as Anthony so well observed. Don't blame spirituality as a whole for the misbehaviour of a number of persons, or even groups of persons!

And I think giving that place in our life to spirituality also includes respecting the ways many others choose to go for religion/spirituality. If they choose to stay in the SES (or in Billy Graham's cult or the Mormons or whatever they choose) we can only feel at least SOME respect for their choices, and for putting their ideals before their selfish career and status life as the average human unfortunately strives for.

All the best,
With folded palms,



<Erik>


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests