Soya The Quiet Conquest

[Guest guest]

Has anyone else read this essay on the WAPF website? I'm really bothered by

it. It's a bizarre, unholy mixture of science and mysticism that is yet

another reason that I will not be comfortable referring people to the

website.

Here's one of the excerpts from the article that I find particularly

troubling:

" The short period of time within which germination of the soybean must take

place (within four months) is in striking contrast to the cereal plants.

They concentrate their fruiting on elevated stems, leaving their leaves

behind them to shrivel and die. The soybean's realm is the watery sphere of

the undines, while the grains ripen among the fiery salamanders. With regard

to the usual threefold nature of plants - earth-emprisoned roots,

rhythmically growing and breathing leaves, an independent realm of color and

scent in the blossom - the legumes seem only two-fold due to an

undifferentiated region of leaf and blossom. Rudolf Steiner points out in

the Agricultural Course how the legumes embody a gesture of " taking "

(characteristic of the animal) while all other plants are " giving. " "

[Guest guest]

Yes, this article seemed funky to me, too. It was in one of the recent

issues of WAPF's quarterly " Wise Traditions " .

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, even the piece you clip below has an interesting bit or two. For

example, didn't Chi ( " soilfertility " ) once say that legumes take even more

from the soil than some other crops? Meanwhile, I've heard recommendations

for farmers to plant legumes because they enrich the soil (with nitrogen?)!

So here is the author's " gesture of taking " .

Secondly, I'm guessing that this piece is written by an Anthroposophist (a

Rudolf Steiner-originated philosophy from which biodynamic ideas sprung)

FOR Anthroposophists, thus the mention of fiery salamanders and undines and

Rudolf Steiner (as if he has some Higher Authority). So I too question

whether it is appropriate for the " Wise Traditions " or www.westonaprice.org

audience.

On the other hand, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Why

can't it be that the readers of this website can find some articles that

offer the enlightenment they need, while others don't have much to offer

them. Other than WRONG statements, does every piece in a website have to

appeal to every body?? What a shame to lose the whole website because of

one other-worldly article!!

My point of view,

Kroyer

<skroyer@johnsonbro " Native-Nutrition

(E-mail) " < >

thers.com> cc:

Subject:

Soya The Quiet Conquest

03/20/2002 01:29 PM

Please respond to

Has anyone else read this essay on the WAPF website? I'm really bothered

by

it. It's a bizarre, unholy mixture of science and mysticism that is yet

another reason that I will not be comfortable referring people to the

website.

Here's one of the excerpts from the article that I find particularly

troubling:

" The short period of time within which germination of the soybean must take

place (within four months) is in striking contrast to the cereal plants.

They concentrate their fruiting on elevated stems, leaving their leaves

behind them to shrivel and die. The soybean's realm is the watery sphere of

the undines, while the grains ripen among the fiery salamanders. With

regard

to the usual threefold nature of plants - earth-emprisoned roots,

rhythmically growing and breathing leaves, an independent realm of color

and

scent in the blossom - the legumes seem only two-fold due to an

undifferentiated region of leaf and blossom. Rudolf Steiner points out in

the Agricultural Course how the legumes embody a gesture of " taking "

(characteristic of the animal) while all other plants are " giving. " "

[Guest guest]

-

>It's a bizarre, unholy mixture of science and mysticism that is yet

>another reason that I will not be comfortable referring people to the

>website.

In this context it's kind of funny that you call it " unholy " , but I agree,

it's quite troubling, and a reason not to refer people to the site. I have

all too much experience with referring people to an article, site or book

only to find them rejecting the entire thing upon finding some suspect

detail somewhere or other, even if it's outside the body of what I actually

recommended.

That's not to say soy is anything but harmful, except PERHAPS in tiny

quantities when fermented for a very long time, but that article isn't

doing anyone any good.

-

[Guest guest]

-

I too found this essay utterly confusing and somewhat unscientific.

This does not prevent me from referring people to WAPF website. I

spoke with a woman today who had seen Sally speak on Saturday. She

told me that according to Steiner, eggs were not a good food for

young children because the eggs would develop too much of the

children's " incarnate " selves. This is because children up to age 7

are primarily & inherently spiritual, much different than adults.

Now this comes from a women who is a vegetarian and feeds her family

likewise. She did not feel she should remove eggs from

their diets, however, she made an effort to obtain them from

pastured chicken and recognized their value for growing bodies,

perhaps due to Sally's influence. Does anthroposophical medicene

have a place in our foundation? I know that Tom Cowan, who is on

the board, is an anthroposophical physician. I am somewhat leary of

any discipline developed from the ideas of one individual. What do

you guys think?

> Has anyone else read this essay on the WAPF website? I'm really

bothered by

> it. It's a bizarre, unholy mixture of science and mysticism that

is yet

> another reason that I will not be comfortable referring people to

the

> website.

>

> Here's one of the excerpts from the article that I find

particularly

> troubling:

>

> " The short period of time within which germination of the soybean

must take

> place (within four months) is in striking contrast to the cereal

plants.

> They concentrate their fruiting on elevated stems, leaving their

leaves

> behind them to shrivel and die. The soybean's realm is the watery

sphere of

> the undines, while the grains ripen among the fiery salamanders.

With regard

> to the usual threefold nature of plants - earth-emprisoned roots,

> rhythmically growing and breathing leaves, an independent realm of

color and

> scent in the blossom - the legumes seem only two-fold due to an

> undifferentiated region of leaf and blossom. Rudolf Steiner points

out in

> the Agricultural Course how the legumes embody a gesture

of " taking "

> (characteristic of the animal) while all other plants

are " giving. " "

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Does anthroposophical medicene have a place in our foundation?

> I know that Tom Cowan, who is on the board, is an

> anthroposophical physician.

I can't see how anything but *science-based* information is appropriate for

a foundation named for Weston Price and dedicated to making his findings and

similar information available.

> I am somewhat leary of any

> discipline developed from the ideas of one individual.

> What do you guys think?

I agree completely.

[Guest guest]

>-

>I too found this essay utterly confusing and somewhat unscientific.

>This does not prevent me from referring people to WAPF website. I

>spoke with a woman today who had seen Sally speak on Saturday. She

>told me that according to Steiner, eggs were not a good food for

>young children because the eggs would develop too much of the

>children's " incarnate " selves. This is because children up to age 7

>are primarily & inherently spiritual, much different than adults.

>Now this comes from a women who is a vegetarian and feeds her family

>likewise. She did not feel she should remove eggs from

>their diets, however, she made an effort to obtain them from

>pastured chicken and recognized their value for growing bodies,

>perhaps due to Sally's influence. Does anthroposophical medicene

>have a place in our foundation? I know that Tom Cowan, who is on

>the board, is an anthroposophical physician. I am somewhat leary of

>any discipline developed from the ideas of one individual. What do

>you guys think?

Do you really want to know? <g>

As a person whom some would call " New Age " (though I still haven't

accepted the Age of Pisces yet), I would say that if the little

spirits did not want incarnate selves. they'd be off flitting in the

Summerland instead of here, and since the best available evidence

suggests that eggs are good for those incarnate bodies, I say serve

them up. (And " incarnate " means " to take flesh " , a real NT concept.)

Talk of incarnate and spiritual selves isn't science...there's no way

that it leads to predictions that can be proven or disproven. WAP was

a scientist in his approach. I don't think anyone should have to dump

whatever else they are to be part of the NT movement, but they must

be careful to not mix their own prejudices in with the NT stuff. So,

if anthroposophy works for Cowan, he should go for it, but when he's

speaking for anthroposophy he's NOT speaking for WAPF. I wouldn't

call Anthroposophy " the ideas of just one individual " - Steiner stood

on the shoulders of Blavatsky, who stood on the entire esoteric

tradition, East and West- any more than the WESTON A. PRICE (*ahem*)

Foundation is the ideas of one individual- but esoteric discoveries

have a poor track record of being replicated by anybody else.

Given that we're up against " received wisdom " , I think we need to be

real careful to not be associated with cranks. Sally says we

shouldn't eat flakes for breakfast, but I intend to do just that

(metaphorically, not physically). NT is at its strongest when dealing

with received science in a scientific manner. I've found Enig's

work particularly convincing. If I'd read that soy article first, I

probably wouldn't have read farther.

But I see evidence of fuzzy thinking and guru-worship right here in

this group. I try to " take the best and leave the rest " , knowing

we're all in this together, but it's been hard sometimes.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clarifying the development of Steiner's anthroposophical

ideas. I am sure his theories are quite complex, more so than I

could probably understand. But that is just what they are -

theories. I am trained as a scientist (BS in nutrition/biochemistry)

and I agree that we need to be careful what we promote as health

information based on the work of Price. It dilutes our postion.

Do you really want to know? <g>

> As a person whom some would call " New Age " (though I still haven't

> accepted the Age of Pisces yet), I would say that if the little

> spirits did not want incarnate selves. they'd be off flitting in

the

> Summerland instead of here, and since the best available evidence

> suggests that eggs are good for those incarnate bodies, I say

serve

> them up. (And " incarnate " means " to take flesh " , a real NT

concept.)

> Talk of incarnate and spiritual selves isn't science...there's no

way

> that it leads to predictions that can be proven or disproven. WAP

was

> a scientist in his approach. I don't think anyone should have to

dump

> whatever else they are to be part of the NT movement, but they

must

> be careful to not mix their own prejudices in with the NT stuff.

So,

> if anthroposophy works for Cowan, he should go for it, but when

he's

> speaking for anthroposophy he's NOT speaking for WAPF. I wouldn't

> call Anthroposophy " the ideas of just one individual " - Steiner

stood

> on the shoulders of Blavatsky, who stood on the entire esoteric

> tradition, East and West- any more than the WESTON A. PRICE

(*ahem*)

> Foundation is the ideas of one individual- but esoteric

discoveries

> have a poor track record of being replicated by anybody else.

>

> Given that we're up against " received wisdom " , I think we need to

be

> real careful to not be associated with cranks. Sally says we

> shouldn't eat flakes for breakfast, but I intend to do just that

> (metaphorically, not physically). NT is at its strongest when

dealing

> with received science in a scientific manner. I've found

Enig's

> work particularly convincing. If I'd read that soy article first,

I

> probably wouldn't have read farther.

>

> But I see evidence of fuzzy thinking and guru-worship right here

in

> this group. I try to " take the best and leave the rest " , knowing

> we're all in this together, but it's been hard sometimes.