why u hate/love the SES

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Issey Miyake

why u hate/love the SES

Postby Issey Miyake » Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:37 pm

why do some of u hate the SES, and why do some of u love the SES? I see it as a money grabbing "community" and well think most ppl ate just to stupid to realise, this should spark some interesting debate. :fist:

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Love hate relationship...

Postby adrasteia » Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:52 pm

Well Ses don't ask for large amounts of money from their members, although they demand much in time:

"The Introductory Courses in London begin on Tuesday 4th May, 2004
The same course is offered each evening of the week and on Saturday mornings.
The courses run for 10 weeks. Each session lasts about two and a half hours, with a break for refreshments.
Classes begin at 7pm, Monday to Friday, and at 10am on Saturday mornings.
Fees: ?75 (Concessions ?50, Students ?20)"

taken from:
http://www.schooleconomicscience.org/ne ... -enrol.htm

Works out at about ?3 an hour. (Not sure if the fees go up however?!)Although I would think the Tutor would be doing the course as part of their weekly duties, and so would be payed any of that! I suppose then the money would go towards heating the building- can't be cleaning it because that's done by other Ses members, who are also the catering staff. Might go towards food/drink, or do they still charge ridiculous amount for cups of tea and coffee!?!?

So I would argue that it was not money-grabbing in this way.

However the Ses do have a lot of property, think of Manderville place in the centre of London, Sarum Chase, Nanpanton and Waterperry house and grounds, home to Art in Action. I'm not sure quite when they got these properties, but they sure had to have a lot of money to get them and then keep them maintained! But I shouldn't think that member fees could be used to buy them, although they must help with the upkeep- they are such massive places!
I think the houses must come from the richer members of the Ses. Though I'm afraid I don't know who the legal owners of the buildings are, so that is just a guess, but I would say that has to be the answer. I would proffer the suggestion that many of the senior Ses members belonging to the Ses are quite wealthy which may help!

Anyway, I still don't see how this qualifies as money-grabbing?

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:09 am

Firstly let me say that I LIKE the new colour of the board - much more restful on the eyes. :)

Regarding property - I don't know about the SES in other Australian cities, but the property owned by them in Sydney and Melbourne are in VERY expensive areas.

As for loving/hating - I would not go so far to say I "hate" the SES but i DO have a lot of concerns about it. These concerns stem from family members who have been totally sucked in (imho) by the School of Philosophy (as it is called here). Also, from all I have read, I think some of the SOP's stance (the Mozart thing for instance) is totally ridiculous, I think the schools for kids are not offering a wide enough education, and I also find the SOP's apparent attitude to women (and womens place in society) totally repellent.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:23 am

different guest
I think the fact that the schools are so small contributes to the reduced range of subjects on offer. They just cannot afford to provide the same choice as much larger schools.
I agree with your comment about the music of the school- I think many of the decisions are made with little musical knowledge, and also little understanding of the needs of musicians. Rather they are sweeping comments based on very little fact, probably made in moments of spiritual fervour! (Well I don't know that! But from the comments I've heard I would hazard a guess that this is the case!)
Do you still find that the attitude to women is bad? Some people had said they thought the unhealthy attitude was dying out, and I had hoped they were right.

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:35 am

adrasteia wrote:different guest
I think the fact that the schools are so small contributes to the reduced range of subjects on offer. They just cannot afford to provide the same choice as much larger schools.
...
Do you still find that the attitude to women is bad? Some people had said they thought the unhealthy attitude was dying out, and I had hoped they were right.


Well although I have concerns about the secondary schooling - it is the primary schooling (where school size should not be an issue) in Australia that I am also commenting on.

As for attitude to women - although posters like Bella admit that some such stuff is taught and people like her say "take a flying one", i think the attitudes are SO embedded within the SES that they have not been eradicated - and lets face it, they have not successfully been ereadicated in wider society, nevermind something as closed minded as the SES. If archiaic attitudes are "dying out" in wider society then how much slower are these attitudes "dying out" in the SES?

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

Postby Tom Grubb » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:29 pm

I hate the SES because members of the SES ran a vicious campaign of child abuse at St Vedast boys' school and, as I am discovering, at least one other school. I hate the SES because they are a nasty religious cult masquerading as a school of philosophy. I hate the SES because they practise brainwashing. I hate the SES because of the misery they cause. I hate the SES because of their disgusting attitude towards women. I hate the SES because of their anti-science views. I hate the SES because their teaching is a load of bollocks. Come to think of it, I hate just about everything about the SES.

Misty

Postby Misty » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:51 pm

Do you think it is possible not to hate? After learning a valuable lesson in the short life i have lived, I have relaised that there is good and bad to all things here.

What's more, if you hate, you're closing down, or building a mental barrier towands the scheme/thing, in a way that any hate you have blocks out any good you may hear about it.

What I have noticed in these discussions so far is that, some people are trying to make a points relating to the actual subjet of the discussion, where as others are just trying to make the one and only point that the SES is wrong, in any way possible.

Anyway, thanks to the person who made this thread, whom I do have a general idea of who it may be. The thread has cleared out the actual intrentions of people who write on this board.

Tom, in reply to ur first sentence, it (the school, or any other SES organisation) no longer beats boys. Infact I beleve the new headmaster at the boy's school in St James, even with the little experince he may have with being a head teacher, will be a good change for the school.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:38 am

Misty wrote:Tom, in reply to ur first sentence, it (the school, or any other SES organisation) no longer beats boys. Infact I beleve the new headmaster at the boy's school in St James, even with the little experince he may have with being a head teacher, will be a good change for the school.


Although the masters may have stopped beating the boys the prefects and sixth form can still beat the younger boys- St. James Boys school does still have a bullying problem which is still quite badly dealt with as far as I can see, although they are not my stories to tell.
Turning a blind eye when older boys bully the younger ones does not give them a good lesson for life!

I would therefore say that St. James does need a strong headmaster with a lot of experience in order to be able to correctly control the situation.
So how was Mr. Boddy chosen?
He has no qualifications or previous experience as a headmaster, (although quite exstensively as a Father it has to be said!) so why should he be given the post?
I am not saying that Mr. Boddy will unequipped for the job, that remains to be seen, but he does come to the situation quite 'green' in terms of teaching experience! But his appoinment also forges an obvious connection with Ses, (how could he have been picked as headmaster through any other connection than that of Ses?!), despite the fact he wishes that they could be seen as separate organisations!
It seems to me that his appointment will merely strengthen the ties between the organisations, as he is a senior member of Ses. Surely this will lead to equal if not greater influence on school politics by the Ses?
I agree with what you say about it being good to have a change of leadership, but is it in fact any kind of movement towards what Mr. Boddy said he wanted: the organisations to be able to stand alone?

misty wrote:What's more, if you hate, you're closing down, or building a mental barrier towands the scheme/thing, in a way that any hate you have blocks out any good you may hear about it.


This is not supposed to be personal Misty, a general comment, but I would say that extreem love of something can turn into an obsession as equaly blind as extreem hatred. The two extreems are very much connected in my experience.
After all the abuse of the St. Vedast boys was done in the name of Love. Although I suspect most 'teachers' were members of Ses not trained to teach and therefore more prone to resort to violence when other means failed, but that is just a guess.
You could argue that Tom's hatred is born of that treatment, but also comes from a vervent love of freedom and justice- he sees people are being hurt by the Ses and his response has been to try and discover the cause.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun May 02, 2004 1:41 pm

I hate it because it robbed me of my parents. They spend four evenings a week at the 'school' and alternbate weekends at residentials.Also been told to observe the ego 24/7 led me to develop depersonalisation/derealisation syndrome a disorder connected to practices which set out to destroy peoples sense of self. Going to a counsellor to deal with this problem only to discover the counsellor was also a member of the school and blamed me for not joining my parents.
I hate the ses it ruined my childhood....

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

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon May 03, 2004 7:41 pm

Misty wrote:Do you think it is possible not to hate? After learning a valuable lesson in the short life i have lived, I have relaised that there is good and bad to all things here.

What's more, if you hate, you're closing down, or building a mental barrier towands the scheme/thing, in a way that any hate you have blocks out any good you may hear about it.

What I have noticed in these discussions so far is that, some people are trying to make a points relating to the actual subjet of the discussion, where as others are just trying to make the one and only point that the SES is wrong, in any way possible.

Anyway, thanks to the person who made this thread, whom I do have a general idea of who it may be. The thread has cleared out the actual intrentions of people who write on this board.

Tom, in reply to ur first sentence, it (the school, or any other SES organisation) no longer beats boys. Infact I beleve the new headmaster at the boy's school in St James, even with the little experince he may have with being a head teacher, will be a good change for the school.

Misty, perhaps I've misunderstood you. Are you saying that we should hate nothing? Are you saying that everything in life has a good and bad side?

On the subject of the forthcoming change of headmaster at the boys' school, I hope your faith will be justified!

Meikl
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:20 pm

Postby Meikl » Sat May 08, 2004 7:15 pm

I don`t know why I joined this forum, whether I wanted to vent a bit of spleen, or clear up those bits of my psychic entrails that are still dangling about after my traumatic exit from SES all those years ago. At any rate I have found it to be be a very strange experience, reading the articles from all these different people. I must say I`ve had trouble coping with it.
There are people who I take to be SES members still ranting strange absolutist doctrines, while others sound quite rationaly exasperated by this kind of black-and-white mentality and report that the school is very reasonable, dogma-free and open to debate. I don`t know what to make of it.
Could it be that SES like life, is what you make of it? Could it be that my neurotic father-complex and post-LSD craving for stability and discipline created the absolutist structures which I saw around me everywhere in the school? Maybe someone with a healthier mind-set sees a healthier School of Economic Science. SES is another painted wooden horse on the magic merry-go-round, another slide in the magic-lantern. When I look into your eyes what do I see? A little reflection of myself.

There was once a little boy with a piece of chalk who started to draw a picture on the wall. He drew a nice picture of ladies and gentlemen sitting in a room and talking about God. Suddenly the nice ladies and gentlemen started turning into big monsters who wanted to eat him. Quickly the little boy drew another nice picture into which he escaped in the nick of time bearing wounds which wouldn`t stop bleeding. After many years coping with the pain, he`s just starting to realise that he`s the one who`s drawing the pictures.

OK, that`s part one of how I feel about SES. Thank you very much for asking.

I`m thinking about Part Two

Peace
Meikl

Meikl
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:20 pm

Postby Meikl » Sat May 08, 2004 8:09 pm

How do I feel about SES? Part Two.

Thank you for asking. Gives me a chance to try`n get this straight in me own head.

OK, even if I did draw all the monsters myself, there were still people in the school who took advantage of my naive vulnerability to manipulate me into staying with the group and subjecting myself to the brainwashing, and this in an organisation which claims to want to spread truth and clarity in the world to pave the way for the next Incarnation!
Or maybe there are more sinister things going on, and this is a dark and conspiracy-theory laden part of what I feel about SES. Maybe there is a core of Extremely Senior Members. They are the only ones who know what`s Really Going On. They believe that it is their Duty, and the Highest Expression of Love, to destroy as many egos as possible in order to errect better psychic structures to reflect the Glory of the One True Architect. I start to percieve shadows of Freemasons and The Order of the Golden Dawn and Crowley. Blavatski and Krishnamurti. Dark and devious machinations down through the centuries. I once knew a bloke, dead now, who had been quite close to Maclaren and the Inner Circle. He talked about this mass ego-destruction as a fact, but then he also said he`d seen Maclaren walking on water.
All this blather about no sex before marriage and ladies wearing dresses and gentlemen wearing suits and ties. All this nonsense about not eating potatos and not listening to Glen Miller. It`s all irrelevant. They`re just trying to destroy your ego so they can build something they consider to be better. They don`t give a damn whether you believe in and practice that trash or not. Main thing is you subject your will to theirs.

That`s Part Two - there`s a Part Three coming.

Peace

Meikl

Meikl
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:20 pm

Postby Meikl » Sat May 08, 2004 8:43 pm

And Part Three before I go to bed.

We were once on retreat in one of the houses in South England - Stanhill Court I believe. The central theme of the week was to do with pure sound, and specifically the Sanscrit sibilants. There had been a drought in England the whole week.Two-inch baths and save the bathwater for the toilets. The earth was dry and cracked.
At the end of the last meeting of the week before we went home we fell into a very long Pause. Deeper and deeper the stillness, listening widening out to the furthest horizons. A vibrant silence over the world. In the heart of the silence the rain started falling on the baked earth with a sound like the essence of freshness.
"Listen", said the master "The perfect sibilant."


Amongst the whole wine-and-cheesy upper-middle-class freemason dogmatic claptrap were more than a few moments of pure, silent joy, the like of which I have seldom since experienced.

That`s Part Three of what I feel about SES.

Now I need a Conclusion in which I weave all the contradictory threads together to a nice coherent pattern, but I don`t think I can do it.

Peace
Meikl

guest

Question for Meikl

Postby guest » Sun May 09, 2004 1:12 am

I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you went through doubt and fear to come out the other side as a better "happy" person?

I took the first 2 parts of the course and I found their teaching to be very confusing. They seem to contradict themselves and discourage requests for clarification. Your writing style reminds me of their teaching style; sound thoughtful, take a long slow road in explaining yourself, appear to question so you can sound open minded and then hit with a punchline that requires a suspension of disbelief.

There has been much written about synchronicity and I'm guessing that when you are looking for spiritual signs they're pretty easy to find. Beautiful rain included. I'm guessing if it hadn't rained you would have found Beauty in the parched earth.

I was not subjected to any overt pressure and I could SEE that they were leading to a particular philosophy but I still felt uneasy at the damage done to my thought processes. I value questionning and thoughtfulness and tend not to reject ideas out of hand so I feel like I have some residual pollution in my system. Does any one else feel the same way? What advice do you have for clearing oneself?

guest

another thought for Meikl

Postby guest » Sun May 09, 2004 1:39 am

Maybe there isn't a Conclusion. You keep journeying and you keep thinking and you try to do the best you can. And I think that means looking for the good in teaching and rejecting the bad.

Good teachers can make mistakes and Bad teachers can hit on the truth. Dangerous teachers disguise evil with what looks like the truth. I'm not sure how to test for that but maybe when a teacher is afraid or disdainful of your questions you should move on. That's what I think a Wise Man would do


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest