Lucca Leadership - no mention of SES, SOP etc

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Lucca Leadership - no mention of SES, SOP etc

Postby ConcernedMum » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:39 pm

Me again,
I just think the internet is the most empowering thing ever.

Just wondering if any of you folks have come across "lucca leadership": http://www.luccaleadership.org/.
There is no mention of any association with the school of philosophy and economics and its associate organisations yet it seems to involve many of the same people. Its set up to promote leadership values in young people and they go away on week-long learning trips to Italy as well as day things. Hmmm. As usual the work on the face of it, seems laudable, but i'm wondering if participants may get a dose of a philosophy they weren't quite expecting?
Or are all of these different organisations / registered charities some kind of tax avoidance thing?
x
CM.

Scotsman
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:42 pm

Lucca Leadership

Postby Scotsman » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:09 am

Lucca Leadership Trust certainly involves David Boddy, as it says on the website, who is headmaster of St James Senior School for Boys in London and a long time and very senior member of SES / SOP.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:09 pm

I have no idea if the Lucca leadership trust is inspired by the SES or not but the fact that the majority of the trustees and senior people involved in it happen to be in the SES it is difficult to imagine that it is without the influence of the philosophy.

There are references to interests in philosophy and the SES in the biographies but it would appear that they do not make clear that they are all members of the same philisophical organisation.

http://www.luccaleadership.org/united-k ... iographies

Bonsai

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Postby Goblinboy » Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:29 pm

Yes - spotted this a couple of years ago and it seems to be an element of the SES/SOP's new approach to engaging potential young members. Appears to be founded and staffed entirely by SES people. Not mentioning the connection is the usual mistake the SES make. Why not be transparent? What is there to hide?

ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby ConcernedMum » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:34 am

Hi there
Have just noticed that on www.luccaleadership.org/partners, the British Youth Council is up there as a "partner" of lucca leadership. Given that it is not made clear on the website that most of the directors/trustees subscribe to one very particular philosophy and given the treatment of youths under the ethos of that philosophy in their schools, does anyone agree with me that it is potentially dodgy, to say the least, for the British Youth Council to be apparently endorsing the work of this organisation? What does anyone else think?
thanks
CM

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:38 pm

Not wishing to be an apologist for the SES in any way but I do wonder what people who are members of the SES are supposed to do if they do have an idea to set up a new organisation. How are they supposed get such a venture off the ground without it being tainted by their affiliations to other organisations?

Certainly it helps to declare openly the affiliations one has thereby making it clear that there is nothing to hide. I presume also it would help to have a cross section in any management team to show that there is no clear bias.

The thing about members of cults is that their social circles can become very narrow and should their membership of such an organisation prevent them from setting up a venture that may have nothing to do with their associated membership?

Bonsai

ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby ConcernedMum » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:56 pm

Hi,
I take your point Bonsai and if it were an organisation for trading bananas or a cricket club I would certainly agree with you. But I find it hard to believe that the philosophy of the SES won't be the core philosophy taught at these courses. One of the lecturers is an expert in Ficino, and also member of you know who. Also I feel their biographies are a bit disingenous and, perhaps, designed to deceive. There are variations in the biogs of lines like "has an interest in economics and philosophy", "attends weekly philosophy classes" - its a wee bit too euphemistic methinks. If there's no problem with giving the impression they are all members of the same "religion" why don't they just say it? It all reminds me very much of the tactics of Opus Dei - who run similar courses and provide study centres etc for young people and also actively recruit those who occupy/will occupy positions of power in society. Almost as if they've been studying from the same "set up a secret sect" handbook. I'm sure its available online!

Mind you, given it seems many of the people involved are loaded (good for them ) maybe they do have valuable leadership lessons to teach. Damn, i'm just too old, LOL.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:13 pm

ConcernedMum wrote: But I find it hard to believe that the philosophy of the SES won't be the core philosophy taught at these courses. One of the lecturers is an expert in Ficino, and also member of you know who. Also I feel their biographies are a bit disingenous and, perhaps, designed to deceive.


When it comes to the Lucca Leadership trust then yes I too believe that it is more of a front for the SES than it is an attempt and a geniunely altruist organisation. I believe I can say this because my father has been involved with it as a mentor. I don't know if they are pushy about the SES at all on their courses and how actively or subtlely they may be trying to recruit.

I asked the question not specifically to do with LLT but to try and work out how we could ever trust or have confidence in the ventures that the SES may set out to do without being cynical that they are somehow hiding ulterior motives?

In many respects, from my own perspective, any connection with the SES is too much no matter how convoluted.

Bonsai

ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby ConcernedMum » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:17 pm

Hellooo again Bonsai - on this post this time. You clearly have more experience and know more than I do about the SES. I feel I'm veering rapidly into the area of speculation so should really stop. I've enough to be concerned about on known facts alone. Thank you so much for replying to these posts - its great to hear how you feel about it and has been really helpful. I hope you are well.

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:02 am

bonsai wrote:how we could ever trust or have confidence in the ventures that the SES may set out to do without being cynical that they are somehow hiding ulterior motives?

What planet do you live on? Have you ever known anybody who didn't have any remaining hidden motives? Can you, hand on heart, say with complete inner conviction that you are aware of all the forces that 'somehow' motivate you? If no, then, by definition, you have hidden ulterior motives yourself.

The game the human mind then tends to play is: "ok, some of my motives may still be hidden, despite of my best intentions; whereas others hide theirs deliberately and maliciously". Yeaah, right ...

Matthew 7:5 comes to mind: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:09 am

Abel Holzing wrote:What planet do you live on? Have you ever known anybody who didn't have any remaining hidden motives? Can you, hand on heart, say with complete inner conviction that you are aware of all the forces that 'somehow' motivate you?


I'm not saying that I am perfect or that I am fully aware of all the factors that motivate my actions. Yes I hope that I do not actively deceive anyone and I am happy to be corrected if I do and I'm not aware of it.

The reason for asking the question though isn't to make out that I'm perfect but is because we (all of the complainants on this site) are asking the SES as an organisation to become more transparent and honest and to openly declare their beliefs and intentions so as not mislead or harm its members and particularly the children in the day schools. The question is, "What does an organisation which these levels of criticism aimed at it actually address it and restore a level of trust?" And also how does an organisation like the Lucca trust make it clear that there is appropriate separation between it and the cult, which the majority of its executive belong to, so that it is not seen as being a front to that cult? (This does assume that it is not intended to be a front)

I'm not asking anyone to be any more perfect than just human and I'm certainly not living on a different planet.

Bonsai

PS I do expect the SES and any other faith based organisation that attributes good moral behaviour to their belief system to be whiter than white when it comes to ethics, morals and duty of care. However this is just a case of practice what you preach. You can't blame human fallibility when you believe that you have found a system that allows you to keep those failings in check.

ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby ConcernedMum » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:59 am

[quote="Abel Holzing"
What planet do you live on? ....
The game the human mind then tends to play is: "ok, some of my motives may still be hidden, despite of my best intentions; whereas others hide theirs deliberately and maliciously". Yeaah, right ...

Matthew 7:5 comes to mind: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".[/quote]

Abel, that seems a very harsh reply to me. As the SES as an organisation has very clearly practised to deceive, I think it is very fair to go on to question whether it is practising to deceive in relation to other associate organisations.

As for the quote from Matthew - well thats a cult-enabling charter if ever I heard one! Yes clearly there is a point to examining one's own motivations and behaviour but if its used as a blanket ban on all discussion of questionning others motivation and practices they'd rather keep secret then it is being used inappropriately. I was briefly involved with a group who had such a reverential attitude to their teacher, they were in denial about sexually inappropriate behaviour with his students in the past and I encountered many similar comments about not talking about someone else's behaviour until I was clear about my motivation - a very effective way of stifling valid debate in my view.
CM

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:28 pm

bonsai wrote:I do expect the SES and any other faith based organisation that attributes good moral behaviour to their belief system to be whiter than white...

That's absolutely fine - as long as you are willing to be whiter than white yourself.

bonsai wrote:However this is just a case of practice what you preach.

Agreed - as long as you are also willing to practice what you preach. You preach that the SES should have no remaining hidden motives (so far so good). But then you admit that you yourself are not fully aware [ surely an understatement? ... :-) ] what motivates you, i.e. that you are equally full of hidden motives!

Is that practising what you preach? Holding others to a higher standard than the one you apply to yourself? All your failings are labelled 'human', others' 'malicious'? Can't you see the hypocrisy in that?

Demanding from others that they be 'whiter than white' and 'practice what they preach' without being / doing so yourself, has been tried many times in the history of mankind, and has always failed - miserably. Gandhi got it about right, I think, when he said it's all about "being the change that you want to see in the world".

Don't get me wrong - I am very much in favour of the work going on here, just not the double standards.

Then you say:
bonsai wrote:I'm not asking anyone to be any more perfect than just human ...

followed by:
bonsai wrote:You [the SES] can't blame human fallibility ...

... completely contradicting yourself in the process.

And here the full quote:
bonsai wrote:You can't blame human fallibility when you believe that you have found a system that allows you to keep those failings in check.

Why? Finding a system is one thing, living up to it quite another. Claiming (correctly) to have a vehicle that is perfect for travelling from A to B does not imply that you know how to drive it. Equally, I have never heard an SES member claim that anybody in the school has ever achieved a final and complete understanding of the teaching, i.e. self-realisation.

A clear case of human fallibility, I'd say ... :-)

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:02 pm

ConcernedMum wrote:As for the quote from Matthew - well thats a cult-enabling charter if ever I heard one! Yes clearly there is a point to examining one's own motivations and behaviour ...

Well, that point was my whole point. Examining one's own motivations and behaviour as deeply, and with as much passion, as others'. That's all. There is nothing cult-enabling about that whatsoever - it's hypocrisy-destroying and truth-enabling.

ConcernedMum wrote:... but if its used as a blanket ban on all discussion of questionning others motivation and practices they'd rather keep secret then it is being used inappropriately.

Of course. But then I never advocated, or implied, that the discussion and questioning should be banned, curtailed or delayed.

ConcernedMum wrote:... and I encountered many similar comments about not talking about someone else's behaviour until I was clear about my motivation - a very effective way of stifling valid debate in my view.

Agreed.

ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby ConcernedMum » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:53 pm

Thanks for clarifying where you were coming from on that one Abel and sorry for imputing a meaning that you hadn't intended in quoting matthew.

I do think there are differences in intention behind inconsistencies and not all inconsistencies are equal. Some are because we're not aware we're being inconsistent - and perhaps its only perceived as inconsistent from the outside and internally is entirely consistent with our particular view of how things are. (Frankly I believe we all live on different planets!)

An example of a different inconsistency is, while i was having a discussion with the Principal of John Scottus about the incident when she slapped two children, she said her piece and then changed the subject by stating that my son was one of the most troublesome children in the class. In a later conversation, when i asked her to be specific about what way he was being troublesome, she then said that it wasn't that he was troublesome, just that he didn't appear to be very interested in the work.

I think thats inconsistency of a different order. So I think it is okay to divide inconsistencies into ones that are caused by confusion (maybe or maybe not) and because deception is going on - i.e. manipulative.

Mostly its by engaging with this stuff that allows us to get eensy weensy glimpses into how life is on other people's planets - so i welcome the thought provoking post thanks Abel! And i do agree its important to engage with our own motivations.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests