User talk:Lucy Skywalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lucy Skywalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pete K and Lucy Skywalker talk

Lucy, I'm here per your request. If you want to google me - it's Pete Karaiskos. Pete K 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC) So, will you be revealing who you really are, or is this going to be a one-way street? Pete K 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks Pete. I've surely already revealed a certain amount about myself on my user page, have I not? I see you "formerly designed automobiles for Ferrari..." - well, I seem to be crossing the path of yet another racing-car enthusiast in my life - one of the last things I ever thought would happen to me but there you are, I find this fascinating. No, I don't have any publications to my name. I've had a somewhat handicapped life. However, I do write a lot of stuff, am reasonably and increasingly computer literate, and hope that eventually it will come into publishable mode - not least because I care deeply about truth.
Rudolf Steiner saved my sanity when I was 20, and gave me keys that have lasted all my life, in this respect. I spent a year at Emerson College, then another year in the Steiner bookshop. I owe him a big debt. However this does not mean that I actually agree with all his conclusions or all anthroposophists, neither am I a paid-up anthropop, no children in a Waldorf School, no regular subs to anthropop journals, and I have a lifetime awareness of anthropop behaviour that caused problems to others. I've been sifting stuff for years. But I cannot forget the core truths to which he opened my eyes, namely, applying Scientific Method to inner realities as much as to outer realities. The scientific proof of the validity of doing this I found through grasping the objectivity of the act of thinking itself. I might have got this from Transpersonal Psychology but I happened to get it from Steiner, and it was certainly more objectively simple, unique, direct, and undeniable from Steiner. This experience sits with me constantly. The rest of Steiner comes and goes, but, along with the rest of my life experiences, it rides on this basic experience of Thinking as objective, as Windows rides on DOS, or as - in a motor car, the whole car design followed the invention of the combustion engine.
Funnily enough, staying outside Anthroposophy, after initially absorbing the experience, has taught me to stay a lot more fussy about scientific validity than what I see generally, either within Anthroposophy or outside. But my concern is with constantly practising the essence of Scientific Method (which is a path to Truth) both within and without, and I'm not always au fait with the latest details of the scientific world. I have to choose where to put my attention, and for me, it's invariably, again and again and far further than most people believe necessary or possible, Back To Basics. For if the foundation is not good, the superstructure certainly is not.
Staying outside Anthroposophy also means that I have a pretty widely-informed experience of religion and churches of all kinds (positive, that is). IZAK contacted me here first on Wikipedia because I was following up Jewish interests at the time.
I'm a qualified counsellor. Lucy Skywalker

I've surely already revealed a certain amount about myself on my user page, have I not? Yes thanks. Did I miss where you posted your name? You asked me for mine, right? Would it be unreasonable for me to expect to research you as you have me?

I see you "formerly designed automobiles for Ferrari..." - well, I seem to be crossing the path of yet another racing-car enthusiast in my life - one of the last things I ever thought would happen to me but there you are, I find this fascinating. Actually, that isn't true. It was added to my book cover by the publisher (some confusion I guess, maybe confused me with another author) and I alerted them to the error when I received the first copy of the book, but as far as I know, they have ignored this error. The book is out of print. I have designed lots of things - but I have not designed automobiles for Ferrari.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "staying outside Anthroposophy". Do you mean the Anthroposophical society (you have referred to dues-paying a couple of times now)? You seem to have all the trappings of an Anthroposophist (to me) - and I don't stereotype Anthroposophists - I know Anthroposophists who cover a wide range of acceptance of Steiner - from those who agree that he was a racist, megalomaniacle schizophrenic, to those who believe he was a god. Each has taken what they require from Anthroposophy and some stay for the mental exercises, some for the spiritual activity, some for the community, some are just Anthropops because that's how they were raised. Just because you may not wear long dresses and combat boots doesn't mean you're not an Anthropop. I'm going by the scientific theory of "quacks like a duck" here (Occam's razor).

Now, as for myself, I was married to an Anthroposophist/Waldorf teacher, and I've studied Steiner for 15 years, went to study groups, etc. My kids are in Waldorf. I don't consider myself an Anthroposophist because I think Steiner was full of crap (sorry) - and while I have many good friends who are Anthroposophists, I will never buy into the philosophy for lots of reasons - not the least of which is that I don't care for the results (see, that's scientific). Pete K 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Pete so much. It's good to get through to real people. As to personal "real" names, I'm writing all this stuff, because giving you a name would tell you nothing about me. As I said, to the world I'm pretty much a noob, however intense my inner world is. So to avoid confusion I'd far rather just use my user name right across the Internet. Checking your authorship did help me to meet you - what you are expert in - and this is what I was trying to grasp - where do you come from? what is this polemic energy? what are the helpful aspects of this energy? I was starting to see the picture of you designing sports-cars to breaking point - because you seem to carry that energy - and I do actually believe the anthroposophical movement needs a kick up the backside to bring it into NOW. But I'm not always prompted by Spirit to even act, sometimes Life just takes me elsewhere. But when I do act, I try to do this with courtesy, with good faith, and certainly with what I myself must stand up for as the truth I know personally. I do not see any of that as exclusively "anthroposophical".
At risk of repeating myself, I may disagree with many conclusions of Steiner's Anthroposophy, but I cannot ignore the fact that Steiner enabled me personally to hold onto the "Kingdom of Heaven within" through being able to prove to myself, and to stand constantly in that knowledge, of the objective nature of the act of thinking, and that this underlies my personal Life - altogether. I can let go of Occult Science, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, and so on - while appreciating them too - but how can I deny and dishonour what gave me my life back when I was losing it? I prefer to see myself as a scientist (if you must have a word - and I'd rather say "holistic" than "spiritual") because Scientific Method is the principle that endeavours to go back beyond all the trappings, constantly Back To Basics. And this I can take further, into the worlds of Science, Psychology, Anthroposophy, and "all good spirituality" (which is why I asked you how you see Scientific Method), but I can only take one step at a time!!!! Most of all, I'm me, and I care about Truth, or as Jesus put it, describing his own path (John 18:37), "Witness to Truth".
I came out with my truth in anthroposophical clothing in my first blurbs here on Wikipedia, but this is simply a reflection of the energies of the article with which I see I have, for the first time, really become involved, albeit in the discussion pages rather than in the front page. The reason I homed in on this article was because I wanted to interact with where Anthroposophy was at - in the cutting edge situation of Wikipedia, which is such a wonderful tool to use. If you re-read the first paragraph of my front page blurb, you will see how I describe a broad "schism" in three ways between current Anthroposophy and the rest of humankind. This is an introversion I do not like. But I also have compassion for it, when I look at my own decades of introversion, where, day after day, all I had was, in effect, me and God.
Now you will remember, I hope, that I said I used to suffer from Asperger Syndrome (as almost certainly did Einstein and Newton, both of whom I identify with quite a lot at times). I have a lifetime of this, and I cannot undo overnight the habits I built up to cope, nor ever let go the experiences of intense inner riches (especially on the mathematical, musical, and visual sides) and emerging from the coccoon of a lifetime and as it were, pumping up my lifeblood into my wings so that I can fly, is taking a little while. I have a strong suspicion that many Steiner people are, like me, borderline Asperger Syndrome... I suspect that Steiner speaks particularly well to such people... and whatever relationship you have to motor car racing, that energy is certainly at the opposite end of the spectrum.
From years of personal testing of personal experience, I know about the objectivity of thinking and its compatibility with Scientific Method. Expressed in the language format of my "fundie" friends, "God plus one is a majority". Jesus used similar language in validating his own witness (cannot name the ref offhand but will dig if you insist). To develop a Spiritual Science worthy of this name today, we need to take on the essence of Transpersonal Psychological wisdom; the cutting edge of science such as was (hopefully still is) represented at the "Scientists and Mystics" conference; the best (not the worst) of fundamentalist prayerfulness that connects with miracles of healing; and, of course, the full range of criticisms of Spiritual Science so far - and testing the criticisms because not all criticisms are fair or balanced.
The only way I can work, ever, always, is from my personal experience which runs on a spiritual, or holistic, version of Science and Scientific Method - just like my computer runs on C++ or DOS or whatever. And I know that just as I have had to go deep in my lonely journey of 40 years in the wilderness, so also I have real help here for the way forward for humankind at this critical moment in evolution, help which could be important in shaping Wikipedia, which draws importantly on my heritage from the best of Steiner. I am still looking to develop Spiritual Science beyond Steiner, as I said. And even if you still do not see eye to eye with me, there are others who do, and certainly you have been helping me sharpen my own communicating powers.
I hope this helps. It has been a very appropriate New Year experience for me, to get stuck in with Wikipedia, but I shall need to do other stuff for a while, likely a whole week but not certain. This episodic energy of focussed activity is an essential part of my situation and makeup Lucy Skywalker 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pete replies, 02/01/07

It's good to get through to real people. As to personal "real" names, I'm writing all this stuff, because giving you a name would tell you nothing about me. That's up to you, of course but do you see the problem with your "real people" statement? Any Anthroposophical list is full of pseudonyms and trolls are abundant (not suggesting you are one). So you could, despite what you say, be somebody I know, or somebody who is here to harvest something I say and spread it all over the internet. This kind of thing happens frequently - people have taken things I have said and misinterpreted, misapplied or misquoted them to try to damage my credibility - or worse yet, to discuss my children, divorce and custody (that has happened right here on Wikipedia). That's why I like to know who I am speaking with. Not that it matters for our conversation here, but when I'm in a discussion with a nom-de-plume, the "real" me must stay below the surface. No offense intended.

I understand. I too have vulnerable areas - I suffer post-trauma-stress-syndrome. Lucy Skywalker

At risk of repeating myself, I may disagree with many conclusions of Steiner's Anthroposophy, but I cannot ignore the fact that Steiner enabled me personally to hold onto the "Kingdom of Heaven within" through being able to prove to myself, and to stand constantly in that knowledge, of the objective nature of the act of thinking, and that this underlies my personal Life - altogether. I can let go of Occult Science, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, and so on - while appreciating them too - but how can I deny and dishonour what gave me my life back when I was losing it? You might be surprised how many people have been "saved" by Anthroposophy. I frequently hear of people being literally dragged out of the gutter because they found Anthroposophy. I suppose this is common - when people are down they find something to pick them up - whether it's Anthroposophy, Jesus, therapy, Amway or Pokemon.

I'm really sorry you bracket Anthroposophy or Jesus or therapy with Pokemon (don't know what Amway is) because people have deep experiences here, and even if I have different ones, I consider it very bad form not to be respectful of other people's deep experiences. It hurts and it is something I've always learned not to do in work with people. Pokemon might be a laugh and a pick-me-up but it's not a life-changer. And people don't always find something to pick themselves up. My father committed suicide. Lucy Skywalker

I prefer to see myself as a scientist (if you must have a word - and I'd rather say "holistic" than "spiritual") because Scientific Method is the principle that endeavours to go back beyond all the trappings, constantly Back To Basics. And this I can take further, into the worlds of Science, Psychology, Anthroposophy, and "all good spirituality" (which is why I asked you how you see Scientific Method), but I can only take one step at a time!!!! Most of all, I'm me, and I care about Truth, or as Jesus put it, describing his own path (John 18:37), "Witness to Truth". Generally speaking, when I hear people mixing science with Christianity, I get a little worried.

You say "mixing" but I carefully said "one step at a time" so that shallow mixing does not happen. I'm concerned with exploring the basics of Truth, going back to basics over and over again. Lucy Skywalker

I have a strong suspicion that many Steiner people are, like me, borderline Asperger Syndrome... I suspect that Steiner speaks particularly well to such people... and whatever relationship you have to motor car racing, that energy is certainly at the opposite end of the spectrum. You might try to catch a Eugene Schwartz lecture sometime - he talks about Asperger Syndrome specifically.

thanks, I've logged his website and shall look later Lucy Skywalker

The only way I can work, ever, always, is from my personal experience which runs on a spiritual, or holistic, version of Science and Scientific Method - just like my computer runs on C++ or DOS or whatever. But science isn't about personal experience - it's about universal phenomenon. That's why testability and repeatability are important factors in determining what constitutes science. Your computer may run on C++, but if you write your own programs, you cannot expect others to get the results you are getting. You want to share your programs with the world - and they may be very good programs, but other people have written their own programs. So here's what you do - you give other people your programs and have them "test" them - to see if they get the same results you did - or to see if your programs fit better into their lifestyle, or advance computer technology or whatever.

Let's say Steiner wrote programs - and they worked on his computer - his experience. Now, he doesn't give you the programs to test, he just says his are the correct programs and it's up to you to write your own programs that sort of match his and sort of achieve his results. And that's fine - except that you never know if you have achieved his results because although he has given you clues along the way, and told you what results to expect, nobody yet has been able to reproduce his results and even if they have, there's no way to know this because nobody knows what his programs did or didn't do. All we have to go by is his say-so. (I know, the analogy is confusing). Out of time now... Pete K 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


You say But science isn't about personal experience - it's about universal phenomenon. This is the core issue that I seem to have had difficulty in communicating. Science CAN be about personal experience. For a start, the "soft" sciences like Psychology. They do produce testable stuff. The only difference is in the criteria that are appropriate for testability. Common examples of this in our language are "if the cap fits, wear it" or "the proof is in the pudding". When one trains as a counsellor, one is drawing, for instance in learning about "Active Listening" on a whole tradition of testing - in psychotherapy in all its forms. The proof is that people are helped, feel better, sometimes even miraculously so, say thank you, and so on. The experiences then get steadily documented, first in people's perceptions, then in memories, then they get written up, and so on. This is perfectly recognizable as scientific method, and is accepted in the mainstream as such.
Since this is your talk page, I wonder if you would mind if I just insert my comments inbetween yours. So, the first step you have chosen in our discussion about Steiner and science is to muddy the waters. This is what I'm complaining about - the re-definition of "science" to fit Steiner. Why this talk about "soft sciences"? Steiner talked about some very hard scientific stuff - thermodynamics for example, which I'm told he got completely wrong (I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about thermodynamics - but I'm thinking that puts me a step above Steiner - who decided he could fake it). He made "hard science" statements all the time - that were completely wrong - not just because they conflict with accepted science, but because they were proven to be wrong. Now we can spin our wheels here and talk about "criteria" for testability - but those kinds of concessions are exactly the type of thing that provides the world with abundant pseudosciences. It doesn't matter if we are talking about visits from the guardian of the threshold or cold fusion. We shouldn't compromise the requirement for rigorous testing to suit the our interest - indeed, when somebody comes along and says they are scientifically in contact with the spirit world (or the akashic record) this is more reason to test, not less. Anecdotal evidence is not good science.
You say he doesn't give you the programs to test but for me, and for many others, he did give us the program to test with "POF" You say nobody yet has been able to reproduce his results but for us, it tested, and worked, and still tests and works.
OK - so I don't believe you. Now what? This is where the problem comes in. There is nothing that you can show that verifies Steiner.
But it tests and works within, that is, invisibly to others except by its effects on one's life, its "fruit".
Yep. That's called faith. It's not called science.
In this respect, it is no different from psychotherapeutic work and theory and testing. Science is about testing hypotheses, but it does not say that the hypotheses have to be about external realities, or done with external verification.
Even if we go there - even if we treat Steiner's work as if it were in the same field as psychotherapy, we still don't see any results. I don't know how many Anthroposophists you've been around, but I've been around plenty. They are typically not spiritually elevated people, they typically have no significant insight, they are, from my experience (or you could call it my "testing") more often than not, dishonest, secretive, two-faced, and simple-minded - not intending to be mean here - but if Steiner's stuff really worked, we would have a lot of Anthroposphists who are elevated spiritually. The numbers just aren't there - in fact you would most likely find more spiritually elevated people in a control group because Steiner's work isn't spiritually elevating - it puts up roadblocks to enlightenment (we can talk about this later if you need me to explain further). In any case, your verification is personal, not verifiable and not reproducable. So why not call it something else? That's where we get the biggest stumbling block - that people want to call Steiner's work "science". It's not.
And in this sense, however much you may try to convince me externally that I am incorrect, I know internally that internal proof does count.
Sure it does - for you.
One does not even need to be aware of Steiner to know this experience. What Steiner did for me was to enable me to explore in great depth, the notion that inner realities were just as amenable to Scientific Method as external realities, only the instrument of testing is different.
And this is all very nice - but it is not science.
I have worked on plants quite a lot in this way, developing further Goethe's work on "Metamorphosis of Plants" and sharing it with non-Steiner people, who could also see the scientific validity of sensitivity as well as measurability.
OK - when you say "measurability" you've got my attention. So there is not interpretation of the results in your work with plants?
It seems you've had bad experiences with Steiner people yourself here, perhaps I was lucky in working with teachers who paced their expositions to what I could both grasp, question, research further, and enjoy. If you are interested, but feel I'm still being dogmatic, I can try to slow down more, and be still more interactive.
Well, it's not like I'm not accustomed to it <G>. I've certainly had bad experiences with Steiner people, and some of my best friends are Anthroposophists, so to me, what you're saying is something like - you think maybe I've had bad experiences with Christians. It doesn't make a difference to me whether my personal experiences with people are good or bad with regard to evaluating Steiner's work. But observing people's behavior - people who are supposedly high-level Steinerites - DOES interest me. But I'm happy for you that you were indoctrinated properly.
You say All we have to go by is his say-so. There is certainly a problem area here. Following on from Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner does use didactic language, and it can get very much in the way. But I came to Steiner precisely because things like his basic exposition of the "higher bodies" ie etheric, astral and "I", fitted powerful evidence I'd experienced that I needed to understand, and NOTHING else fitted - and 40 years later, I've still found nothing that fits like Steiner.
Yes, his stuff can be very interesting - there is no doubt. The problem (awakening) comes when you realize it DOESN'T fit anymore - and that, indeed, other streams of thought fit much better. When you realize that spirituality is not about trying to make the Bible into something it isn't, or about accepting hierarchies of spirit beings, or suffering through life incarnations and karmic responsibility. When you break away from that stranglehold of old, worn-out ideas from the dark ages, it's like crawling out of a well. You see spirit for what it is - and you realize that freedom is not about "understanding" all the things that bind you, but rather about "releasing" yourself from the things that bind you. Buying into all that Lucifer and Ahriman crap doesn't release you spiritually any more than reading your horoscope in the morning gives you more freedom during the day.
And I've tested some of his further stuff and found it fitted, I've tested other stuff and found it did not fit. For instance, I've found tremendous mileage in Steiner's basic concept of reincarnation, but his details - no, certainly not all. You may say, that's all very well for you Lucy, but that's just you being equally didactic. Yes... next instalment next week Lucy Skywalker 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that I've read this last part, I'm tempted to remove the didactic stuff I just wrote. Yeah, the reincarnation stuff is just silly - I assume you've read Manifestations of Karma - or some of the smaller books - Reincarnation and Karma and all the stuff about human evolutions on the various planets. How do you test that? Internally? Do you believe Steiner when he says our brains and our intestines are basically of the same composition? Or that our head evolved separately from our body? Does all that stuff sit well with you? He might have been onto something with PoF, but after that, he wandered off into his imagination and took lots of people along for the ride. Pete K 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unarchiving the Archive

Hi Lucy, I unarchived the archive you created - sorry, but there's a lot of stuff there that is current and other stuff needs to be referred to in discussions. Having this material visible cuts down on repeated discussions - and since we're fresh out of arbitration, it might still be useful for arbitrators to look at (it is referenced many times in the arbitration) when making decisions about activities. When you have asked about it, I asked you to please leave it. Remember? Since you're new here, it might be better to get the hang of things a bit more before rearranging the furniture too much. Thanks! Pete K 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lucy, Thanks. No big deal. Here's where I asked that it be left visible. Pete K 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. Nobody has referred back to those discussions since arbitration, and in the mean time it's causing more work for the new discussions, all of them. It's six times longer than recommended length, and I appreciate the work you did. Pete K didn't get my input before the revert, and maybe he isn't bothered by the length but is really interfering with me every time I edit there, it's hard to find your place in there with pages and pages of discussions, some almost 3 years old. Thanks for doing this. Venado 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put back the ones that are current. Pete K 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


What help do you need, Lucy? Xiner (talk, email) 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This last action of Pete (see above) has not only overloaded the Talk:Anthroposophy file again (202 kB), it's put a lot of material at the current end of the thread which obscures the truly current stuff. It should have been put at the beginning. But the whole page is under arbitration because of edit wars and I don't want to add to this, all I was trying to do was to make the Talk page even usable. Venado (above) says elsewhere he's had trouble with saving anything on this talk page which is already 6 times longer than recommended. If I do anything Pete will probably jump on me. Yet I'm sure that archived files are not difficult to find, so long as they are kept in order clearly - which I did. I'm fairly new to being a Wikipedian and want to get it right. Ideally I'd like to restore the archiving. Isn't the page too large at 200 kB? But I want to check somewhere before Pete jumps on me again. Lucy Skywalker
Hmm, if you were to reorder those threads, how'd you do it? Xiner (talk, email) 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The bottom 3 (quite long) subjects belong at the top of the current page, I'd archived them to Archive 3 already but they got put back, only at the bottom. I wanted to archive even more to make the thread usable length again. Lucy Skywalker
Lucy, you've got some 'splaining to do... (sorry, couldn't help myself.) I'm happy to move them to the top. I just wanted them to remain visible for a while longer as they seemed current and the discussions keep coming up. I'm not doing anything agressive here - just have a difference of opinion about the archiving of stuff that is still being discussed. I'll move them to the top of the page - will that make things OK? Pete K 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks Pete, that'll do it. Lucy Skywalker 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you guys worked it out. Xiner (talk, email) 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If we don't see any further activity in a week or so - we can delete them (I just copied them from the archive pages - they're still in the archives as well as here). Pete K 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citation

Yes I agree with you about (this).

I've redirected the hyperlink for inline citations in WP:WIAGA to the section on Inline citations in WP:CITE, and put in a missing hyperlink ffrom there to Wikipedia:Inline_citation for anyone wanting to read the "essay" - which has the further link to the stub article Inline citation towards which WP:WIAGA originally uselessly directed people. I hope this solves the problem but being new to Wiki I dont know if this is a generic change that can be reinforced with bots in other places. Please let me know if so and if this is helpful! I want to use my energies where they are needed! Lucy Skywalker 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I removed the link from WP:CITE to wp:Inline Citations, as I feel it confuses and dilutes the already confusing introduction. Your work on the citations guidelines is appreciated -- an important and difficult task ;). Good luck, drop any questions my way.. ∴ here…♠ 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey

you posted on my user talk page...??? Regeane Silverwolf 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)