return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: oops
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By asf peakpeak.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By tylee crosswinds.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:46:08 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
I wrote:
))Then what was the point, Tarjei? What do you think his point was?
))Why would there be any interest in these particular individuals'
))level of intelligence or depth of their spirituality, etc.? His
))point was, they were black, yet they were intelligent.
Tarjei:
)That is _your_ point, Diana, _not_ van Emmichoven's. He did not say
)that the student were intelligent because of, or in spite of, their
)ethnicity.
I notice you didn't answer my question. You don't tell us what the point is
then. If there were one, I think you'd be explaining it to us now.
I remember sitting next to a very pretty young black girl on an airplane
once. When she got up to go to the bathroom, the third person (a white
woman) in our aisle said to me, "She's really beautiful for a black girl,
isn't she?" The statement was a compliment, right? The statement was also
racist because the implication was that she was pretty *despite* being
black. I'm sure this person thought she was being very open-minded, sharing
her view that even a black girl could be beautiful. Especially since some
people don't think so. This person was very progressive in her views about
black people, don't you think, Tarjei? (sarcasm!)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:49:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Debra wrote:
))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
Tarjei:
)That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
)cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
)comments about conversations with other students at other
)universities and colleges.
Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
trip to America?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:51:30 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: oops
)Sorry about getting Diana and Sharon mixed up here.
Oh that's all right Tarjei, I guess anthroposophists can't tell individuals
apart either (didn't you accuse me of that a couple of weeks ago?)
Usually people mix up me and Debra, woman's name starting with "D,"
whatever.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
)
) What is absorbed between incarnations is the
) innermost experiences of
) the last physical experiences. The experiences of
) trial and error,
) success and failure, sympathy and antipathy,
) attraction and
) repulsion, love and hate, intimate relationships,
) etc. This is how
) the 'entelechy' of the human being progresses and
) matures from one
) life to another. There is nothing 'racist' about
) that.
)
) A good understanding of the working out of karma
) between incarnations
) may be extracted from Shakespeare's last play, "The
) Tempest."
)
) )It seems from this that Steiners spiritual
) evolution
) )might be racist.It follow from his other ideas
) about
) )race and spirituallity that the only reason that an
) )advanced spirit would inacanate as a bushman is to
) )make up for some lost experience that should have
) )happened at an earlier stage or as an act of
) sacrifice
) )to help the bushmen. As I said I am skating on thin
) )ice here so correct me if I am wrong but this is
) how I
) )read it.
)
) In the first place, I wish to emphasize that it is
) the _outline_ of
) evolution proposed by Blavatsky and Steiner that is
) positively not
) racist.
Michael C:
Ok what we are talking about here Tarjei is the
outline not being racist. So now you are like me on
the border of being a heretic. I am very inspired by
the writting of Steiner but I always remember even
though he is a genius of the occult that he hasn't
outgrown his Austrian Culture. The other alternative
is that he wanted to write to his audience which was
mostly composed off early 20th century Notheren
European occultists with leftist political
tendencies. I opt for the former.
By the way I don't claim to have outgrown my American
middle class culture. I still have some racial
prejudice, but less than most people that claim they
are not racists. Here is a little joke for all of you
that are free from prejudice. If it offends anyone
then I am sorry but the joke makes a point.
A large African American man enters his apartment and
is greeted by his wife who notices his sweating and
shaking. She says "Honey whats wrong you look so
nervous" He replies, "I just rode up on the elevator
with a couple of white liberals"
One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There are
many other problems with it besides the racism. This
needs to be done in order to save it. I for one think
it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I do
not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
anything toward this goal other than little things
like writting this letter.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:04:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered
)the question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point
)was in waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He
)succeeded in making himself understood *about what*? That he met
)some nice people on his trip to America?
That, and various impressions through meeting all kinds of people
throughout the country. If that doesn't nswer your wuestion, I
suggest you buy the book and read it.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:05:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)I notice you didn't answer my question. You don't tell us what the=20
)point is then. If there were one, I think you'd be explaining it to=20
)us now.
)
)I remember sitting next to a very pretty young black girl on an=20
)airplane once. When she got up to go to the bathroom, the third=20
)person (a white woman) in our aisle said to me, "She's really=20
)beautiful for a black girl, isn't she?" The statement was a=20
)compliment, right? The statement was also racist because the=20
)implication was that she was pretty *despite* being black. I'm sure=20
)this person thought she was being very open-minded, sharing her view=20
)that even a black girl could be beautiful. Especially since some=20
)people don't think so. This person was very progressive in her views=20
)about black people, don't you think, Tarjei? (sarcasm!)
=46or the nth time, F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven did not say the=20
students were intelligent for blacks to be or anything like that.
Secondly, I lived with a beautiful black girl for a few years in Los=20
Angeles. And yes, I have heard remarks and comments that have hurt.=20
This was also the case ten years earlier when I was living with a=20
beautiful American Jewish girl in London. It is patronizing to assume=20
that I am not deeply aware of such things, or that I have not=20
experienced them.
Thirdly, I have stated repeatedly what I think F.W. Zeylmans van=20
Emmichoven=E6s point was, and what was my point in quoting him.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
=20 - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:05:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
)
) ) In the first place, I wish to emphasize that it is
) ) the _outline_ of
) ) evolution proposed by Blavatsky and Steiner that is
) ) positively not
) ) racist.
)
)Michael C:
)
)Ok what we are talking about here Tarjei is the
)outline not being racist. So now you are like me on
)the border of being a heretic. I am very inspired by
)the writting of Steiner but I always remember even
)though he is a genius of the occult that he hasn't
)outgrown his Austrian Culture.
What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky has
nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to make a
distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he speaks or
writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and the
conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his most
exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances from
Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
)The other alternative
)is that he wanted to write to his audience which was
)mostly composed off early 20th century Notheren
)European occultists with leftist political
)tendencies. I opt for the former.
Politics were of no importance or signicicance to Steiner's choice of
audience. The major requirement was that they had an open ear and a
capacity to comprehend for what he had to say. The Theosophists were
prepared for this with their background in Blavatsky's works. This
was why Steiner initially used the Sanskrit terminology they were
accustomed to.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 22:41:01 -0600
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
----- Original Message -----
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
) One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
) of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
) Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
) essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There are
) many other problems with it besides the racism. This
) needs to be done in order to save it. I for one think
) it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I do
) not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
) anything toward this goal other than little things
) like writting this letter.
I for one am inspired by this letter of yours. If there were more people in
Anthroposophy like you, it would be a far better movement. I am curious,
what other problems do you see beside the racism?
Alan Fine
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 07:16:21 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
) . But in theory I think that the idea
) behind a waldorf education will leave a child more
) open to new experiences. Whether this is true or not I
) don't know.
michael c
I have kids who went through steiner (2) and kids who didnt, and I cant see
this distinction at all, I was expecting to because I beleived what I was
told by school propaganda, but no...unfortunately not.They are all in their
20's so I still see a huge academic difference which has cause problems, and
also a diffent attitude at work, the steiner kids have a real problem
accepting what the boss says, my other one says: "look, if he's your boss
just do it and smile"
How do you think they should be more open to new experinces?
have you been involved in any of the schools?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 07:19:35 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) michael
) It seems from this that Steiners spiritual evolution
) might be racist.It follow from his other ideas about
) race and spirituallity that the only reason that an
) advanced spirit would inacanate as a bushman is to
) make up for some lost experience that should have
) happened at an earlier stage or as an act of sacrifice
) to help the bushmen. As I said I am skating on thin
) ice here so correct me if I am wrong but this is how I
) read it.
its an odd assertion to think that present day people are more spiritually
advanced than bushmen, IMO the bushment would have been much more in touch
with the spiritual side of life than we are now.
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1-Jun-2001 07:33:21 GMT
From: Marty Tylee (tylee crosswinds.net)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
michael C wrote:
It'll have to be a short answer because I am quite busy.
) Tell me Marty what do you remember being taught about
) gravity in a Waldorf School? What did your husband
I don't remember since I was out of the classroom on remedial teaching.
) tell you it was? What do you think it is? How do you
The textbook explanation.
) experience it in your body?
Probably about the same as you.
-marty
---
All true wisdom is found in e-mail signatures.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 326
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By snell netshel.net
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By earlyfire earthlink.net
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By canndw netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:54:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Michael C wrote:
)One more thing. If we take the fundementalist version
)of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist correct?
What is the "fundamentalist version of Steiner's spiritual
evolution," and what is the non-fundamentalist version? If it's the
choice of words like "root-races" and "sub-races," in the sense
"epochs" which originate from Blavatsky's terminology, they can cause
confusion and misunderstanding, but this does not make them racist.
And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy and
Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that case.
I only call them anarchists.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
MIchael C:
Is it Bea
The type of situation that you are describing once led
me to think that science was almost useless or at
least should stick to very limited area of study such
as physics where a high degree of certainty can be
found. Although I don't feel this way now let me
explain to you why I used to feel this way.
Suppose some one I love very much has cancer. Ok now
next suppose that it is possible to get accurate
studies on the effectiveness of this or that method of
treatment. Fine so far. Lets say that that all of
these studies are done on persons with the same
diagnoses as the person that I love that. Lets say it
is a squamous cell carcinoma (I am just making this up
, I am not an oncologist nor do any of the many people
that I love have cancer that I know about at this
time)
Next we pick the treatment that is most effective on a
statistical basis. The treatment is given and it
doesn't work at all. You see the problem is that the
study dosen't really tell me what the chances are for
success for my loved one. It would likely be accurate
for a large group of people. If the study showed 30%
no remission after 5 years then that would likely
predict approximately the same level of effectiveness
for 1000 person diagnosed with the same type of cancer
and treated with the same treatment. But the study
doesn't say all that much about the individual person.
Now on top of this there are other problems. First off
statistics can be very misleading and/or intentionally
skewed in other ways. This is true for quack science
and real science what ever these 2 terms mean.They
often mean what I believe is real science and what I
don't believe is quack science.
Here is an illustration of one why statistics can be
skewed. There are hospitals that boast an extremely
high rate of success for persons with let's say
cardiovascular disease. Now in some cases the
statistic are skewed because the hospital and team of
surgeons may refuse to take difficult cases. They like
being number one and all of the benefits that this
brings. There are many other way that all of these
things can be subtly or not so subtly manipulated.
Cavat empor (Go ahead attack my poor spelling, better
still correct and correct any faults you find in my
case. I am somewhat open minded)
--- "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
wrote:
)
)
) ) . But in theory I think that the idea
) ) behind a waldorf education will leave a child more
) ) open to new experiences. Whether this is true or
) not I
) ) don't know.
) michael c
) I have kids who went through steiner (2) and kids
) who didnt,
Michael C:
Why did you send 2 children to Waldorf and the rest
elswhere? Also this is not a statistically
significant sample.
) and I cant see
) this distinction at all, I was expecting to because
) I beleived what I was
) told by school propaganda,
Michael
cavat empor, I agree that it is propoganda.
) but no...unfortunately
) not.They are all in their
) 20's so I still see a huge academic difference which
) has cause problems, and
) also a diffent attitude at work, the steiner kids
) have a real problem
) accepting what the boss says, my other one says:
) "look, if he's your boss
) just do it and smile"
MIchael C:
I could jump on this and say that "do it and smile
kids would have made good workers in a concentration
camp but I know this is rediculous, sometimes "do it
and smilling" is the right thing to do, it depends on
what you are being asked to do I suppose.
) How do you think they should be more open to new
) experinces?
) have you been involved in any of the schools?
I think the idea of educting the senses and developing
a scientific outlook from what you actually experience
is a good idea. Sometime if you get a chance read
Einsteins autobiographical notes. You may find what he
say about his life from birth through the University
very intersting.
) bea
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:30:20 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
) Michael C.
)
) This is a theory that I am enteraining at the moment.
) One thing is for sure the educataion of the senses
) does not get enough serious attention.
Not to debate whether this is true or not, but just to look at the how.
When *educating* the senses, do you think that this is something that a
*school* can do? Just roll the teacher in and get busy educating the
senses? Perhaps do some paintings or line the kids up and take them for
walks to the stream..."No! Don't throw rocks Johnny, just look for
tadpoles!", "Melissa, put your shoes back on!", "Look at the tadpoles
everyone!", "Everyone pack up it's time to go back to the classroom!"
What aspect of the senses needs *educating*? Which bits don't? Will
two years at a Steiner College or a sensory education college qualify
someone to educate the senses of others?
)From what anthroposophists have told me, it is possible to understand
the concepts of *soul* and *spirit* by reading Steiner. Is this also
true of the senses? Does this understanding mean that the ability to
*educate* the senses of others is a given?
) Michael C
) So you suggest that we just explain away all the
) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he stars
) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning into
) frogs. Once the mystery of the "real" world is gone
) then they can get down to more important things like
) pokemon.
But the "real world" is even more amazing and mysterious than any
fiction I could come up with. The more I read and think about the
universe or any aspect of science or human study from physics to biology
to psychology the more the mystery deepens.
I think that Steiner seemed to believe that science would come up with
some kind of definate answer regarding the universe. He was therefore
reluctant to look through the microscope at the beauty of a flower, as
though this would rob him of his ability to wonder. I think this shows
an unwillingness to take risks, a fear that his senses would convince
him of the opposite of his beliefs.
If he lived today he would have thought very differently as we now know
that science is relative and knowledge of it only increases the wonder
and amazement of the universe and the human spirit. We don't have to
teach children about gnomes for them to feel the mystery. In fact just
the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we have to resort to make
believe (and very Germanic make believe at that) as scientific study
will remove the mystery. Is this what we want children to think?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:35:40 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
)Debra wrote:
)
)))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
)
)Tarjei:
))That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
))cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
))comments about conversations with other students at other
))universities and colleges.
)
)Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
)question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
)waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
)making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
)trip to America?
)D
Debra:
Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote, but you avoid sharing
with us *your* interpretation. What's up with that? Where can this
conversation go without this important piece?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:55:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
This is beautiful, Tarjei,
)And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy and
)Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
)racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that case.
This racial theory of history is handed down from the gods, so we
aren't responsible, it's just the facts, sorry if the truth makes you
uncomfortable. What a convenient excuse. People justified slavery
from the Bible the same way.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:29:28 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
We'll let intuition reconstruct two vastly different scenarios on this visit,
both of which are plausible, and constructive, the first for the for the pure
in heart the other for the clever and sophisticated.
The Background:
Van Emmichoven comes to America, which is a bastion of racial and ethnic
counterpoint, and here encounters what he, and many Europeans have long since
known: a longstanding, seethingly ferocious jaded American prejudice against
Blacks, powered up by a residual 'righteous malice' implicit in every
manifestation of overt/subtle arrogance and condemnation which issue out of
prejudice. He already knows and lives what many others, American and otherwise
have yet to learn, that virtues and talents and capacities are turfless,
universal gifts from God, completely race-neutral:
So
Alternative number one: being an altogether noble and generous and wholly
unprejudiced person that he is, , vE makes a statement which openly celebrates
racial diversity with a redemptively wondrous confirmation of what he knew all
along, that intelligence requires no passport. Again it is a radient and
innocent and triumphant moment of revelation which overcomes the poisonous
momentum of a collective prejudice which always imposes unjust limitations upon
others. It is not wise to presume yourself immune to this disease. (JFK - the
price of liberty is eternal vigilance), and of course (Let him who is without
sin.....) In this context, vE is rejoicing. (For those who consider such an
interpretation patently absurd, remember, that the script "Guilty until proven
Innocent", is also known as "Living by the sword".)
Now
Alternative number two: vE is sophisticated, a champion of justice, a warrior:
particularly outraged by the poisonous momentum of an overwhelming collective
prejudice which seeks to encapsulate others within limitations, he decides to
fight fire with fire; wishing to blowtorch these southern yahoos with whom he
is travelling with a particularly powerful counterattack, he phrases a
compliment in a way which will guarantee maximizing the offense to those around
him. In this way sarcasm becomes the wake-up call.
(and off the record, for those who have ears to hear, forgiving those who have
inflicted metaphysical harm upon you is a two-day-journey, requiring first an
overnight oasis in wisdom)
Harvey Bornfield
Debra Snell wrote:
) )Debra wrote:
) )
) )))In one sentence, Tarjei, what do *you* think Emmichoven's point was?
) )
) )Tarjei:
) ))That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
) ))cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
) ))comments about conversations with other students at other
) ))universities and colleges.
) )
) )Just noting, in my pesky way, that you have never actually answered the
) )question both Debra and I put to you, about what the guy's point was in
) )waxing eloquent about the wonderful black people he met. He succeeded in
) )making himself understood *about what*? That he met some nice people on his
) )trip to America?
) )D
)
) Debra:
)
) Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
) about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote, but you avoid sharing
) with us *your* interpretation. What's up with that? Where can this
) conversation go without this important piece?
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:43:11 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Liz wrote:
)But the "real world" is even more amazing and mysterious than any
)fiction I could come up with.
and
)[Steiner] was therefore reluctant to look through the microscope at )the
)beauty of a flower, as though this would rob him of his ability to )wonder.
)We don't have to teach children about gnomes for them to feel the )mystery.
) In fact just the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we )have to
)resort to make believe (and very Germanic make believe at )that) as
)scientific study will remove the mystery
Exactly! (another bravo to Liz)
For all the fretting in Waldorf about protecting and nurturing the
children's imaginations, it does seem anthroposophists' own imaginations are
somewhat limited. I agree with Liz (and Steve who said something like this
recently too) that a person's capacity for wonder and appreciation of
mystery is not destroyed by science, only enhanced.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff (lizanderrol home.com)
wrote:
) ) Michael C.
) )
) ) This is a theory that I am enteraining at the
) moment.
) ) One thing is for sure the educataion of the senses
) ) does not get enough serious attention.
)
) Not to debate whether this is true or not, but just
) to look at the how.
) When *educating* the senses, do you think that this
) is something that a
) *school* can do? Just roll the teacher in and get
) busy educating the
) senses? Perhaps do some paintings or line the kids
) up and take them for
) walks to the stream..."No! Don't throw rocks
) Johnny, just look for
) tadpoles!", "Melissa, put your shoes back on!",
) "Look at the tadpoles
Michael C:
I am not an educator of children (except of course all
adults have an influence on the children that they
come into contact with) My answers here are simple. I
think that your questions are mostly very good.
Of course it may difficult to direct childrens
attention to have them "look at the tadpoles" in the
middle of a very busy chaotic natural environment,
especially young children. To have them observe
tadpoles morphing into frogs, and artificail tank in
the class room may be a good idea. Of course when I
used this phrase above it was only a figure of speech.
But when you explain to young children DNA and all
that with a plastic model they are not observing the
wonders of the natural but flying off into the realm
of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
themselves "That is a funny looking twisted spiraling
multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
And when trying for the triple skip our young student
needs to use his senses to find stones with the right
qualitites.
One of the keys to teaching is to help the person have
the experience that you are trying to convey. This is
true whether you are trying to demonstrate and
abstract concept like numbers by teaching children to
count or notice a more purely sensual phenomenon such
as the suble variations in hue of different colors.
Now as what is appropriate for each child, I don't
know and I certainly think that it is all too easy to
resort to Waldorf education by the numbers which I
imagine happens very often. But public schools do the
same thing. The child is fit into the program for the
most part.
I think that some people have good intuitions about
children and how to help each one individually while
maintaining a program for all. These rare individuals
can be found in both public and private schools of all
types. I would venture to guess that they are more
likely to love the students and their job than most of
the others. On top of this you can bet that they
observe, observe, observe, .... Additionally they may
have not done all that well in their teachers college,
whether it was for Montessori, Waldorf or
conventional.
In this regard I am reminded of Ulyses S. Grant who I
think graduated at the bottom of his class from the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was arguably
the best tactician and strategest in the civil war
because his mind was't clogged with outdated methods
that had no value do to the advances in weaponry.
Now I ask you something which system of education is
more outdated when one looks at it's essence (the
shells of both need reform) Waldorf or conventional?
The essence of waldorf is really intended to bring the
student's conceptual understanding up to about the
early 20th century (whether it works or not is another
matter). The conventional approach which may prepare
student to memorize and utilize all scientific
formulas only brings the world view up to about the
begining of the industrial age. They are both dated
but the Waldorf essence is more in line with the needs
of many, but not all children of today.
) everyone!", "Everyone pack up it's time to go back
) to the classroom!"
)
) What aspect of the senses needs *educating*?
Michael C:
Probably all of them. But of course some area need it
more than others in some persons.
) Which
) bits don't? Will
) two years at a Steiner College or a sensory
) education college qualify
) someone to educate the senses of others?
Michael C:
I took the first year of training a number of years
ago and decided that I did not want to continue at
that time. I think that I did get a significant start
in improving my observational skills. How much any
individual needs to be ready to start as an effective
Waldorf Teacher, I don't know. I am sure it varies
from person to person.
)
) From what anthroposophists have told me, it is
) possible to understand
) the concepts of *soul* and *spirit* by reading
) Steiner. Is this also
) true of the senses? Does this understanding mean
) that the ability to
) *educate* the senses of others is a given?
Michael C:
Very point good point. Teaching is a whole other
skill. I didn't take the second year that focused on
how to educate children in the Waldorf way. This would
include educating the senses. I must say this though,
when it come to what I consider an education, the
saying "those that can't do teach" cannot be true. In
fact I believe that those that can do but had to work
very hard to get the skill are often the best
teachers. Also I believe that the student can
definately surpase the teacher and yet still be guided
by the teacher long after going beyond the teachers
level.
)
)
) ) Michael C
) ) So you suggest that we just explain away all the
) ) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he
) stars
) ) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning
) into
) ) frogs. Once the mystery of the "real" world is
) gone
) ) then they can get down to more important things
) like
) ) pokemon.
)
) But the "real world" is even more amazing and
) mysterious than any
) fiction I could come up with. The more I read and
) think about the
) universe or any aspect of science or human study
) from physics to biology
) to psychology the more the mystery deepens.
Yes this is can be true, but sometime read how
Einstein spent his college years. In fact read about
his life from his autobiographical notes. One thing
though don't think that I am saying that what was good
of Einstein would be good for all.
)
) I think that Steiner seemed to believe that science
) would come up with
) some kind of definate answer regarding the universe.
) He was therefore
) reluctant to look through the microscope at the
) beauty of a flower, as
) though this would rob him of his ability to wonder.
I think this story sounds like it could be true of
Steiner, but I would like to see the source. Also
Steiner maybe looked at flower through a microscope
many times and balked on this occasion. Of course I
never met Steiner so for all I know he may have never
existed but one thing that I remeber being told or
read was that Steiner said things like looking through
a microscope or telescope while extending the senses
distorts them. This is because you are looking at
matter through matter (glass). Also in Goethe's color
theory you must take into account that white light
doesn't just split into colors on it's own. It must
interact with matter (a glass prism/ a rain drop).
On the other hand the sterotype of the absent minded
scientist came about for a reason. There go the great
professors so far removed from the sense realm as to
not notice it.
) I think this shows
) an unwillingness to take risks, a fear that his
) senses would convince
) him of the opposite of his beliefs.
Possibly true but we have no way of knowing.
)
) If he lived today he would have thought very
) differently as we now know
) that science is relative and knowledge of it only
) increases the wonder
) and amazement of the universe and the human spirit.
Michael C:
Then why is science taught so dogmatically in most
schools? (after paying inital lip service to how it
doesn't have final answers) Why do many people think
that they know so much after watching the discovery
channel?
) We don't have to
) teach children about gnomes for them to feel the
) mystery.
Michael C:
I never said that we do
In fact just
) the opposite, the gnomes seem to imply that we have
) to resort to make
) believe (and very Germanic make believe at that) as
) scientific study
) will remove the mystery. Is this what we want
) children to think?
Because I don't think that the teaching about gnomes
is an area that I can talk about meaningfully, I will
leave this one alone. I have no direct sense percetion
of gnomes. But I do you think that may exist and that
teaching that they don't is equally ridiculous.For me
this is a red herring non issue although I suppose if
I had children attending a Waldorf School then this
might be an issue for me.
)
) Liz
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) This is beautiful, Tarjei,
)
) )And if the entire outline of evolution that we find
) in Theosophy and
) )Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then
) attributing
) )racism to the gods. We are calling our creators
) racists in that case.
)
) This racial theory of history is handed down from
) the gods, so we
) aren't responsible, it's just the facts, sorry if
) the truth makes you
) uncomfortable. What a convenient excuse. People
) justified slavery
) from the Bible the same way.
)
) -Dan
)
Michael C:
Dan I couldn't agree with you more. Tarjei having read
several letters of yours on the this site I admire and
respect you intellegence and often agree with you
especially when you state your case that Steiner and
Hitler are worlds apart. I also agree with you that
the racial theory of history is not one that comes
from true human being but from the gods or nature or
whatever. But doesn't Anthroposophy claim that we must
take it upon ourselves to continue the evolution, that
it is no longer the work of the gods/nature?
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:38:55 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C. wrote:
)But when you explain to young children DNA and all
)that with a plastic model they are not observing the
)wonders of the natural but flying off into the realm
)of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
)themselves "That is a funny looking twisted spiraling
)multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
)with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
)throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
Well, my child would be fascinated by the funny looking twisted spiraling
multicolored plastic model.
Afterwards he would very much enjoy throwing stones in the pond too.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:51:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Harvey has two clever scenarios explaining this van Emmichoven fellow's
visit to America, but I think Ockham's razor (favor the simplest explanation
over something more complicated) applies here: The guy was sharing his
impressions of blacks in America. He was pleasantly surprised to find they
were not as stupid as he'd heard. (And he found traveling by rail very
comfortable because the black railway workers were so helpful.)
Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering that none of it had anything to
do with race at all, though if not, it's a mystery why Tarjei posted it here
and why we were even discussing it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:35:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))And if the entire outline of evolution that we find in Theosophy
))and Anthroposophy is to be labelled racist, we are then attributing
))racism to the gods. We are calling our creators racists in that
))case.
Dan wrote:
)This racial theory of history is handed down from the gods,
Gods don't theorize about evolution. They direct it.
)so we aren't responsible,
That's not true. We are all active participants in this evolution,
which makes us responsible.
)it's just the facts, sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
Correct.
)What a convenient excuse. People justified slavery from the Bible
)the same way.
Does that make the Bible a big lie, and the believers in the Bible
proponents of slavery?
Has Rudolf Steiner promoted slavery or any other kind of social injustice?
Or have I used any of the above as "a convenient excuse" to justify
the suppression or mistreatment of any living creatures?
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:37:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
Diana wrote:
)Harvey has two clever scenarios explaining this van Emmichoven
)fellow's visit to America, but I think Ockham's razor (favor the
)simplest explanation over something more complicated) applies here:
)The guy was sharing his impressions of blacks in America. He was
)pleasantly surprised to find they were not as stupid as he'd heard.
Really? Where did van Emmochoven say or write that he had heard
blacks were stupid ?
)(And he found traveling by rail very comfortable because the black
)railway workers were so helpful.)
)
)Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering
I have not backed off, and I have not muttered anything, Diana.
)that none of it had anything to do with race at all,
From van Emmichoven's point of view, it did not have anything to do
with racial differences.
)though if not, it's a mystery why Tarjei posted it here
That was pretty obvious in my initial post, where I spelled it out.
It was to show how van Emmichoven appreciated the meeting of
Americans on both sides of the existing "color line." I quoted the
part about lecturing to and talking with black students to refute the
notion that anthroposophists are racists, and I believe van
Emmichoven was a good example of how non-racist he was at a time when
America was still seething with racism, especially against blacks.
)and why we were even discussing it.
As one of the most active participants in this thread, you should be
able to answer that yourself.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:37:45 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: van Emmichoven about race in America
)Debra:
)
)Tarjei, this is important. You have spent so much time attacking Diana
)about *her* interpretation of Emmichoven's quote,
I have not attacked Diana; I have responded to her various
patronizing insults, such as:
"you are embarrassing yourself."
"I guess you aren't embarrassed because you really don't understand
what you are saying."
"Tarjei, of course, has backed off muttering...."
I have received similar treatment from other critics without
responding in kind. I don't use that kind of language with critics.
Please don't hurl bricks from a glass house any of you by saying that
I attack people.
) but you avoid sharing with us *your* interpretation.
Really ? For the second time - pasted from previous post:
"That he succeeded in making himself understood in America across
cultural barriers. This becones crystal clear when one also reads his
comments about conversations with other students at other
universities and colleges."
)What's up with that? Where can this conversation go without this
)important piece?
If you're still looking for your piece, I suggest you read the book
instead of pre-judging it.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:41:17 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Michael C:
)
)Dan I couldn't agree with you more. Tarjei having read
)several letters of yours on the this site I admire and
)respect you intellegence and often agree with you
)especially when you state your case that Steiner and
)Hitler are worlds apart. I also agree with you that
)the racial theory of history is not one that comes
)from true human being but from the gods or nature or
)whatever.
To be specific here: The gods don't make theories; neither does
nature in the above sense. And to be even more specific: The
theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a theory per
se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the results of trained
seership.
)But doesn't Anthroposophy claim that we must
)take it upon ourselves to continue the evolution, that
)it is no longer the work of the gods/nature?
Only to the extent that each one of us is reponsible for our own,
personal evolution of character and spirit.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
--- "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com) wrote:
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
) ) One more thing. If we take the fundementalist
) version
) ) of Steiners spiritual evolution it is racist
) correct?
) ) Now here is the difficulty how do we extract the
) ) essence of Anthroposophy without killing it. There
) are
) ) many other problems with it besides the racism.
) This
) ) needs to be done in order to save it. I for one
) think
) ) it is worth saving but this is a daunting task. I
) do
) ) not believe that it is my personal destiny to do
) ) anything toward this goal other than little things
) ) like writting this letter.
)
) I for one am inspired by this letter of yours. If
) there were more people in
) Anthroposophy like you, it would be a far better
) movement. I am curious,
) what other problems do you see beside the racism?
)
) Alan Fine
Michael C:
Alan this is not the place to do the dirty laundry of
the Anthroposophical Society and in addition this is
big and complex question, and I am only one person.
But I will say a little something about this anyway.
Let's for a moment take Anthroposophy out of the realm
of a science and out of the realm of a religion and
say it is a school of art. Let's compare it then to
the Martha Graham school of dance or the Cheng Man
Ching School of Tai Chi Chuan.
What happens when the master dies. In the first case
we will have to kill Martha at a much younger age when
she can still unquestionalbly dance the pants off all
of her students. In the second case Cheng could still
take any one of his students until the day he died.
This included a student that tied in the US Judo
championship.
Now several things can happen and I will describe
three. One is that the master is placed on such a high
pedastill that people hang on every word that he ever
said. Another is that the students do their own thing
and loose the core of what was passed to them. A third
is that the students and respect their deceased
master but don't deify him/her instead they work hard
to extract the essence of what the teacher was trying
to transmit so that the can take the teaching into a
new generation with changes that they deem
appropriate. You see an art as I define it is the
objective clothed in the subjective.
The first scenario seems to be more or less the case
with Anthroposophy. When Steiner died, or at least
slightly before he died he was considered to be well
advanced of all of his students as an occultist and
they for the most part diefied him and mummyfied his
teachings. But enough of what he passed to his
students survied in a living form that the art is not
dead.
With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
people that were not qualified to fill these posts. I
think this is true because it is my understanding that
an old Waldorf School like the Rudolf Stiener School
in New York City gets good results both accademically
and from the point of veiw of moral development.
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:33:09 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Michael C wrote:
)With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
)rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
)fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
)people that were not qualified to fill these posts.
This is an interesting idea, but I would have thought it was just the
opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to breathe a little life into
things at our Waldorf school were the people who *weren't* qualified, i.e.,
Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained, at least had a life
outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was walking around muttering
"Steiner said" and they were shocked, shocked at suggestions anything
change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate they hire "unqualified"
people. They ought to let these people help them clean up their act a bit.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:28:53 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) Michael C wrote:
) )With Waldorf Education we face an additional problem,
) )rapid expansion in the last decade or so. Trying to
) )fill the need for teachers has possibly caused many
) )people that were not qualified to fill these posts.
)
and Diana responded:
) This is an interesting idea, but I would have thought it was just the
) opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to breathe a little life into
) things at our Waldorf school were the people who *weren't* qualified,
i.e.,
) Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained, at least had a life
) outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was walking around muttering
) "Steiner said" and they were shocked, shocked at suggestions anything
) change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate they hire "unqualified"
) people. They ought to let these people help them clean up their act a bit.
Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints. Our school has been
built on teachers who learned about waldorf education first as 'engaged
parents', often with teaching experience -- or, as Diana describes, people
who "had a life outside of anthroposophy." On the other hand, the pressure
for schools to add that grade every year, to replace that teacher who didn't
work out, to offer that new special subject or that additional kindergarten,
could easily lead to the hiring of unqualified teachers (in all ways; not
just un-trained, but illl-prepared or even incompetent).
In other words, both an opportunity and a reason for caution.
For example, one member of this list told me privately once that the waldorf
school they were associated with had had a few first grade teachers replaced
in mid-year, which in my experience would be quite an extreme step to take.
David
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 327
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By snell netshel.net
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=B4s_body_of_knowledge/was_=22_fo?=
=?i
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: learning from experience/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: oh the mystery.../ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Steiner's Anti-Racism
By raymon_ford email.com
Anthroposophy and Dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_knowledge/was_"_fo =?i
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:34:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the results
)of trained seership.
Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
has no dogma?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:52:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Tarjei, you wrote,
)What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
)concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
)has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
)make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
)speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
)the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
)error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his
)most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances
)from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
)(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:48:00 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dear Combatantes,
I do not know whether in the endless circles of the WC discussions
also the connection of the idea of reincarnation and karma with
Steiner's antiracism was covered.
If yes I wonder why there are no traces to be seen..., if no a crucial
and simple point is missing:
In short:
A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
not be racist.
Why?
Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world in
my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
former or later life?
Why didn't Steiner point out this crucial fact?
He did, and as you will see in the following citation he was very much
aware of the fact, that there is no possibility to speak and understand
about the difference of cultures or nations without taking into account
this crucial point of R&K.
So have a look at this, which I took from Sunes site:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits-5.htm
Rudolf Steiner, Kristiana, 11. June 1910:
"It will be seen from the last lecture that if we wish to make an
impartial study of the facts underlying our present investigation we
must transcend those prejudices which might easily arise on matters
which I must now describe objectively. So long as one has the
slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a
particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach an unprejudiced
understanding of the facts presented in this lecturecourse. For this
reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of Spiritual
Science. For however deeply one may be involved emotionally in a
particular people or race, as Anthroposophists we have an adequate
counterpoise in the teaching of karma and reincarnation, when rightly
understood.
This teaching opens a vista into the future and reveals that our
integral Self is incarnated in successive ages in different races and
peoples. When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
the negative aspects of all races and peoples; but we may be sure
that in our inmost being we shall also receive the countless
blessings of all races and all peoples since we are incarnated in
different races at different times.
Our consciousness, our horizon, is enlarged through these ideas of
karma and reincarnation. Only through these teachings therefore do
we learn to accept what is revealed to us at the present time
concerning the mysterious relations of race and nation. If we rightly
understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no regrets
at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective
survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless,
provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit
1 have already suggested. The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will
learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every
nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards
the total evolution of humanity."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
) Michael C. wrote:
) )But when you explain to young children DNA and all
) )that with a plastic model they are not observing
) the
) )wonders of the natural but flying off into the
) realm
) )of ideas. Unless of course they are saying to
) )themselves "That is a funny looking twisted
) spiraling
) )multicolored plastic model. What has thet got to do
) )with life. For me life begins at recess when I can
) )throw stones in the pond and try for a triple skip"
)
) Well, my child would be fascinated by the funny
) looking twisted spiraling
) multicolored plastic model.
)
) Afterwards he would very much enjoy throwing stones
) in the pond too.
) Diana
Michael C:
I think you missed my point Liz. I don't think I
stated it all that clearly and I also threw in a lttle
humor that may have obscured what I was trying to say.
What I was trying to say is that perhaps the child
should be observing many living things to try to get a
phenomenological basis of what life is first. Save all
of the biochemical reductionist theories until a bit
later. The reason for this is that I believe the child
will be more likely to think that the theories are
grand and practical but while not making idols out of
them.
Can a person that has really observed life easily
believe that it is nothing more than the theories of
biochemistry? If we want science to continue to grow
the scientist must believe that all of the theories
are provisional, after all science does clain to be of
human rather than divine origin (although I feel
otherwise and think that quality science comes from
the dive spark in a human being. That doesn't however,
make it flawless)
Perhaps it is even more important from a moral point
of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
their complete comprension and therefore somehow
sacred. Unfortunately there are people that see their
life's mission to explain life and conciousness purely
in mechanistic/materialistic terms. While I think this
is great up to a point I have very good reason to
believe that it can never be done. How ever what can
be done is that people buy into this as the truth (the
brain= the mind, the brain is made out of matter,
matter is subject to mechanistic deterministic laws,
therefore the human beings are not responsible for any
of their actions).
Now this may actually be the case that we have no free
will. But suppose we have manged to outwit the
gods/nature and gain this free will. What do we want
to do, replace one set of excuses for not taking
responsibilty for at least some of our choices and
replace it with another set of excuses (I am this way
because of my genetics).
A reasonable approach to biopsychology does not claim
that all of the answers to the questions of human
behavior can be found within biopsychology. On the
other hand what often filters down to the public is
very different our at least is taken in such a ways as
to leave persons feeling less responsible for their
actions.
I for one believe that human beings have a modicum of
free will which can easily be reduced or used poorly.
Any explantions of how things work whether it is from
Anthroposophy or Science can do this when the
explanation is worshiped like an idol. On the other
hand to increase this precious comodity (free will) is
not so easily accomplished
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:28:00 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
))concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
))has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
))make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
))speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
))the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a
))grave error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to
))his most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all
))utterances from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical
))authors (especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
)divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
In the final analysis, each individual reader/listener is on his/her
own. This distinction must be discerned through spiritually active
reading or listening and by applying one's own critical judgement and
common sense. It's important that we liberate ourselves from the
communications of others
The Lutheran theologian Friedrich Rittelmeyer was a good example of a
critical, skeptical thinker who was not afraid to ask naive, but
honest, questions of Steiner. In "Rudolf Steiner Enters my Life" [p
138] he writes:
"For if the new impulse is true, it contains the seed of a new divine
worship, a new communion, a new Christ impulse, a new Gospel of
Christ. Hitherto I have not spoken of this to anyone, not even to my
closest friends in the priesthood. For after all, the point is not
what I myself have experiences, but what is actually there, and can
be recognized more or less clearly by each and all in their own way.
From that moment onwards it was clear to me that I must give myself
to the service of the reality which had been revealed to me, without
the hindrance of other ties. So I came to the new _Christian
Community_ from the very innermost core of things. And I am glad I
can say this. The final word was spoken, not by Dr. Steiner but by
One higher than he."
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:28:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
I wrote:
))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
))results of trained seership.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)has no dogma?
Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is a
complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored and
debated.
From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not. Dogma,
like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or revised
because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is not
authority; neither is spiritual science.
The Lutheran theologian Friedrich Rittelmeyer writes in "Rudolf
Steiner Enters my Life" [p 61]:
"It would never be in line with true spiritual research if, in the
place of a dogmatically accepted New Testament, an equally
dogmatically accepted _Akashic Record_ were to arise which would
primarily depend on the gift of a single individual. Here, too,
foresight has seen to it that with all the faculties at their
disposal men [German: 'Menschen,' i.e. men and women] can freely test
what is communicated from higher sources. The only thing that is
expected of them is that they do not reject it out of prejudice,
self-satisfaction, fear or convenience. Today they still defend
themselves with the primitive method of ignoring or denying what has
been given. Many things in this spiritual research may be left
undecided for a long time, or forever - but others that help and
enlighten will assuredly be found."
I also raised this topic in my article about anthroposophy and
anarchism in 1996, which I recently translated into English - a
translation that is not yet polished
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/anarchant.html):
*************************************************************
Anthroposophical literature originating from the period 1900-1925
requires a spiritual orientation, or cast of mind, where every
concept of faith in the traditional sense is sacrificed in favor of
results yielded by scientific research, while at the same time powers
of cognition with religious characteristics beyond the intellect are
applied. It is very difficult for someone who does not possess this
cast of mind to accept Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophically oriented
spiritual science. Steiner encourages trust in terms of an open and
at the same time critical mind, but he cautions very strongly against
regarding his person as an authority or his communications as
authoritative. The cultivation of Rudolf Steiner as an authority
among super-bourgeois and subservient anthroposophists is, ipso
facto, in viloation of the principles of freedom inherent in
Anthroposophy.
We are here in touch with the most vulnerable paradox for
anthroposophists with regard to critical objections. The whole thing
is about an enormously rich body of knowledge which is the result of
Rudolf Steiner's occult research. Steiner emphasizes expressly on
repeated occasions that nothing must be accepted on authority alone
in our time. Everything must be scrutinized and verified empirically.
How is this possible, we must ask, when the research itself requires
supersensory organs, powers, and abilities that Rudolf Steiner alone
and nobody else did or does possess?
This objection is so weighty and sensible that most bourgeois
anthroposophists get cold feet when they are confronted with a
problem of this nature. They either explain it all away by denying
the paradox completely, or they renounce any identification with
Steiner's representation, especially in the religious field.
Anthroposophy leads not only to anarchism, but also to esoteric
Christianity and to Buddhism. Because of this, the tragicomical
situation arises when in public debates, one frequently gets clearer
and more accurate descriptions of Anthroposophy from atheist or
Christian opponents than from the anthroposophists themselves, who do
everything in their power to explain away and befog the whole thing.
With the fact in mind that the undersigned considers himself an
anarcho-anthroposophist, an approximate response to the objection
mentioned above may be in order. In the first place, it should be
pointed out that although Steiner did not want to be regarded as an
authority, he did accept that many viewed him as a guide or light
bearer. Immediately following the turn of the century, he published
his observations from the so-called Akasha Chronicle in a magazine of
his own that he called Luzifer-Gnosis, or The Light Bearer's Wisdom.
He pointed out that the prostrate propensity among most people to
submit themselves to authorities of all kinds represents a serious
obstacle to the development of freedom in our time. It is
understandable, therefore, that many anthroposophists don't
understand the difference between a guide and a source of information
on the one hand, and an authority on the other.
One question arising here is to what extent anarchists should permit
themselves to have guides at all. We are living in a complex
entanglement of mutually dependent relationships, and as long as each
individual evaluates freely the credibility and sensibility of every
single source, there is no question of authority. For an anarchist,
therefore, Steiner can be as relevant as Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner,
or Tolstoy.
As guide, Steiner claimed that anybody could expand the abilities he
or she already possessed. To this end, he published a series of books
with detailed exercises and advice.There are yet many reasons to
believe that Steiner may have overestimated his contemporaries in
several fields.
Steiner thought the claims he presented as occult facts could be
followed up and tested to a certain extent without advanced
claivoyance, or "initiation." Inner experiences cultivated with
sharpened powers of thought, observations of external phenomena that
most people overlook, historical documents, etc. - all this could be
used to affirm or invalidate Steiner's communications. When one
developed real occult abilities later, e.g. by working with the
guide's communications, one could do one's own research as well, also
in unknown territories."
****************************************************************
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
) )
) and Diana responded:
) ) This is an interesting idea, but I would have
) thought it was just the
) ) opposite. It seemed to me the people trying to
) breathe a little life into
) ) things at our Waldorf school were the people who
) *weren't* qualified,
) i.e.,
) ) Waldorf trained; or who, even if Waldorf trained,
) at least had a life
) ) outside of anthroposophy. Everyone else was
) walking around muttering
) ) "Steiner said"
Michael C:
In my mind a person that always does what Steiner says
must be reducing reality to fit the dogma and is
definately not qualified. Please re read what I wrote
in the letter that you replied to Diana and you might
understand what I am talking about. I will try to
explain this again at the end.
) and they were shocked, shocked at
) suggestions anything
) ) change, ever. Yes, the schools are so desperate
) they hire "unqualified"
) ) people. They ought to let these people help them
) clean up their act a bit.
)
) Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints.
) Our school has been
) built on teachers who learned about waldorf
) education first as 'engaged
) parents', often with teaching experience -- or, as
) Diana describes, people
) who "had a life outside of anthroposophy." On the
) other hand, the pressure
) for schools to add that grade every year, to replace
) that teacher who didn't
) work out, to offer that new special subject or that
) additional kindergarten,
) could easily lead to the hiring of unqualified
) teachers (in all ways; not
) just un-trained, but illl-prepared or even
) incompetent).
Michael C:
Thank you David,
I did not say untrained and this is not synonymous
with unqualified.
)
) In other words, both an opportunity and a reason for
) caution.
)
) For example, one member of this list told me
) privately once that the waldorf
) school they were associated with had had a few first
) grade teachers replaced
) in mid-year, which in my experience would be quite
) an extreme step to take.
)
)
) David
)
Michael C:
Let me give another example similar to the ones about
the dance school and the tai chi chuan school. Ok
suppose that you grew up never having heard music,
infact music was unkown to the culture in which you
lived. One day a skilled saxaphone player from the
other side of the world finds his way to the local
park and starts playing up a storm. Now this player is
really not an artist, just a technician. He plays as
exactly as he can what he was taught. Some of the
people that hear him play think it is nothing but
noise. Others like it although never having been
exposed to music before haven't a clue as to what it
is all about. The rythyms and melodies move them but
they have never even sung a song let alone played an
instrument.
One of your friends gets bold and asks if she can try
to play the saxaphone and is given permission and a
very basic idea of what to do (put you mouth here and
exhale, put your fingers here and move them.) Several
possibilities are open to us and I will decsribe 2 of
these.
1. The person is some kind of amazing natural genius
and immeadiatly makes some new original music that
would be appreciated by the musicians on the other
side of the world that our sax player comes from but
is not appreciated by him because he is realy not a
musician.
2. Your friend makes a bunch of noise that would be
appreciated by no one.
For Waldorf Education this example above is too
extreme because we have all interected with people
before. How ever we must look at occult ideas and
therories as something that many people have had
little or no exposure to.
The idea that people can concioulsy take part in human
eveolution is an idea that I believe to be heretical
to the mainstream religion that until recently
dominated the civilized world and prevented meaningful
discusion on such subjects. To the "natuaral man" of
the time before big religion, the idea of taking human
evoltion into human hands would not likely even occur.
When hidden streams of thought surface as happened
with Theosophy and Anthroposophy near the end the 19th
and beginning of the 20th centuries, all kinds of
misunderstandings are bound to occur. To add to the
confusion there is all kinds of muck mixed in with the
precious essence. I took the following qoute off Peter
Ralston's Web site. He is a very serious student and
master of martail arts.
"A warrior is measured according to this:
That he learns from the dregs of the ancients
and extracts clear liquid from them."
Chosan Shissai, 18th Century Japanese Swordsmaster
Peter wrote in one of his books that his material will
also be no more than the dregs of the ancients for
someone wishing to master real martail arts.
Many people have attempted to bypass this learning
from the dregs of the ancients. I don't know of any
one going this route that has developed true mastery
in any art form.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:18:33 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Tarjei, you wrote,
)
))What the theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution is
))concerned, the cultural-personal aspects of Steiner and Blavatsky
))has nothing to do with it, especially not with Steiner. One has to
))make a distinction between the _inspired_ Steiner, i.e. when he
))speaks or writes under the direct influence of higher powers, and
))the conversational, speculating, smalltalking Steiner. It is a grave
))error to ascribe his cultural and personal idiosyncrasies to his
))most exalted work, just like it is an error to regard all utterances
))from Steiner or Blavatsky or, say, some of the Biblical authors
))(especially Paul!) as divinely inspired.
)
)A sensible approach, given that you believe some of the text is
)divinely inspired; but how do you tell the difference?
)
)-Dan Dugan
Debra:
So it's like this? If it's embarrassing, Tarjei attributes it to the
"smalltalking" Steiner. If it's not, then the "devinely inspired" Steiner
is talking. Tarjei's blinders appear to be implanted in his brain.
I'm reading 'The Occult Roots of Nazism - Secret Aryan Cults and Their
Infl;uence on Nazi Ideology.' On the back cover, Anthony Storr (author of
'Feet of Clay') says, "If anyone still questions the power which myth
exercises over the human mind, he should read 'The Occult Roots of Nazism.'
I hope you put this book on your reading list too, Tarjei.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:32:07 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=B4s_body_of_knowledge/was_=22_fo?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ur_elements=22_was:_another_old_discussion?=
Michael C. wrote (on the teaching of science at
WSs):
| I am pretty sure this is what they are trying to
do in
| Waldorf Education is build up the body of
knowledge in
| the child in the same way as it was built up in
| humanity.
Clara here:
In this case the building of knowledge had better
include ALL stages that ALL cultures had gone
through. Why isn¥t the body of knowledge of
Eastern peoples - Chinese, Indian...- included? Or
the Inca, the Maia, the Aztec body of knowledge?
Why not Native Amazonian peoples? Australian
Aborigens? The Swahili? The Bantu body of
knowledge?
If one is to accept the notion you forward above,
then the knowledge built by those cultures would
have to be included too. Otherwise, well, then the
concept of "Humanity" in your statement excludes
those cultures.
In my view the statement above simply doesn¥t
hold. It¥s illogic. It pressuposed that not
*every* stage of the building up of knowledge in
humanity *everywhere* will be contemplated by this
form of education.
Which only shows, doesn¥t it, yet again, the
limited/eurocentric character of the
pressupositions held by WE and mantained (even
nearly 100 years on) by its advocates.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:53:36 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: learning from experience/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
Sune wrote: [on the teaching of science inWE]
| The basic difference is that WE stay with what
can be experienced by the pupils themselves in
teaching chemistry and developing the basic
concepts in chemistry as concepts that describe
the qualities of the phenomena, not by adding from
outsid something that the pupils simply have to
accept as valid because the teacher says it is.
|
Clara:
Have you ever been to a WS lesson, Sune?
This question crossed my mind when I read the
above. Nothing could be farther from describing
what goes on at those lessons than what you
say... It is *preciselly* the reverse. In WE
*none* of the teaching is based on what is
"experienced by the pupils themselves" (chemistry
or other); *everything* is taught "by adding from
outside something that the pupils simply have to
accept as valid because the teacher says it is".
In fact those words describe WE to perfection.
Teachers *dictate* the lessons, Sune. Or students
simply *copy* things from the board. The sequence
of what will be taught is pre-estabished to
minimum details. It never changes. It never takes
into account the different inclinations of
different groups, the ideas that the children
themselves might bring to class (I said *might* -
they become well conditioned *not* to bring any
ideas).
It suffices to say, for example, that all this
teaching is conducted via one media and this media
only: the teacher speaks, the pupils listen. No
research on books are conducted. Well - there
*are* no books. Homework consistes on revising and
*maybe* (at later grades), paraphrasing what the
teahcer said. Obviously the only way to "learn",
then, is to accept what the teacher says it¥s
true.
And the worst part is that what the teachers say
are irrational, medieval notions.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 03:24:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
)Debra:
)
)So it's like this? If it's embarrassing, Tarjei attributes it to the
)"smalltalking" Steiner.
Most of Steiner's smalltalk is not "embarrassing" at all. For the
most part, it is in fact quite interesting and informative.
)If it's not, then the "devinely inspired" Steiner is talking.
)Tarjei's blinders appear to be implanted in his brain.
I had expected you to be above ad hominems, Debra, but I was
obviously wrong. I won't reciprocate by suggesting anything about
your bodily organs in return, but regard your remark about my brain
as a compliment instead, because it reveals a shortage of rational
arguments and viewpoints.
)I'm reading 'The Occult Roots of Nazism - Secret Aryan Cults and Their
)Infl;uence on Nazi Ideology.' On the back cover, Anthony Storr (author of
)'Feet of Clay') says, "If anyone still questions the power which myth
)exercises over the human mind, he should read 'The Occult Roots of Nazism.'
)I hope you put this book on your reading list too, Tarjei.
I have read "The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.
It was one of my sources when I wrote the article "Nazi-Occultism"
published in 1997 (not yet translated into English). This has already
been mentioned on more than one occasion on this list.
If you believe that my viewpoints are due to lack of historical
information, you are positively wrong.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:20:44 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
| Michael C:
|
Waldorf education argues that young children are
| not yet ready for Copernicus. They should stick
with
| what they actually experience which is the sun
| circling the earth until they are a little
older.
Clara:
This shows how contradictory the arguments shown
by the anthroposophers on this list are... At one
point, it is argued that science in WSs is taught
in a way that is not super-imposed, that is, that
pupils learn from their own experinece, and not
accepting what the teacher says is true, etc. But
the statement above by M.C. shows clearly that WE
selects and imposes the way children *should*
learn.
If the system were really one in which the
knowledge comes from the child... then it would be
up to the child to decide when they are ready for
what, wouldn¥t it. Or at the very least, this
decision should be made as a product of
observation of the particular groups. It is not
what happens, though - how does WE *know*
"children are not ready for Copernicus"??!!
The argument, in the statement by M. C., seems to
lie the following snip (enphases added): "(...)
*what they actually experience* which is the sun
circling the earth (...)". Is that what they
actually experience? How do you know?
I mean - it is not *really* what happens,
objectivelly, is it. At least I suppose we all
know that by now. So how can it be stated that
this is what they experience?
The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
just as as the earth circling the sun. It is *not*
an experience. What we experience, what pure
observation shows, is that *the sun appears at one
side* in the morning, and *goes down at the other
side* at noon.
In order to think that it goes "round" the earth,
one first has got to know *that the earth is
round*, which would not be a concept immediatelly
accessible by pure observation by a small child
either (following your argument).
So in order to be logical, you would have to say
that small children are not ready for the notion
that the sun goes round the earth either (because
they do not "experience" the "roundness" of
earth). For all that matters, it could even be a
different sun everyday up there... So they are not
even ready for the concept of Sun, as One Entity.
So you see it goes on and on. There is no end to
this, logically.
The truth behind your statement is, it
*pre-selects* an abstract concept (roundness of
the earth) that, it is supposed, the children can
grasp. So "children are not ready for Copernicus"
is not besed on a system that favours experience
over abstraction at all. It is based on a system
that pre-select the abstract notions that "should"
be "disclosed" to children at every given stage.
And in this selection, European medieval concepts
are favoured.
Or would you say it would be just as valid to
teach the children that the earth swallows the sun
every evening because she is forever, madly in
love with him, - and then has to throw him up
every morning, because he cannot stand the
intensity of her love - as the Amazonian story
goes?
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:41:31 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: oh the mystery.../ was " four elements" was: another old discussion
Steve wrote:
| On 31 May 2001, at 14:36, michael C wrote:
|
| ) So you suggest that we just explain away all
the
| ) mystery so that they can stop looking up at he
stars
| ) in awe and with wonderment at polywogs turning
into
| ) frogs.
|
| I am always baffled by the assertion that
understanding something
| scientifically takes away the wonderment of it.
To me, it is incredibly
| awe-inspiring to contemplate the number of stars
in the sky and the
| distances between them, and to think about the
number of galaxies that we | cannot see and all
the stars in them! The idea of a number of fixed
| glowing points in a firmament around the earth
is mundane by comparison.
| | And to think that a tiny amount of DNA can
contain the code for turning a | seed into a tree!
There are miracles all around us, and they are no
less | miraculous for being the product of natural
processes that we can begin to | understand.
| | Nature is elegant and beautiful. In my
experience, the better we
| understand natural processes, the more we can
appreciate that elegance and | beauty.
Clara:
I second Steve¥s point entirelly. I too never
cease to wonder at how people imply that *knowing*
about nature is somehow shallow or boring, when it
is so fascinating and beautiful. Thank you for
saying that Steve...
Not to mention that the example in debate was -
well, basic facts about nature. Isn¥t it
depressing that providing the opportunity for
children to getting to know those elementary facts
is described as "explaining away all the
mystery"?? I mean - ALL the mystery? C¥mon now, I
can think of deeper mysteries for a small child to
wonder at.
I honestly wouldn¥t like my children to ignore
basic things like the sun circling the earth for
the sake of "preserving the mystery", in the
beginning of the 3rd millenium... I believe there
are still plenty of mysteries to wonder at without
us having to resource to ignorance. And what is
more, I don¥t want to select what they "should" or
"shouldn ¥t" learn about nature... It¥s times like
that when I am so GLAD they are not in WS.
BTW when my 5 year-old son found out that the sun
goes round the earth earth, and we showed him how
it worked with a small lamp and a globe
(heresy!!!), and he concluded that the Japanese
sleep when we are awake and v.v. - it meant many
weeks of exquisite wonder for him... He played
Japanese all day; when we were having breakfast he
giggled that they were having supper, when he went
to bed he sayd Good Morning to his "little friend
in Japan"; he had HUGE fun and wonderment. I am so
glad he could have this experience and feel the
wonders of how nature really works... I don¥t
think this will make him a cynic at all - OTOH I
know that too much gnome talk can make children
unbelievable cynics at a very tender age.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:06:46 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C wrote:
)When we ask children to make the leap to Copernicus, we ask
)them to deny what they see and just take it on faith.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is traumatic, or some big educational
problem. One could learn very little about the world beyond one's own
backyard -- other cultures, history, geography -- if one refused to believe
anything not verifiable by one's own sense experiences. There would be
little point in reading a book.
Oh, I forgot - to Waldorf teachers, there *is* little point in children
reading books!
)By the way telling young children that the earth
)circles the sun explains nothing to them unless they
)have been looking up at the night sky and following
)the movements of the planets.
Yes, and that's a great thing to do with children, except I suppose Waldorf
teachers don't think so (a telescope would be just as bad as a microscope,
right? Looking at matter through matter?)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:09:00 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael Sieber wrote:
)I do not know whether in the endless circles of the WC discussions
)also the connection of the idea of reincarnation and karma with
)Steiner's antiracism was covered.
Many times. I agree with you it is a crucial point. If karma is taken
seriously at all, of course a person's race is a result of karma.
*Everything* is explained by karma (and hence, IMO, nothing is explained by
karma).
)A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
)not be racist.
I disagree completely. What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing
characteristics to different races that in fact have nothing to do with
race, such as intelligence or spirituality. Reincarnation and karma do not
get you off the hook for these characterizations, in fact they provide a
handy excuse, a "spiritual" justification for ideas that have no other
conceivable justification.
)Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
)that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world )in
)my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
)knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
)former or later life?
This is precisely what allows the person holding such views to make or agree
with any and all racial characterizations, negative or positive, with
supposed impunity.
Besides, Steiner didn't suggest anybody "look down" at any particular race.
It is all very benevolent, tolerant, inclusive, and meant to be spiritually
helpful; that doesn't make it not racist.
)Rudolf Steiner, Kristiana, 11. June 1910:
)"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
)may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
)the negative aspects of all races and peoples;
Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races don't
*have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
)If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour )no
)regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
Another one of those statements that anthroposophists apparently hear as
being very generous and open-minded. "You shouldn't mind being black." But
the question is, why *should* we have any regrets at "incarnating" in a
particular race? It is the underlying assumption that some races are
spiritually superior to others that is racist. (A person might regret being
born into a particular race if members of that race are disadvantaged
politically or economically, or discriminated against; but I don't think
those are the kind of regrets Steiner is talking about. After all, karma
means you have chosen this. You must have some *need* for those
disadvantages, why complain?)
)But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may,
) )nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted )in
)the spirit 1 have already suggested.
The tiny little problem, again, is that there is nothing "objective" about
his survey of national and racial characteristics; Steiner just reinforced
the prejudices of his listeners, and made up a few even weirder ones of his
own.
The "spiritual" justifications for these theories are the most dangerous of
all, because they allow adherents of these theories to believe that their
own motivations are completely benign.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:19:06 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C. wrote:
)What I was trying to say is that perhaps the child
)should be observing many living things to try to get a
)phenomenological basis of what life is first.
Yes, good idea. My son and his dad are hiking the Appalachian Trail this
weekend - they just called to tell me all about the great many living things
they observed today. I don't see this as mutually exclusive with anybody
ever mentioning the biochemistry of anything, nor why biochemistry should
damage a child or make him susceptible to "dogma" later in life. Maybe if we
forced him to sit all day in a room looking at plastic models; the
stereotype Waldorf promotes of what goes on in all the other, BAD schools.
And what's with this fetish with the word "phenomenological" lately? I think
I'll start keeping track of how often this word is used. :)
)Save all of the biochemical reductionist theories until a bit
)later
I don't see why they're reductionist. Again do you envision the teachers (in
non-Waldorf) schools are saying, "Repeat after me, class, this is all there
is to life . . . life is nothing but biochemistry . . you are your DNA and
nothing more . . ."
)Can a person that has really observed life easily
)believe that it is nothing more than the theories of
)biochemistry?
Where does the "nothing more" part come in, except as a way of demonizing
any approach that isn't Waldorf? In what school do they teach that life is
"nothing more than" the theories of biochemistry?
)If we want science to continue to grow the scientist must believe that )all
)of the theories are provisional,
I think good science teachers are pretty clear on this. I had very good
science teachers in high school - two levels of both biology and chemistry
were offered (though none of this was really my cup of tea personally; I
didn't make it through physics). I didn't come away with the idea that any
of it was set in stone. All you have to do is read the newspaper to realize
that new findings and new theories are reported daily, revising the old
ones. (My son is pretty excited about the latest dinosaur find in Egypt.)
)Perhaps it is even more important from a moral point
)of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
)their complete comprension and therefore somehow
)sacred.
Self-conscious, contrived attempts to impart to children that life is
"sacred" are nine-tenths of what is wrong with Waldorf.
I prefer teachers who love their subject, like working with children, and
are happy sharing their knowledge. These teachers are rare enough; the ones
who are on a spiritual mission are a real disaster in the classroom. Let the
kids figure out for themselves what is "sacred."
)mechanistic deterministic laws, therefore the human beings are not
) )responsible for any of their actions).
I have no fear that my son getting a decent grounding in science will make
him believe he is not responsible for his actions, and certainly my husband
and I are not teaching him that.
)(I am this way because of my genetics)
Knowing anything about genetics does not imply that genetics is an excuse,
or that we have no free will. That would surely be a very poor understanding
of genetics!
)what often filters down to the public is very different our at least )is
)taken in such a ways as to leave persons feeling less responsible )for
)their actions.
That would tell you something about that person, not about the information
they were given. However, I think this is just alarmism. I do not really
think most people who read or hear about genetics, the latest brain research
(or whatever you are talking about filtering down), finish the article and
feel less responsible for their actions that day.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:24:19 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Clara wrote:
)The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
)just as as the earth circling the sun.
Thanks, Clara, I was going to comment on that and forgot. I was going to
note that Michael C. said that the Copernican system is only sensible "if
you take the sun as the still point," implying that this does not give a
complete picture. But then why give the earth as the still point?
)Or would you say it would be just as valid to
)teach the children that the earth swallows the sun
)every evening because she is forever, madly in
)love with him, - and then has to throw him up
)every morning, because he cannot stand the
)intensity of her love - as the Amazonian story
)goes?
That's a great one. Especially if we are looking for stories that correspond
to sense experiences. :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:29:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
TARJEI STRAUME
)))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
)))results of trained seership.
DAN DUGAN
))Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
))has no dogma?
TARJEI STRAUME
)Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
)of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is
)a complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored
)and debated.
)
)From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
)dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not.
)Dogma, like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or
)revised because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is
)not authority; neither is spiritual science.
You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and
not "theory," then they are "dogma."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:57:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael J. Sieber, you wrote,
)A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
)not be racist.
)
)Why?
)
)Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
)that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world in
)my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
)knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
)former or later life?
Steiner made it clear that different races were stages of development
through which the individual "evolved," a misuse of the word
"evolution" which was a hot buzzword in that time.
Furthermore he said that if it hadn't been for the meddling of evil
spirits, all of humanity would have developed together through the
various racial stages. Instead some races that should have died out
still exist.
This race-based theory of history was old-fashioned in Steiner's
time, and is a ridiculous anachronism today. One doesn't have to
harbor ill-will against other races to be called a racist; teaching
ignorance qualifies, too.
[Steiner]
)"So long as one has the
)slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a
)particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach an unprejudiced
)understanding of the facts presented in this lecturecourse. For this
)reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of Spiritual
)Science."
He's saying that liberals and people from non-Aryan races are going
to be offended by the racial doctrines of Anthroposophy, doctrines
that Steiner calls "objective" and "facts," and Tarjei Straume also
calls "facts." He was right about that.
)"If we rightly
)understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no regrets
)at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective
)survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless,
)provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit
)1 have already suggested."
I.e. as dogma.
)The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will
)learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every
)nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards
)the total evolution of humanity."
And Steiner tells you what part each race plays. The Jews, for
example, had as their mission the creation of a physical body for The
Christ Spirit to incarnate into. Now that has happened they "no
longer have a right to exist."
"Older races only persist because there are men who cannot or will
not move forward to a higher racial form." [Steiner, 1908, ISBM pp.
134-135]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 08:48:02 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dear Diana and Dan,
thanks for your replies to my message.
Yes, they are replies of critics.
What kind of replies did I expect?
"Oh, yes - now we understand - sorry for any inconveniences caused
by misunderstanding..... " ??
No, not really. Maybe it was similar to these irrational expectations
one has when playing lottery: You do not really expect to win the big
prize - but nonetheless .....
Still I believe that understanding could be possible because I feel that
there is an almost continuous sequence between these different
attitudes or moods:
Fanatic Anthroposophist
Dogmatic Anthroposophist
Critical Anthroposophist
Anthroposophy Critic
Dogmatic Anthroposophy Critic
Fanatic Anthroposophy Critic
(You could exchange Anthr. and Waldorf, but in the current context
of "spiritual underpinnings" it is rather the A-topic.)
And I do think that the differences and causes for misunderstanding
and discussion between any two adjacent groups are of similar
extent or graveness.
But also the similarities and common values are there for
neighbouring groups.
So (cum grano salis) a discussion between CA and DA is as difficult
(or easy) as that one between AC and CA. But AC/CA is easier than
CA/FA.
So I feel that understanding between AC and CA should be possible
while there is no chance for an understanding between people who
find themselves temporarily (or longer) in dogmatic A or dogmatic AC
moods.
My observation is that there is little understanding on this list.
Does that mean that the dogmatic moods prevail on both sides?
What do you think?
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:35:06 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael S. wrote:
)Dear Diana and Dan,
)thanks for your replies to my message.
)Yes, they are replies of critics.
That's very interesting, but it might have been more interesting if you were
to answer the objections raised. You wrote many words but not a word of
reply to the issues Dan and I raised in our posts.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:23:22 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's anti-racism
Tarjei:
)The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
)theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts
Dan:
)Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)has no dogma?
Tarjei:
)Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
)of them
Dan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and not
)"theory," then they are "dogma."
Yes, this is so funny to read along with all the fretting that children not
learn scientific "dogma."
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:36:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
Diana wrote:
)Yes, this is so funny to read along with all the fretting that
)children not learn scientific "dogma."
"Scientific dogma" is an oxymoron.
Tarjei
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:36:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and dogma (was: Steiner's anti-racism)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))))The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
))))theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
))))results of trained seership.
)
)DAN DUGAN
)))Thanks, Tarjei, you couldn't be more clear. You say, Anthroposophy
)))has no dogma?
)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))Many people have a dogmatic approach to Anthroposophy. I am not one
))of them. Anthroposophy was not intended to be dogmatic, but this is
))a complicated and controversial subject that _should_ be explored
))and debated.
))
))From my point of view, Anthroposophy doesn't fit the definition of
))dogma, unless you define it as pure theology, which it is not.
))Dogma, like in the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be questioned or
))revised because it is based upon unquestioned authority. Science is
))not authority; neither is spiritual science.
Dan Dugan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact"
)and not "theory," then they are "dogma."
It isn't that simple, and it's not a question of having it two ways.
A few years ago - on talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) as a
matter of fact - I became involved in an exceptionally long
discussion with a Roman Catholic about dogma and its definition. I
don't know if they have old threads available in the archive, but
their search facility is currently unavailable due to technical
difficulties. Anyway, although our debate ended up in a draw of
sorts, I learned that a Catholic is on home turf when it comes to
defining what dogma is and what it isn't. My point of departure was a
more general definition, although not as simplified as yours.
I do maintain that "dogma" is not applicable to Anthroposophy, but on
the other hand, I have already mentioned that many people have a
dogmatic approach to it.
The reason for my claim is that dogma is not only a belief or a set
of beliefs imposed from the outside and asserted by an authority
stating that it cannot be questioned, but it is upheld by religious
faith alone. Because Anthroposophy has endeavored from the beginning
to replace faith and religion with the certainty of knowledge derived
from the discipline of science, it is an error to call Anthroposophy
dogmatic if its epistemological point of departure is apprehended.
Because human epistemology is subject to evolution and change, there
are many things we all regard with absolute certanty today that may
be regarded as superstition in a millennium from now. But whether or
not it is appropriate to call present-day knowledge, that may be
superstitions in the future, "dogma," depends upon how we define the
latter.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:05:48 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
On 3 Jun 2001, at 11:35, Diana Winters wrote:
)
) That's very interesting, but it might have been more interesting if you were
) to answer the objections raised. You wrote many words but not a word of
) reply to the issues Dan and I raised in our posts.
) Diana
Yes, Diana, I know. But while trying to answer in detail I was too
much frustrated by the prospect of further mutual nonunderstanding...
so I first tried to contemplate some aspects regarding understanding
and nonund. in this group.
While I try to give a more specific answer you might try to tell me
about your feelings in regard to the level of (and reasons for) (non-
)understanding here?
Aren't you also frustrated sometimes about this?
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
)TARJEI STRAUME
The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a
theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts based upon the
results of trained seership.
Dan:
)You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's observations are "fact" and not
"theory," then they are "dogma."
)TARJEI STRAUME
Because human epistemology is subject to evolution and change, there are
many things we all regard with absolute certanty today that may be regarded
as superstition in a millennium from now.
Dan, 'theory' and 'fact' are now, to many people, not as strictly separable
as was once thought. Current scientific outlook, as far as I understand it,
is that facts depend on the theory as much as theories depend on the facts.
Thus, facts can change - whereas you were using the word in the sense of
dogma, ie your usage of the word implies 'facts' cannot change.
Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has said above re human
epistemology being subject to change, that the 'spiritual-scientific facts'
he was talking about (ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution') will change, and in fact are changing. And that
Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed dogmatic.
Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:24:22 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
| )TARJEI STRAUME
| The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution is not a
| theory per se, but spiritual-scientific facts
based upon the
| results of trained seership.
|
| Dan:
| )You can't have it both ways. If Steiner's
observations are "fact" and not| "theory," then
they are "dogma."
|
| )TARJEI STRAUME
| Because human epistemology is subject to
evolution and change, there are| many things we
all regard with absolute certanty today that may
be regarded| as superstition in a millennium from
now.
[Raymond:]
| Dan, 'theory' and 'fact' are now, to many
people, not as strictly separable| as was once
thought. Current scientific outlook, as far as I
understand it,| is that facts depend on the theory
as much as theories depend on the facts.
| Thus, facts can change - whereas you were using
the word in the sense of| dogma, ie your usage of
the word implies 'facts' cannot change.|
| Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has
said above re human
| epistemology being subject to change, that the
'spiritual-scientific facts'| he was talking about
(ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of|
evolution') will change, and in fact are changing.
And that
| Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed
dogmatic.
|
Clara:
The elementary difference between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
if I may add my 2c.
By verifyable I mean, in a very elementary sense,
that scientific facts, concepts, or theories are
those who are publicized along with the steps
taken to reach the conclusions. I.e., in such a
way that they can be *verifyed* by others. So if a
natural scientist publicizes the results of an
experiment, he does so by including all the steps
he followed, so that another scientist can repeat
them, and verify the conclusions drawn. If a
historian presents his interpretation about an
episode in history, he presents all the sources
he¥s read, primary data or research on other
historians¥ works, so that his interlocutors have
a chance to read all that too and verify the
pertinence of the interpretation.
This procedure is a simple elementary way to
define what is scientific knowledge, what is not.
If the facts brought out by scientific work end up
to be overcome by other findings, this does not
make the original findings less scientific. It is
a matter of metodology.
Some may take a dogmatic approach to facts brought
up by science, when they deny that those can be
reinterpreted. This does not mean *science* can be
dogmatic; but that *its interpreters* can. Science
is opposed to dogma by definition; if its
dogmatic, its not science.
That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is occultist, it is not scientific;
if only initiates can grasp the concepts, it is
not scientific. What happens with anthroposophy is
preciselly this. The self-proclaimed initiates
argue, they "know" things we others cannot know.
It is claimed that one cannot argue the postulates
of anthroposophy, because they are the result of
spiritual research into the spititual world, and
since we do not all have access to the spiritual
records... there you have: unscientific.
So the following words (enphasis added) by Tarjei
represents an oximoron:
"The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution is not a
theory per se, but *spiritual-scientific facts
based upon the
results of trained seership*".
... Because if the facts are based on results of
"trained seership", then they are *not
scientific*. Scientific facts must be
*verifyable*.
So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the
object of the theory) are changing or not. It is a
matter of the approach in which the theory is
built.
********
In the example of the teaching of science in WSs,
the point is actually, that WSs do not teach
science, they teach contents from a certain
notional system. It does not empower students to
draw their own conclusions. It does not open the
young people¥s mind to scientific ways in building
knowledge. It pre-selects the contents to be
passed on to students and closes the door to other
contents.
No matter what the contents in point are - this
*method* is *unscientific*.
When one defends that schools should teach
science, this does not mean simply pushing
"scientific facts" down student¥s throats, as I
feel is sometimes implyed by anthroposophers on
this list.
Teaching science at school means encouraging
curiosity, being open to students questions,
valuing the student¥s own conclusions, allowing
for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from
talking to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes,
even eletronic media). What contents this include,
is secondary. The contents will necessarily change
depending on the historical moment in which the
learning happens. But when the teaching is
conducted in a scientific way, this is expected.
It also means not restricting the contents of what
they are allowed to learn, and certanly, not
restricting them to European, medieval,
pre-rationalist notions.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Steiner's Anti-Racism
)Diana:
What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing characteristics to different
races that in fact have nothing to do with race, such as intelligence or
spirituality.
Diana,
My understanding of 'racism' is that it is not in the actual ascribing of
the characteristics, as you state above, but it is in the categorization or
judgment of those characteristics as being superior to those of another
race.
(The other definition of racism, whereby one judges an individual according
to some stereotype held of the individual's race, is I understand not the
issue here?)
)Steiner:
)"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
)may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also the
negative aspects of all races and peoples;
)Diana
Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races don't
*have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
Diana,
Your point of view presumably is that by saying a given race has some
positive aspect, one is therefore saying that this race is in this respect
superior to others. Am I correct?
)Steiner
)If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour no
regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
)Diana:
Another one of those statements that anthroposophists apparently hear as
being very generous and open-minded. "You shouldn't mind being black." But
the question is, why *should* we have any regrets at "incarnating" in a
particular race?
Diana,
Quite right. Some of his audience, however, possibly would have had such
regrets, which is possibly why he made the statement. How should he,
instead, have addressed those regrets?
)Diana:
It is the underlying assumption that some races are spiritually superior to
others that is racist.
Diana,
By definition, to state such superiority is indeed racism. The existence of
this 'underlying assumption' - is it your suspicion that this is so, or has
it been established earlier?
Steiner
)But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may,
nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the
spirit 1 have already suggested.
Diana:
The tiny little problem, again, is that there is nothing "objective" about
his survey of national and racial characteristics; Steiner just reinforced
the prejudices of his listeners, and made up a few even weirder ones of his
own.
Diana,
It seems to me Steiner is attempting to tread a fine line between the
description of certain characteristics, and the attribution of superiority
or inferiority to these same characteristics with respect to some other
race. He largely succeeded I believe. The plain describing of
characteristics can be categorized as objective, in contrast to the
subjective ascribing of superior or inferior qualities to these
characteristics - it is in this sense I believe he used the word
'objective'.
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and Dogma
)CLARA:
The elementary difference between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
if I may add my 2c.
Clara,
Are you here, by 'knowledge', talking about 'scientific facts' as opposed t=
o
'scientific theory'? Scientific facts, ie experimental results, are by and
large verifiable yes. We do have whole schools of knowledge though, such a=
s
psychology and architecture, which are considered more or less respectable
sciences, but which perhaps fail your definition. As long as the approach
used is rational, seems to be the main yardstick, thather than that there
are 'verifiable results'.
)CLARA:
That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is occultist, it is not scientific;
if only initiates can grasp the concepts, it is
not scientific.
Clara,
By 'concepts' you now seem to mean 'theory'? Three or four people in the
world today, perhaps, understand fully current theories of physics, and
these theories anyway are not considered fully verified. They seem,
furthermore, to depend on the presence of the observer-cum-experimental
apparatus in a manner which affects the very verifiablilty itself.
In any case, many on this list, judging by their ability to criticise or
condone Steiner's 'occult science', clearly do believe they understand at
least some of the concepts. This is not the same thing as being able to
prove these concepts, as you say. And this is indeed a serious weakness.=
=20
However I would repeat that the essence of science to me lies in the
applying of a rational approach rather than in being able to independently
verify the various arcane statements made by Steiner.
)CLARA:
So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the
object of the theory) are changing or not. It is a
matter of the approach in which the theory is
built.
Clara,
The approach in which the theory is built is certainly not that of
theoretical physics. But it has much in common with for example psychology=
,
where a Freud will make certain pronouncements which are then considered
rationally, applied in practice, then the results considered again
rationally. Can not Anthroposophy proceed in a similar manner?
)CLARA:
In the example of the teaching of science in WSs,
the point is actually, that WSs do not teach
science, they teach contents from a certain
notional system. It does not empower students to
draw their own conclusions. It does not open the
young people=B4s mind to scientific ways in building
knowledge. It pre-selects the contents to be
passed on to students and closes the door to other
contents.
Clara,
My understanding was that WS students do in fact leave at the age of 18 or
whatever having been taught essentially the same content of orthodox scienc=
e
as pupils in other schools, this being in order that they should not be
behind should they pursue college studies. Am I wrong here?
)CLARA:
Teaching science at school means encouraging
curiosity, being open to students questions,
valuing the student=B4s own conclusions, allowing
for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from
talking to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes,
even eletronic media). What contents this include,
is secondary. The contents will necessarily change
depending on the historical moment in which the
learning happens. But when the teaching is
conducted in a scientific way, this is expected.
It also means not restricting the contents of what
they are allowed to learn, and certanly, not
restricting them to European, medieval,
pre-rationalist notions.
Clara,
I agree that the contents of what they are allowed to learn should not be
restricted, and was not aware this was so. I would like to know where WS
students anywhere are restricted to European medieval pre-rationalist
notions as you suggest above. This should certainly not happen nowadays.
As an aside, re the teaching of the 'four elements'. If done as an adjunct
to the teaching of orthodox science, there is one example benefit so far no=
t
yet mentioned. It is not solely a European notion. The Chinese for exampl=
e
have something similar though eg they include the qualities 'wood' and
'metal' which are not individually included in the European system. The
engendering of some respect for a qualitative approach to science embodied
in such systems, in contrast to the currently successful (or at least
popular) quantitative approach, should mean the WS student is less
dismissive of approaches used by other cultures such as the Chinese. This
dismissive approach, typical of the West in recent centuries, causes much
resentment amongst other peoples, due to a sort of implied racism ('our
knowledge is superior to yours' etc).
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_knowledge/was_"_fo =?i
--- Clara Paix (paixs yahoo.com.br) wrote:
)
) Michael C. wrote (on the teaching of science at
) WSs):
)
)
) | I am pretty sure this is what they are trying to
) do in
) | Waldorf Education is build up the body of
) knowledge in
) | the child in the same way as it was built up in
) | humanity.
)
) Clara here:
)
) In this case the building of knowledge had better
) include ALL stages that ALL cultures had gone
) through. Why isn¥t the body of knowledge of
) Eastern peoples - Chinese, Indian...- included? Or
) the Inca, the Maia, the Aztec body of knowledge?
) Why not Native Amazonian peoples? Australian
) Aborigens? The Swahili? The Bantu body of
) knowledge?
)
) If one is to accept the notion you forward above,
) then the knowledge built by those cultures would
) have to be included too. Otherwise, well, then the
) concept of "Humanity"
Michael C:
Clara,
It looks like you caught me in a mistake here Clara.
Actually I just didn't explain what I meant clearly
enough. What I meant was the body of knowledge that is
passed to children through schools in grades K to 12,
in the industrial and post industrial world. Now of
course there are variations in this body of knowledge,
but I think you can accept this concept without me
having to write a book to explain it (the concept of
an industrail and post industrial world curricullem
for K - 12)
I basically agree with you that it MIGHT be wise to
include the knowledge from all cultures in education.
On the other hand nearly all education that has taken
place in the modern industrial world is very Euro
Centric. A gross and obvious example of this is the
depiction of the Early Egytpians as white Mediteranean
people. Yes well before the time of Cleopatra Alexader
the Great conquered Egypt and set up a white
Mediteranean ruling class.(If you can believe history,
personally I take it with a grain of salt).
Now when I was in school which was some time ago all
Egyptians were depicted as white Mediteranian peoples
which could in no way be mistaken for black Africans.
However one need only look at how these people
depicted themselves with there art to see that they
appear to be black Africans.
Now why was this taught this way (and outside places
like Morehouse University I am pretty sure that it
still is) The reason is that the European educational
system that set the standard for the industrailized
world focused on the Greeks as did Steiner as a great
light of the ancient world of learning. Many of the
Greek philosphers (Plato and Pythagoras to name 2)
looked to Egypt. How could we teach the people of the
world that there were ever any civilzed black folks
and then treat them so poorly. We needed to convince
ourselves and all others that blacks were less than
human or at least at the lower end oh humanity.
In addition the prestigious scholar James Needham
makes a very good case that the Chinese and
perticularllly the Taoists made huge contributions to
modern western technology and Science. I doubt very
much that this is taught in public schools. You see
although these schools change very rapidly in
superficial ways, like having computers in the
classroom, the public schools are also very far behind
the times.
)
) In my view the statement above simply doesn¥t
) hold. It¥s illogic. It pressuposed that not
) *every* stage of the building up of knowledge in
) humanity *everywhere* will be contemplated by this
) form of education.
Michael C:
Clara,
First off I stated that this a theory behind this
approach to education as far as I understand it.
Secondly we are talking about a eurocentric body of
knowledge when we talk about nearly all education that
tkes place in formal schools for children in the
industrialized world.
Now what if we really taught other world views from
other cultures to children in schools (Waldorf, other
private schools, public,) First of all I am in favor
of this to a degree but there are many problems. We
would have to find someone that really can see the
world through the eyes of a Bantu, or Eskimo and then
teach Americans, Europeans, Austrailians etc that have
been raise in the information age culture to see the
world in a different way. Now this would be very
different that the lip service that we mostly pay to
the value of other cultures.
What do you think would happen if this was done in a
public school. I can guarantee that we would have
people makind a big fuss over the seperation of church
and state. Why? Becuase in these cultures there is
little or know seperation between what we call
religion and the day to day life (getting food,
biulding housing etc.)
Now another problem is the parents of the children are
going to start screaming that little bobby and susan
are falling behing in their arithmetic and reading
skills while wasting time learing to find and eat
edible insects. So tell me Clara, how are you going to
do this (really make children aware of other cultures
not just pay lip service).
In fact in thinking this through I am have changed my
mind. I think that children need to be grounded in one
culture first. Now if it is understood how their world
view was built than it may be easier to deconstruct
that world view and create another (who knows this is
all theoretical speculation, but that is what you are
mostly writing also Clara)
) Which only shows, doesn¥t it, yet again, the
) limited/eurocentric character of the
) pressupositions held by WE and mantained (even
) nearly 100 years on) by its advocates.
Michael C:
Clara, this is from another letter I wrote earlier.
By the way I don't claim to have outgrown my American
middle class culture. I still have some racial
prejudice, but less than most people that claim they
are not racists. Here is a little joke for all of you
that are free from prejudice(I have mat many people
but I have never met a "normal" adult human that was
entirely free from prejudice although some claimed to
be(this was added and not in the original Clara)). If
it offends anyone then I am sorry but the joke makes a
point.
A large African American man enters his apartment and
is greeted by his wife who notices his sweating and
shaking. She says "Honey whats wrong you look so
nervous" He replies, "I just rode up on the elevator
with a couple of white liberals"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 328
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's Anti-Racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re:
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By dan dandugan.com
culture and dogma (was: "four elements")
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:59:42 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
)Clara:
)
)The elementary difference between scientific
)knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
)former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
)if I may add my 2c.
I would take this argument of yours one step further by suggesting=20
that if something is not empirically verifiable at all, it is not=20
"knowledge" per se.
)By verifyable I mean, in a very elementary sense, that scientific=20
)facts, concepts, or theories are those who are publicized along with=20
)the steps taken to reach the conclusions. I.e., in such a way that=20
)they can be *verifyed* by others.
I agree.
)So if a natural scientist publicizes the results of an experiment,=20
)he does so by including all the steps he followed, so that another=20
)scientist can repeat
)them, and verify the conclusions drawn.
True. And this is why I wrote in the preciously quoted excerpt from my artic=
le:
"Steiner claimed that anybody could expand the abilities he or she=20
already possessed. To this end, he published a series of books with=20
detailed exercises and advice.There are yet many reasons to believe=20
that Steiner may have overestimated his contemporaries in several=20
fields.
"Steiner thought the claims he presented as occult facts could be=20
followed up and tested to a certain extent without advanced=20
claivoyance, or "initiation." Inner experiences cultivated with=20
sharpened powers of thought, observations of external phenomena that=20
most people overlook, historical documents, etc. - all this could be=20
used to affirm or invalidate Steiner's communications. When one=20
developed real occult abilities later, e.g. by working with the=20
guide's communications, one could do one's own research as well, also=20
in unknown territories."
In other words, Rudolf Steiner did include the steps he followed.=20
These are admittedly quite challenging and difficult to reproduce,=20
but the same must be said about many claims from natural science. The=20
average reader of a popular scientific magazine, for instance, does=20
not have a laboratory available or the opportunity to visit a remote=20
location on a distant continent to verify the discoveries and claims=20
of a given researcher.
)If a historian presents his interpretation about an episode in=20
)history, he presents all the sources he=B4s read, primary data or=20
)research on other historians=B4 works, so that his interlocutors have=20
)a chance to read all that too and verify the pertinence of the=20
)interpretation.
Rudolf Steiner did not violate this principle. As previously noted=20
and quoted, his sources were radically different from those of=20
ordinary historians. He did not make any historical claims where the=20
Akashic Record was not the sole, or at least the primary, source.=20
When referring to other historians and occult seers, it was to point=20
out that some of his own findings had also been discovered by others,=20
or were indicated by the discoveries of others.
In other words, if the premise is accepted that the Akashic Record,=20
or the occult script of history and evolution, is available to all=20
human beings, Steiner _always_ sites his source in full. On the other=20
hand, Anthroposophy openly admits being a cultural heresy through and=20
through, which makes it perfectly understandable that those who do=20
_not_ accept the above-mentioned premise may also disagree with what=20
kind of sources Steiner _should have_ used.
)This procedure is a simple elementary way to define what is=20
)scientific knowledge, what is not. If the facts brought out by=20
)scientific work end up to be overcome by other findings, this does=20
)not make the original findings less scientific. It is a matter of=20
)metodology.
I agree with you a hundred per cent on your definition of science and=20
scientific research. And this is precisely what makes the topic at=20
hand, namely the relationship of Anthroposophy to science and to=20
religion and to dogma, extremely complicated. At the risk of=20
repeating myself, let me stress again for the purpose of clarity that=20
although Rudolf Steiner expressed the high hope in his day and age=20
that anthroposophy would become a science proper just like biology=20
and physics and so on, he was nevertheless successful, as Peter=20
Normann Waage pointed out in (his first response to Peter S.'=20
aricle), "Humanism and Polemical Populism, "To create a bridge=20
between insights that until now have been reserved for religion and=20
faith, and modern, scientific reason."=20
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/pnw/pnweng1.html)
)Some may take a dogmatic approach to facts brought up by science,=20
)when they deny that those can be reinterpreted.
Good point. This is why I hesitated for a moment after writing in my=20
response to Diana that "scientific dogma" is an oxymoron. What I=20
meant here was science in its pure sense, not opinions about or=20
attitudes to science.
)This does not mean *science* can be dogmatic; but that *its=20
)interpreters* can. Science is opposed to dogma by definition; if its=20
)dogmatic, its not science.
Exactly.
)That is also why you cannot speak of occultist science. If it is=20
)occultist, it is not scientific; if only initiates can grasp the=20
)concepts, it is not scientific.
Another very good point, and a valid objection. The reason why an=20
anthroposophist would disagree with you is that he or she takes the=20
point of departure from an epistemology and a view of ecolution where=20
occultism is available to all who are willing to make the effort,=20
just like the laboratory or a remote excavation site is avalibale to=20
anyone willing to make the necessary effort to go there and conduct=20
or observe the experiments or research in question.
)What happens with anthroposophy is preciselly this. The=20
)self-proclaimed initiates argue, they "know" things we others cannot=20
)know.
Experienced brain surgeons might argue something quite similar.
)It is claimed that one cannot argue the postulates of anthroposophy,=20
)because they are the result of spiritual research into the spititual=20
)world, and since we do not all have access to the spiritual=20
)records... there you have: unscientific.
Your observations are very astute and to the point. When I=20
_respectfully_ disagree with your conclusion, it is because I do not=20
regard the spiritual realm as inaccessible to others.
)So the following words (enphasis added) by Tarjei represents an oximoron:
)
)"The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of evolution is not a=20
)theory per se, but *spiritual-scientific facts based upon the=20
)results of trained seership*".
I can accept and respect that this looks like an oxymoron to you, but=20
as pointed out above, I disagree because my epistemological point of=20
departure is different from yours when it comes to Anthroposophy.
)... Because if the facts are based on results of "trained seership",=20
)then they are *not scientific*. Scientific facts must be=20
)*verifyable*.
Spiritual-scientific facts are verifyable if seership is available to=20
everyone. They are also veryfiable to a lesser degree without such=20
faculties.
)So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the object of the=20
)theory) are changing or not. It is a matter of the approach in which=20
)the theory is built.
True. In his doctoral thesis, "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft" (Weimar=20
1892), Steiner writes in Chapter VII, entitled "Epistemological=20
Conclusion":
***************************************************************
Onesidedness, as a rule, results from the fact that the inquiry,=20
instead of first investigating the process of cognition itself,=20
immediately approaches some object of this process. Our discussion=20
has shown that in _dogmatism_, the "thing-in-itself" cannot be=20
employed as its fundamental principle; similarly, in _subjective=20
idealism_, the "I" cannot be fundamental, for the mutual relationship=20
of these principles must first be defined by thinking. The=20
"thing-in-itself" and "I" cannot be defined by deriving one from the=20
other; both must bre defined by thinking in conformity with their=20
character and relationship. The adherent of _scepticism_ must cease=20
to doubt the possibility of knowing the world, for there is no room=20
for doubt in regard to the "given" - it is still untouched by all=20
predicates later bestowed upon it by means of cognition. Should the=20
sceptic maintain that our _cognitive_ thinking can never approach the=20
world, he can only maintain this with the help of thinking, and in so=20
doing refutes himself. Whoever attempts to establish doubt in=20
thinking by means of thinking itself admits, by implication, that=20
thinking contains a power strong enough to support a conviction.=20
Lastly, our theory of knowledge transcends both onesided _empiricism_=20
and onesided _rationalism_ by uniting them at a _higher level_. In=20
this way, justice is done to both. _Empiricism_ is justified by=20
showing that as far as _content_ is concerned, all knowledge of the=20
given is to be attained only through direct contact with the given.=20
And it will be found that this view also does justice to=20
_rationalism_ in that thinking is declared to be both the _necessary_=20
and the _only_ mediator of knowledge.
****************************************************************
)In the example of the teaching of science in WSs, the point is=20
)actually, that WSs do not teach science, they teach contents from a=20
)certain notional system. It does not empower students to draw their=20
)own conclusions. It does not open the young people=B4s mind to=20
)scientific ways in building knowledge. It pre-selects the contents=20
)to be passed on to students and closes the door to other contents.
)
)No matter what the contents in point are - this
)*method* is *unscientific*.
)
)When one defends that schools should teach science, this does not=20
)mean simply pushing "scientific facts" down student=B4s throats, as I=20
)feel is sometimes implyed by anthroposophers on this list.
Personally, I normally stay clear of discussions related directly to=20
the classroom and to pedagogy, because it's not my turf. What I do=20
wish to point out, however, is that what I claim to be=20
"spiritual-scientific facts" in anthroposophy is not, to the best of=20
my knowledge, what is taught in Waldorf schools. The schools do not=20
teach Anthroposophy. Teaching is an art, and it is a science in the=20
same sense as there is a science to other arts like musical=20
composition, theatrical production and so on. The precision and=20
discipline in the arts has a science behind it. If education is not=20
scientific in this sense, it is not education at all.
Likewise, if music and theater and painting and poetry stagnated and=20
ceased to evolve, it would all die. I don't believe WE was intended=20
as a finished product, but as a blueprint for further growth and=20
creativity.
)Teaching science at school means encouraging curiosity, being open=20
)to students questions, valuing the student=B4s own conclusions,=20
)allowing for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from talking=20
)to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes, even eletronic media). What=20
)contents this include, is secondary. The contents will necessarily=20
)change depending on the historical moment in which the learning=20
)happens. But when the teaching is conducted in a scientific way,=20
)this is expected.
Sounds good to me.
)It also means not restricting the contents of what they are allowed=20
)to learn and certanly, not restricting them to European, medieval,=20
)pre-rationalist notions.
I don't believe that Waldorf students are restricted in this way, but=20
I'm leaving further comments to teachers and educators on the list.
Thank you, however, for a very interesting, challenging, and=20
thought-provoking post, Clara.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
=20 - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
--- Clara Paix (paixs yahoo.com.br) wrote:
) | Michael C:
) |
) Waldorf education argues that young children are
) | not yet ready for Copernicus. They should stick
) with
) | what they actually experience which is the sun
) | circling the earth until they are a little
) older.
)
) Clara:
)
) This shows how contradictory the arguments shown
) by the anthroposophers on this list are... At one
) point, it is argued that science in WSs is taught
) in a way that is not super-imposed, that is, that
) pupils learn from their own experinece, and not
) accepting what the teacher says is true, etc. But
) the statement above by M.C. shows clearly that WE
) selects and imposes the way children *should*
) learn.
)
) If the system were really one in which the
) knowledge comes from the child... then it would be
) up to the child to decide when they are ready for
) what, wouldn¥t it. Or at the very least, this
) decision should be made as a product of
) observation of the particular groups. It is not
) what happens, though - how does WE *know*
) "children are not ready for Copernicus"??!!
)
) The argument, in the statement by M. C., seems to
) lie the following snip (enphases added): "(...)
) *what they actually experience* which is the sun
) circling the earth (...)". Is that what they
) actually experience? How do you know?
Michael C:
Good point Clara, first of all I don't know what
anyone else experiences for sure and if I assume that
they experience something similar to what I experience
then it is like you say later, the sun comming up on
one side of the horizon and setting on the other.
)
) I mean - it is not *really* what happens,
) objectivelly, is it. At least I suppose we all
) know that by now. So how can it be stated that
) this is what they experience?
)
) The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
) just as as the earth circling the sun. It is *not*
) an experience. What we experience, what pure
) observation shows, is that *the sun appears at one
) side* in the morning, and *goes down at the other
) side* at noon.
Micheal C:
Clara I won't jump on you here for what appears to be
an obvious mistake and you must have meant something
like the sun is highest at noon and then goes down on
the other side at night. Also take note this is the
experience of persons out side of the polar regions. I
am not being picyunish here Clara I am very impressed
with this letter and another one that you wrote. I
pasted the part of the other letter that logically
fits this one.
)
) In order to think that it goes "round" the earth,
) one first has got to know *that the earth is
) round*, which would not be a concept immediatelly
) accessible by pure observation by a small child
) either (following your argument).
Michael C:
Clara,
Correct
)
) So in order to be logical, you would have to say
) that small children are not ready for the notion
) that the sun goes round the earth either (because
) they do not "experience" the "roundness" of
) earth). For all that matters, it could even be a
) different sun everyday up there... So they are not
) even ready for the concept of Sun, as One Entity.
)
) So you see it goes on and on. There is no end to
) this, logically.
Michael C:
It could be taken as an infinite regress but need not
be. Intuition can decide where for practical purposes
this can end as you demonstrate
)
) The truth behind your statement is, it
) *pre-selects* an abstract concept (roundness of
) the earth) that, it is supposed, the children can
) grasp. So "children are not ready for Copernicus"
) is not besed on a system that favours experience
) over abstraction at all. It is based on a system
) that pre-select the abstract notions that "should"
) be "disclosed" to children at every given stage.
)
) And in this selection, European medieval concepts
) are favoured.
Michael C:
This is the case with dogmatic Anthroposophy but need
not be.
)
) Or would you say it would be just as valid to
) teach the children that the earth swallows the sun
) every evening because she is forever, madly in
) love with him, - and then has to throw him up
) every morning, because he cannot stand the
) intensity of her love - as the Amazonian story
) goes?
Michael C:
Well I don't think that this is the case and I am not
going to write a big thing about this now. What
follows next is beautiful Clara. It is from another
letter you wrote on this subject.
)
)
) BTW when my 5 year-old son found out that the sun
) goes round the earth earth, and we showed him how
) it worked with a small lamp and a globe
) (heresy!!!),
Michael C:
Not Heresy in my book, more like practical genius, and
yet so simple.
)and he concluded that the Japanese
) sleep when we are awake and v.v. - it meant many
) weeks of exquisite wonder for him... He played
) Japanese all day; when we were having breakfast he
) giggled that they were having supper, when he went
) to bed he sayd Good Morning to his "little friend
) in Japan"; he had HUGE fun and wonderment. I am so
) glad he could have this experience and feel the
) wonders of how nature really works... I don¥t
) think this will make him a cynic at all - OTOH I
) know that too much gnome talk can make children
) unbelievable cynics at a very tender age.
Michael C:
Yes Clara I think that this will make him more
confident to accept that there are unkowns that may
become known. Now this is very different from what
happens in either the Waldorf or public school, but I
assert that what you did with your son is much closer
to the spirit of Waldorf.
By the way didn't you say in a previous letter that
you went to Waldorf schools as a child Clara ?
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
)
)
) Clara wrote:
)
) )The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
) )just as as the earth circling the sun.
)
) Thanks, Clara, I was going to comment on that and
) forgot. I was going to
) note that Michael C. said that the Copernican system
) is only sensible "if
) you take the sun as the still point," implying that
) this does not give a
) complete picture. But then why give the earth as the
) still point?
)
Michael C:
Although it is possible to experience things
differently this is what I believe most people
actually experience most of the time, the earth is
still. Now there are exceptions, one would be during
an earthquake. Another would be a person that has
damage to their inner ear. A more usefull eception
would be experienced by some that has done the work to
be able to actually experience things differently. A
real simple way to due this would be to watch the sun
set and keep reminding yourself the the earth is
spinning and that is why the sun appears to be moving
down. After a certain amount of time you will probably
have this a sense experience.
One more thing that I want to say is that I stared
this line of thought as a question as to why the
public schools teach the Copernican theory and they
teach it as fact or at least it is taken that way. You
bought into this Diana because you said
" Yes, it denies "sense experience" that the earth
circles the sun.
Nevertheless it does so. Get a grip!"
What other theories have we taken as dogma?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:28:53 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's Anti-Racism
I wrote:
)What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing characteristics to )different
)races that in fact have nothing to do with race, such as )intelligence or
)spirituality.
Raymon wrote:
)My understanding of 'racism' is that it is not in the actual ascribing )of
)the characteristics, as you state above, but it is in the )categorization
)or judgment of those characteristics as being superior )to those of another
)race.
I don't think that's correct. Unless there is some kind of scientific
evidence for racial differences - for instance certain races being
genetically more susceptible to certain diseases - or to take a more obvious
example, fair skin sunburns more easily than dark - otherwise there isn't
any validity, or any usefulness, to speculation about racial differences.
I don't know why anthroposophists are so loathe to give this up. These
differences simply do not exist. Theories "explaining" them are ignorant,
and have no social usefulness. Historically they have *always* caused
trouble.
)(The other definition of racism, whereby one judges an individual
) )according to some stereotype held of the individual's race, is I
) )understand not the issue here?)
Why would you think that's *not* the issue? If a racial characterization is
not accurate, it is by definition a stereotype. The problem with stereotypes
is they don't fit many of the people they are supposed to fit. They cause
misunderstandings and hurt, if not worse. Boy, this is sociology 101 isn't
it?
Steiner:
)"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
)may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also )the
)negative aspects of all races and peoples;
I wrote:
)Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races
) )don't *have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
Michael:
)Your point of view presumably is that by saying a given race has some
)positive aspect, one is therefore saying that this race is in this )respect
)superior to others. Am I correct?
No, that's not correct either. Probably many times the positive labels do
mean "superiority," but the real problem is exactly as I said: they aren't
accurate. The "nice" characterizations aren't any more acceptable than the
not-nice ones.
Why is this so painful to let go of? There aren't any differences between
you and someone whose skin color is different, except cultural differences
probably, and obviously individual ones. The rest of it is a myth; an
"us/them" thing.
Steiner:
)If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbour )no
)regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race.
I wrote:
)the question is, why *should* we have any regrets at "incarnating" in a
)particular race?
Michael:
)Quite right. Some of his audience, however, possibly would have had )such
)regrets, which is possibly why he made the statement.
Possibly so.
)How should he, instead, have addressed those regrets?
He should have refrained from inventing a complicated fictional scenario
ascribing different spiritual characteristics to different races.
I wrote:
)The tiny little problem, again, is that there is nothing "objective" )about
)his survey of national and racial characteristics;
Michael:
)It seems to me Steiner is attempting to tread a fine line between the
)description of certain characteristics, and the attribution of )superiority
)or inferiority to these same characteristics with respect )to some other
)race. He largely succeeded I believe.
Indeed he may have succeeded if this was his goal. But (and this is like
beating my head against the wall), the problem is he was wrong. Certain
races don't have "certain characteristics" beyond the physical.
There needn't be any fine line to tread, if one gives up the need to sort
people out racially. Then one needn't be catering to certain peoples' racial
hostility, and condescending to other people one has probably offended.
There would be no need for this pathetic, "I beg of you to understand this
in the light of . . . blah blah" with which Steiner begins every such
discussion.
)The plain describing of characteristics can be categorized as )objective,
Not if they are inaccurate! A person can certainly be trying to be
objective, but if they don't know what they are talking about, it kind of
misses the mark, don't you think?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:38:11 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Diana, you asked for my comments, so I will try a few:
On 3 Jun 2001, at 2:09, Diana Winters wrote:
) Michael Sieber wrote:
)
) )I do not know whether in the endless circles of the WC discussions
) )also the connection of the idea of reincarnation and karma with
) )Steiner's antiracism was covered.
)
Diana
) Many times. I agree with you it is a crucial point. If karma is taken
) seriously at all, of course a person's race is a result of karma.
) *Everything* is explained by karma (and hence, IMO, nothing is explained by
) karma).
)
Michael:
Steiner was stating that it is only possible to understand what he
says about the diversity of cultures :) on the basis of spiritual
science in general and the laws of R&K as stated therein specifically.
Now your point is that you find this r&k-business ridiculous and
Steiner's remarks on race dangerous.
But that is what Steiner says: without the proper counterweight of the
concept of r&k what he says thereafter will be misunderstood.
So the problem arising is the following:
IMO it makes no sense to discuss about more specific features if
there is no (at least hypothetical) agreement about the basics.
("Find these rules about addition completely wrong - but let's see
what is said about differential equations.")
"Then one has to believe about r&k before doing further research into
anthroposophy?"
No, I do not think so.
But I do think that one has
1. to try to understand as impartially as possible what is meant e.g.
by the concept of r&k (and the other basics of spiritual science).
2. After that there are two alternatives:
a) You are not convinced but you are able to understand these
concepts and are willing to accept them experimentally as basis for
examining the further structure.
b) You find them that repulsive or ridiculous that you won't even use
them experimentally.
Ok. That is your choice. But I feel that we have to stop further
arguments there and then if we are interested in a meaningful
discourse. Building the first floor on a nonexistent ground floor is
bound to fail.
) )A philosophy which includes the idea of reincarnation and karma can
) )not be racist.
)
) I disagree completely. What makes a philosophy racist is ascribing
) characteristics to different races that in fact have nothing to do with
) race, such as intelligence or spirituality. Reincarnation and karma do not
) get you off the hook for these characterizations, in fact they provide a
) handy excuse, a "spiritual" justification for ideas that have no other
) conceivable justification.
Again we are running into road b): For Steiner certainly only spiritual
justifications are real justifications, so if you cant accept that at least
experimentally ....
)
) )Because R&K (as understood by Steiner and many others) implies
) )that I will go through the different cultures and places of the world )in
) )my different incarnations. How can I look down at any other people
) )knowing that I was or will be incarnated in their community in a
) )former or later life?
)
) This is precisely what allows the person holding such views to make or agree
) with any and all racial characterizations, negative or positive, with
) supposed impunity.
)
) Besides, Steiner didn't suggest anybody "look down" at any particular race.
) It is all very benevolent, tolerant, inclusive, and meant to be spiritually
) helpful; that doesn't make it not racist.
)
That's an interesting point. For me personally that positive feeling I
had and have about Steiner's intentions was and is a driving force to
investigate further what I do not understand or find repelling.
And I feel that this is a very personal decision everybody has to
come to for himself: Where can I trust and where am I deceived
through my feelings?
And I find it to be not simple decision.
(sorry that I have to disagree with supermanin this point)
) )Rudolf Steiner, Kristiana, 11. June 1910:
)
) )"When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we
) )may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also
) )the negative aspects of all races and peoples;
)
) Michael, the tiny little problem with this is that the different races don't
) *have* the positive or the negative aspects he ascribed to them.
)
way on road b):
How do you know that distinctly?
To start with my own cultural background I have no difficulty to find
contras ....
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
--- "Michael J. Sieber" (michael_j.sieber t-online.de)
wrote:
)
) Still I believe that understanding could be possible
) because I feel that
) there is an almost continuous sequence between these
) different
) attitudes or moods:
)
) Fanatic Anthroposophist
) Dogmatic Anthroposophist
) Critical Anthroposophist
) Anthroposophy Critic
) Dogmatic Anthroposophy Critic
) Fanatic Anthroposophy Critic
)
) (You could exchange Anthr. and Waldorf, but in the
) current context
) of "spiritual underpinnings" it is rather the
) A-topic.)
)
Michael C:
Nice analysis Michael Silber
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Michael C wrote:
)
) )When we ask children to make the leap to
) Copernicus, we ask
) )them to deny what they see and just take it on
) faith.
)
) I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is traumatic, or
) some big educational
) problem. One could learn very little about the world
) beyond one's own
) backyard -- other cultures, history, geography -- if
) one refused to believe
) anything not verifiable by one's own sense
) experiences. There would be
) little point in reading a book.
Michael C:
All or nearly all of the childrens books and for that
matter adult books written about other cultures are
written form the perspective of the writer, a person
born and raised with industrail age or post industrial
age values.
)
) Oh, I forgot - to Waldorf teachers, there *is*
) little point in children
) reading books!
Michael C:
It is a lot easier to teach them to read then it is to
teach them orally. Unfortunately there is likely to be
a high percentage of Waldorf "teachers" that are just
not up to the task
)
) )By the way telling young children that the earth
) )circles the sun explains nothing to them unless
) they
) )have been looking up at the night sky and following
) )the movements of the planets.
)
) Yes, and that's a great thing to do with children,
) except I suppose Waldorf
) teachers don't think so (a telescope would be just
) as bad as a microscope,
) right? Looking at matter through matter?)
Michael C:
Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn can easily be seen
without a telescope, even in most cities that have a
lot of artificial light at night. I have tried and
been unable to. Seeing mercury without a telescope is
very difficult, unless the conditions are just right.
There is plenty to learn from observation of the
planets without telescopes. If you have young children
why not let them learn this way first. One of the
benefits is that they can see the planets in context
with the rest of the sky. Also you may save money on
a telescope that is used a few time and then sits in
the closet.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:58:17 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dan Dugan wrote:
)This race-based theory of history was old-fashioned in Steiner's
)time, and is a ridiculous anachronism today. One doesn't have to
)harbor ill-will against other races to be called a racist; teaching
)ignorance qualifies, too.
Using the same line of logic, I am qualified to call anything of my
choice "ignorant" or "racist" if I do not understand it. I don't know
how many times we've been through this, but in the
theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution, "races" means
"epochs." Blavatsky also used the expression "rounds." On Atlantis,
epochs and races were connected. This is not the case today, and
Steiner in fact supported your point that it is anachronistic.
)[Steiner]
))"So long as one has the slightest tendency to take personally an
))objective description of a particular race or people, it will be
))difficult to reach an unprejudiced understanding of the facts
))presented in this lecturecourse. For this reason these matters can
))only be discussed in the light of Spiritual Science."
)
)He's saying that liberals and people from non-Aryan races are going
)to be offended by the racial doctrines of Anthroposophy, doctrines
)that Steiner calls "objective" and "facts," and Tarjei Straume also
)calls "facts." He was right about that.
He is saying no such thing about "liberals" or "non-Aryan races." He
is referring to people unfamiliar with spiritual science, regardless
of ethnicity and irrespective of being liberals or conservatives.
)And Steiner tells you what part each race plays. The Jews, for
)example, had as their mission the creation of a physical body for
)The Christ Spirit to incarnate into. Now that has happened they "no
)longer have a right to exist."
Your allegations of anti-Semitism are completely off the wall when it
comes to Steiner, Dan. This has also been explained by Peter Normann
Waage in his second article, "New Myths about Rudolf Steiner"
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/pnw/pnweng2.html):
"A lot of prominent Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were
promoting assimilation, a point of view that was liberal at that
time. Steiner, and many others with him, viewed it as ill-timed and
anachronistic to insist on the connection between religion and state,
even if it concerned a Christian or a Jewish religion. 'The Jews need
Europe, and Europe needs the Jews,' he wrote already in 1888. When
Theodor Herzl published the major work of Zionism in 1896, Der
Judenstaat, it evoked objections from Jewish as well as non-Jewish
quarters. The idea that the Jews should withdraw to Palestine
testified to isolationism and a desire to separate from mainstream
cultural development. Rudolf Steiner belonged to these critics. After
the Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, Steiner wrote the article The
Jews' Longing for Palestine, where he rejected Zionism, which he
considered more dangerous than anti-Semitism. Zionism, on the other
hand, he calls 'an enemy of Jewry,' and he more than indicates that a
Jewish state in Palestine will never be established."
When we see the current explosion in the Middle East, the opposition
to Zionism wasn't necessarily all that stupid. Steiner's opposition
to ethnically homogoneous states because of the danger of nationalism
was also pretty wise when we look at the Balkans.
Waage also writes:
"Steiner was intensely opposed to the blend of state and nation. He
saw every 'ethnically pure' state formation as a danger, also a
'Jewish state.' Nevertheless, later on he became a good friend of the
Zionist Schmuel Hugo Bergman (1883 - 1975)
(http://www.info3.de/archiv/info3/Artikel/2000-06/0600bergman-bio.html
). Bergman emigrated to Palestine in 1920 and founded, together with
Martin Buber (http://www.buber.de/en/), a movement promoting a
dual-national Palestine, where Jews and Arabs could live under equal
conditions. He translated several of Steiner's books about
threefolding to Hebrew. Bergman became a professor at the University
of Jerusalem (http://www.huji.ac.il/ ) and later on the dean of the
university. He lectured regularly on Rudolf Steiner's works, and
although he emphasized that he was not an anthroposophist, he called
Steiner 'one of the great teachers of humanity.' At the centennial of
Steiner's birth, in 1961, Bergman arranged a celebration at the
university and held a lecture at the Jerusalem Anthroposophical
Society: 'How Rudolf Steiner saved my life.'"
(http://www.info3.de/archiv/info3/Inhalte/inhalt0600.html)
The apparent source of your confusion is that of the Old Testament
ethos of "an eye for an eye," which Steiner, and Gandhi and M.L.King
with him, thought should be replaced with the New Testament ethos of
"turning the other cheek" - forgiveness and compassion and loving
your enemies and all that. This is what Steiner was getting at when
he talked about cultures failing to renew themselves. (Imagine what a
difference that would have made in the Middle East today.)
)"Older races only persist because there are men who cannot or will
)not move forward to a higher racial form." [Steiner, 1908, ISBM pp.
)134-135]
In some instances race means race; in others race and races means
culture and cultural, and in other cases again, it means nothing but
epochs or rounds. It's useless and fruitless to keep artuing here,
because it leads only to the quagmire of semantic drivel. A
distinction needs to be made between racist remarks per se and the
uses of the words "races" and "racial" in various contexts.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:28:35 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
On 3 Jun 2001, at 21:58, Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) )This race-based theory of history was old-fashioned in Steiner's
) )time, and is a ridiculous anachronism today. One doesn't have to
) )harbor ill-will against other races to be called a racist; teaching
) )ignorance qualifies, too.
)
) Using the same line of logic, I am qualified to call anything of my
) choice "ignorant" or "racist" if I do not understand it.
Thanks, Tarjei, for stepping in and fighting anarchosophically the rule
of dan-ish prejudice!
But you will see, prejudice will rise its head again - until, yea, until it
is slaughtered by himself, by his master and caretaker.
You think we'll see that day?
Dan, what do YOU say?
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:37:30 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
On 3 Jun 2001, at 11:35, michael C wrote:
)
) --- "Michael J. Sieber" (michael_j.sieber t-online.de)
) wrote:
) )
) ) Still I believe that understanding could be possible
) ) because I feel that
) ) there is an almost continuous sequence between these
) ) different
) ) attitudes or moods:
) )
) ) Fanatic Anthroposophist
) ) Dogmatic Anthroposophist
) ) Critical Anthroposophist
) ) Anthroposophy Critic
) ) Dogmatic Anthroposophy Critic
) ) Fanatic Anthroposophy Critic
) )
) ) (You could exchange Anthr. and Waldorf, but in the
) ) current context
) ) of "spiritual underpinnings" it is rather the
) ) A-topic.)
) )
) Michael C:
)
) Nice analysis Michael Sieber
)
Thanks!
But what is your conclusion?
You think that some sort of understanding will be possible here?
Michael S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:02:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:
Raymon, you wrote,
)Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has said above re human
)epistemology being subject to change, that the 'spiritual-scientific facts'
)he was talking about (ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
)evolution') will change, and in fact are changing. And that
)Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed dogmatic.
Tell me more.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:17:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
Raymon, you wrote,
)My understanding was that WS students do in fact leave at the age of 18 or
)whatever having been taught essentially the same content of orthodox science
)as pupils in other schools, this being in order that they should not be
)behind should they pursue college studies. Am I wrong here?
Yes. I was given some high school science workbooks that express
concepts of Anthroposophy rather than science. And the teacher's
intention was to show me how good their science program was! I'm sure
there are counter-examples from good teachers, but the good teachers
have to depart from principles of Goethean Science in order to be
good teachers. Many become only more deeply entrenched in
Anthroposophy as they study more of it.
(snip)
)The
)engendering of some respect for a qualitative approach to science embodied
)in such systems, in contrast to the currently successful (or at least
)popular) quantitative approach, should mean the WS student is less
)dismissive of approaches used by other cultures such as the Chinese. This
)dismissive approach, typical of the West in recent centuries, causes much
)resentment amongst other peoples, due to a sort of implied racism ('our
)knowledge is superior to yours' etc).
There is real science and pseudoscience in China, just as there is
here. The majority of institutions teach real science, same as here.
The traditional Chinese elements don't represent Chinese science
today any more than the Greek four elements represent European
science today. Science is a world-wide culture.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:42:44 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
Michael C, you wrote,
)Perhaps it is even more important from a moral point
)of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
)their complete comprension and therefore somehow
)sacred.
It isn't necessary for something to be a mystery to be respected.
Attitudes are adopted from the behavior of role models and peer
groups.
)Unfortunately there are people that see their
)life's mission to explain life and conciousness purely
)in mechanistic/materialistic terms.
Fortunately most teachers see their life's mission as the sharing of
the best available knowledge, rather than the dogma of a particular
sect.
)While I think this
)is great up to a point I have very good reason to
)believe that it can never be done.
I think the process of reducing consciousness to its biochemical
elements is well under way; however this frame of reference will be
useful for some purposes but won't supplant other frames of reference
that are more useful for many other purposes. Psychology, for
example, based on human behavior. When I program a computer, I work
in a symbolic language, and I don't care whether the actual computing
elements are electronic or mechanical, as long as the system behavior
is modeled accurately. Similarly, I don't expect increasing knowledge
of how the brain works to supplant principles of psychology, only to
deepen them.
)How ever what can
)be done is that people buy into this as the truth (the
)brain= the mind, the brain is made out of matter,
)matter is subject to mechanistic deterministic laws,
)therefore the human beings are not responsible for any
)of their actions).
This argument is often used against science by religious people. My
ethics come from my culture, and that is very little affected by
knowledge of brain biochemistry.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 01:33:13 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: culture and dogma (was: "four elements")
Dan Dugan wrote:
)My ethics come from my culture, and that is very little affected by
)knowledge of brain biochemistry.
You are now speaking from a dualistic point of view where science is
completely separated from culture (including arts, religion, and
ethics).
The heretical goal of Anthroposophy is to re-unite sciece, religion,
and art - not for the purpose of turning the clock back to medieval
times or to the culture of ancient Chaldea, but to bring about a
renewal of all these fields by making them interactive in a manner
that is suitable and expedient for the New Age in the proper sense of
this term.
There was a Newsweek cover story (yes, another one) some years ago
where some brain surgeons in California made the conclusive and
authoritative claim that the human experience of "I" or "egohood" is
an illusion. The follow-up letters to the editor were quite
interesting. Among them was a Buddhist monk in Paris and a religious
science professor in Jerusalem.
This was an example where representatives of science made an
endeavor, in a sense, to exercise authority in the realm of
philosophy and religion. This gives rise to another question: To what
extent are eminent scientists and doctors like brain surgeons gurus
in modern society, and to how many people does their word become
dogma?
Dan Dugan also wrote:
)I'm sure there are counter-examples from good teachers, but the good
)teachers have to depart from principles of Goethean Science in order
)to be good teachers.
I believe that the people best qualified to make a judgement of this
kind would be those who have an equal understanding of Goethean and
Newtonian science alike. When I see how many misunderstandings and
how much disinformation about Steiner and Anthroposophy is floating
around here, it is fair to assume that conceptions about Goethean
science, which is incorporated in Anthroposophy, may be equally
distorted.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:22:29 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael S. (I think; so many Michael's) wrote:
)while trying to answer in detail I was too much frustrated by the )prospect
)of further mutual nonunderstanding... so I first tried to )contemplate some
)aspects regarding understanding and nonund. in this )group.
)While I try to give a more specific answer you might try to tell me
)about your feelings in regard to the level of (and reasons for) (non-
))understanding here?
I might be frustrated if I were trying to change an anthroposophist's mind
about anything, but I have no intention of trying that. I was raised in a
fundamentalist religion and I understand that arguing with zealotry is a
waste of time.
Although actually I didn't recognize the zealotry when I saw it, at first,
in Waldorf/anthroposophy, probably because it does have that emotional draw
for me. I'm not here because I think there will ever be a meeting of the
minds between anthroposophy and its critics, I'm merely here to give
prospective parents a few details about the *reality* of Waldorf, as opposed
to all the lofty ideals, which are so enticing, and yet what is going on in
the classrooms is so consistently unhealthy and damaging.
I admit it is utterly fascinating to me to see how important it is to
anthroposophists to defend every detail of Steiner, no matter how insane or
even dangerous it may be (and I don't think that about all of Steiner; most
of it is harmless if silly, and though he may have had a worthwhile insight
or two, personally I think he made most of it up.)
But the main thing is, had I been able to read this sort of dialogue when we
were still in the process of considering Waldorf, and had any clue of the
cult-like mentality that is so evident in these discussions, the religious
fervor, the sense of mission, behind Waldorf, it would probably have helped
us steer clear. Certainly it would have made my husband hit the ceiling -
we'd never have gone there. I know that this list accomplishes that for
other parents too.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 329
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Anthroposophy and Dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
=?iso
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
FWD: Re: Steiner's Anti-Racism
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
OFFTOPIC - FW: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS,
NEW ZEALAND
By Gary GoodWinter.com
U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By lizanderrol home.com
The Daily Rhythm
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion addendum
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight please
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re:_Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn =?iso
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: OFFTOPIC - FW: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC
ISLANDS, NEW ZEALA
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:55:04 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael C.:
)Steiner was stating that it is only possible to understand what he
)says about the diversity of cultures :) on the basis of spiritual
)science in general and the laws of R&K as stated therein specifically.
)Now your point is that you find this r&k-business ridiculous and
)Steiner's remarks on race dangerous.
Nope, that's not my point. I have no idea whether I or anyone else will be
reincarnated.
My point was that the "R & K" theory cannot be used to "save" the racial
theories from being racist. If you make a statement ascribing (incorrectly)
various evaluations to different races, you are making a racist statement.
That is the definition of racism. Your spiritual motivations, or your
spiritual theories, do not change it. (If anything they make it worse, but I
suppose that's not necessary to the argument.)
R & K means you can justify any racist statement. You figure your own
motives are good, since you're just seeing the "big picture" written in the
Akashic Record, and you can kid yourself you are somehow personally
implicated, since you might yourself be that race some day, so nobody can
blame you for having an opinion about any race you might be part of,
sometime. (reincarnation)
Also, if incarnating in a particular race is a choice, rather than chance,
nobody ought to be complaining, right, either about what race they were born
into, or what anyone else has to say about that race? (karma)
)But that is what Steiner says: without the proper counterweight of the
)concept of r&k what he says thereafter will be misunderstood.
Sorry: "counterweight" doesn't change racist statements. In fact
"counterweight" gives it away. If no racist statement were made, there would
be no need or impulse to "counterweight" it.
)I do think that one has
)1. to try to understand as impartially as possible what is meant e.g.
)by the concept of r&k (and the other basics of spiritual science).
)2. After that there are two alternatives:
)a) You are not convinced but you are able to understand these
)concepts and are willing to accept them experimentally as basis for
)examining the further structure.
I don't think they're even relevant. I don't buy the claim that I must share
or even care about your philosophy about reincarnation, to recognize a
racist statement when I see one. It's at best irrelevant, at worst a sorry
self-justification.
)b) You find them that repulsive or ridiculous that you won't even use
)them experimentally.
For the record, I don't find either reincarnation or karma repulsive or
ridiculous, personally. While I do not "believe" in either one personally, I
don't know them to be untrue either, and I try to respect other peoples'
religous beliefs. I do find pushing religious beliefs on children,
especially when their parents are not even aware this is being done,
repulsive, yes.
)Ok. That is your choice. But I feel that we have to stop further
)arguments there and then if we are interested in a meaningful
)discourse. Building the first floor on a nonexistent ground floor is
)bound to fail.
Fine, up to you. It is patently ridiculous to claim that no one can call
Steiner's statements racist, or have any right to challenge them, if they
don't buy into karma and reincarnation.
We've seen this argument many times here too: "If you don't agree with me,
you have no grounds for arguing with me . . ."
)For Steiner certainly only spiritual justifications are real
) )justifications, so if you cant accept that at least experimentally ....
Well then put it this way: they *don't* justify it. The idea that I or
anyone else will be reincarnated, does *not* justify racist
characterizations of others.
)the different races don't *have* the positive or the negative aspects )he
)ascribed to them.
)How do you know that distinctly?
Life experience, I suppose? Although frankly, small children on the
playground have no trouble understanding this - that skin color doesn't tell
you anything about a person - and do not start stereotyping each other or
having misperceptions about other races until (or unless) adults foist these
on them.
Actually, all the complex and bizarre notions humans come up with to
separate and categorize and stereotype each other based on various
superficialities, are really very abstract and intellectual, aren't they?
Children know better.
Couldn't thinking about all these racial abstractions cause internal organ
damage? Wouldn't it be better to "observe life phenomenologically"? :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Anthroposophy and Dogma
DAN WROTE
Yes. I was given some high school science workbooks that express
concepts of Anthroposophy rather than science. And the teacher's
intention was to show me how good their science program was! I'm sure there
are counter-examples from good teachers, but the good teachers have to
depart from principles of Goethean Science in order to be good teachers.
Many become only more deeply entrenched in Anthroposophy as they study more
of it.
Dan,
By 'concepts of Anthroposophy' do you mean Goethean Science? While I have a
lot of time for Goethean Science (though the fact that it is way more
difficult than orthodox science has put a damper on things rather) I do
deplore the situation where a student departing for College studies in the
scientific field is disadvantaged through not having achieved the same level
of knowledge as his peers from other schools.
DAN WROTE
There is real science and pseudoscience in China, just as there is here. The
majority of institutions teach real science, same as here. The traditional
Chinese elements don't represent Chinese science today any more than the
Greek four elements represent European science today. Science is a
world-wide culture.
Dan,
While it can be argued that Western science is indeed a world-wide culture,
those not in the West by and large see it rather as Western, white,
Christian culture. The fact that many Americans do not see this is in part
responsible for their being, to their surprise, on the receiving end of a
fair amount of resentment from peoples in the non-West.
Yes, traditional Chinese elements do not represent the Western science being
carried out in China. They do not however label this as pseudo-science, and
are offended when those from outside do so - this is after all their own
culture. They (traditional and Western science) coexist side-by-side. For
an example of something based on traditional principles, recall acupuncture
- once a good candidate for the 'pseudoscience' label - it is now I believe
accepted by mainstream medicine.
So back to my point, a WS pupil may be less dismissive of other cultures'
traditions, if he has some respect and understanding for those of his own
culture, such as is gained via some study of qualitative scientific method.
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Dogma
------Original Message------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Raymon, you wrote,
)Tarjei would presumably agree, from what he has said above re human
)epistemology being subject to change, that the 'spiritual-scientific facts'
)he was talking about (ie the 'theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
)evolution') will change, and in fact are changing. And that
)Anthroposophists who say otherwise are indeed dogmatic.
Tell me more.
Dan,
You mean about 'spiritual-scientific facts' changing?
Both Anthroposophists and the rest of us tend to view facts as unchanging -
that theories change but facts do not. And perhaps Anthroposophists view
'spiritual-scientific facts' as facts but the rest of us view these same
'spiritual-scientific facts' as theory. Wrong theory at that.
As Tarjei intimated, to separate 'fact' and 'theory' as I have done above is
partly the source of misunderstanding. Indeed in Goethean Science we have
it said that 'the facts ARE the theory' - an awfully difficult concept.
As an example of facts changing in orthodox science, we can note the fact
'the earth is stationary' changed to the different fact 'the earth circles
the sun'. Usually when there is a drastic paradigm shift, it is found the
facts change too. And incidentally the tendency now in the current spirit
of scientific enquiry is I believe that one does not say the former fact was
'wrong' and the newer fact 'right'.
One might feel that the fact 'water is made of hydrogen and oxygen' might
never change - but one day it will I am sure, in fact will be regarded as an
old superstition as Tarjei said - providing science continues to advance.
And if these facts can change, 'spiritual-scientific facts' will too.
To answer your question then, an example scenario under which
'spiritual-scientific facts' can change, and which which Anthroposophists
should find it dificult to argue:
Steiner claimed he was casting the knowledge he perceived into concepts
understandable by those who could not perceive the knowledge directly. The
analogy being perhaps describing colors to a blind man. Since those on the
receiving end possess an evolving mindset, the concepts into which the
knowledge is cast need to change in order to keep up with the changing
nature of the audience. A lot of what Steiner said is coming up to be a
century old, and little by little certain of what he said is going over our
heads due to our mindset being so different to those at that time. As as
analogy, what Shakepeare said was doubtless much clearer to those of his
time than it is to those of us who try to decipher him today. There is a
clear need for renewal of his concepts.
Another scenario could be the viewing of the same phenomena from different
perspectives - an accepted view within Anthroposophy. Steiner clearly
described things from more than one perspective, which is as it happens the
source of much confusion. Were someone to describe it from say a 21st
century perspective, necessarily different to his, then the
'spiritual-scientific facts' would necessarily be different. No one
perpective can be the 'truth' said Steiner. Hence', no one set of
'spiritual-scientific facts' can be the truth. Hence there should be no
Anthroposphical dogma, or Anthroposophic dogmatists.
Don't know if this is what you were after with your 'tell me more', Dan
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
TARJEI SAID
I would take this argument of yours one step further by suggesting that if
something is not empirically verifiable at all, it is not "knowledge" per
se.
Tarjei,
Are you not dismissing pure mathematics as a body of knowledge then?
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:06:53 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
Raymond wrote:
)CLARA:
The elementary difference between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that the
former is *verifyable*, while the latter are not -
if I may add my 2c.
Clara,
Are you here, by 'knowledge', talking about
'scientific facts' as opposed to 'scientific
theory'? Scientific facts, ie experimental
results, are by and large verifiable yes. We do
have whole schools of knowledge though, such as
psychology and architecture, which are considered
more or less respectable sciences, but which
perhaps fail your definition. As long as the
approach used is rational, seems to be the main
yardstick, thather than that there are 'verifiable
results'.
Clara:
It is true that my statement above was not very
clear. But I did not mean simply "scientific facts
are verifyable facts", I meant the construction of
knowledge in science, in a broader sense, has got
to be verifyable. So in the examples you give;
psychology - I don¥t think it necessarily fails my
definition. A theory about the human
mind/behaviour/etc. can very well be scientific,
if it works with concepts that can be publicly
debated, if it conducts research to verify the
pertinence of its statements, etc.
I don¥t think rationality is the yardstick, as you
affirm. A theory may be rational without being
scientific. First of all, what is "rational"? What
is accepted as rational for many, may not be
accepted for some. It is maybe the case of
Antrhoposophy; it aims at rationality; some think
it¥s rational, others that it is irrational... Or
Spiritualism (Kardecist line). Who decides what is
rational?
)CLARA:
That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is occultist, it is not scientific;
if only initiates can grasp the concepts, it is
not scientific.
Clara,
By 'concepts' you now seem to mean 'theory'?
Three or four people in the world today, perhaps,
understand fully current theories of physics, and
these theories anyway are not considered fully
verified. They seem, furthermore, to depend on
the presence of the observer-cum-experimental
apparatus in a manner which affects the very
verifiablilty itself.
Clara:
You see, I¥m speaking in methodological terms, not
empiric terms. What you say about physics may be
true, empirically speaking. But methodologically,
physics is scientific (in fact it is the most well
established of sciences in this sense!). The
current theories of physics may not have been
"empirically tested"; but they are veryfyable.
There may be a confusion on the two terms.
Verifyable doesn¥t mean empirically tested (or
proven). Not all fields of science can test their
theories empirically. Biology can do it;
chemistry; but in astrophysics for example, this
is more complicated. The classical examples would
be the human or social sciences. How can a theory
of history be empirically tested? It cannot;
empirical test is not pertinet to this field.
Nevertheless, History can be considered a science
if research is conducted in solid methodological
basis.
Raymond:
In any case, many on this list, judging by their
ability to criticise or
condone Steiner's 'occult science', clearly do
believe they understand at
least some of the concepts. This is not the same
thing as being able to
prove these concepts, as you say. And this is
indeed a serious weakness.
Clara:
As I said; I¥m talking about verifying, not
proving. For example, if we were debating Piaget¥s
theories on child development. His concepts have
not been "proven". But they are verifyable; one
can debate his ideas scientifically. Not with
anthroposophy. If it is stated that the child only
incarnated completely at age seven - this is
undebatable, and unverifyable. Because either you
accept incarnation, or you don¥t - it is a matter
of faith.
Raymond:
However I would repeat that the essence of science
to me lies in the
applying of a rational approach rather than in
being able to independently verify the various
arcane statements made by Steiner.
Clara:
I¥d disagree. Steiner¥s theories can be rational,
for some. They are nevertheless unscientific. You
can build the most rational description of the
hierarchy of angels and archangles in heaven; it
can make the most perfect sense. But it is not
science.
)CLARA:
So, it is not a matter of wether the facts (the
object of the theory) are changing or not. It is a
matter of the approach in which the theory is
built.
Raymond:
Clara,
The approach in which the theory is built is
certainly not that of
theoretical physics. But it has much in common
with for example psychology, where a Freud will
make certain pronouncements which are then
considered rationally, applied in practice, then
the results considered again rationally. Can not
Anthroposophy proceed in a similar manner?
Clara:
Good comparison. What happens with Freud, then; he
suggested a theory of the unconcious. Well nobody
has ever seen the Unconcious walking around,
however the evidence brought by Freud was solid
enough to have inspired a century of debate about
the unconcious.
Now, this debate is conducted scientifically; the
concepts engendered by Freud have been examined
from various points of view, discussed, turned
inside out, etc. The theory has been changed,
developed; there are different lines stemming from
the core theory, etc. And for the most part, I
don¥t see the freudians freaking about that Freud
is being wronged. I have never heard of a freudian
saying: "Freud knew about the unconcious because
he had secret access to it. If you don¥t accept
it, it¥s because you are not developed enough. In
fact you¥d better not even debate it: it is the
Truth".
So the Unconcious, for freudians (well maybe not
for some fanatic-religious ones... but by large),
is a concept that can be debated. Is the spiritual
world a debatable concept for anthroposophers? No
it isn¥t; it is an article of faith.
)CLARA:
In the example of the teaching of science in WSs,
the point is actually, that WSs do not teach
science, they teach contents from a certain
notional system. It does not empower students to
draw their own conclusions. It does not open the
young people¥s mind to scientific ways in building
knowledge. It pre-selects the contents to be
passed on to students and closes the door to other
contents.
Raymond:
Clara,
My understanding was that WS students do in fact
leave at the age of 18 or whatever having been
taught essentially the same content of orthodox
science as pupils in other schools, this being in
order that they should not be behind should they
pursue college studies. Am I wrong here?
Clara:
You are, in my case, but of course I cannot speak
of W students everywhere. More below, though:
)CLARA:
Teaching science at school means encouraging
curiosity, being open to students questions,
valuing the student¥s own conclusions, allowing
for a great variety of sources of knowledge (from
talking to adults to books, and -yikes! - yes,
even eletronic media). What contents this include,
is secondary. The contents will necessarily change
depending on the historical moment in which the
learning happens. But when the teaching is
conducted in a scientific way, this is expected.
It also means not restricting the contents of what
they are allowed to learn, and certanly, not
restricting them to European, medieval,
pre-rationalist notions.
Raymond:
Clara,
I agree that the contents of what they are allowed
to learn should not be
restricted, and was not aware this was so. I
would like to know where WS students anywhere are
restricted to European medieval pre-rationalist
notions as you suggest above. This should
certainly not happen nowadays.
Clara:
The contents are restricted. Re Michael¥s earlier
post - small children are not ready for
Copernicus. There are a lot of things children are
not "ready" for: dinossaurs, space travel, you
name it. More below:
Raymond:
As an aside, re the teaching of the 'four
elements'. If done as an adjunct to the teaching
of orthodox science, there is one example benefit
so far not yet mentioned. It is not solely a
European notion. The Chinese for example have
something similar though eg they include the
qualities 'wood' and 'metal' which are not
individually included in the European system. The
engendering of some respect for a qualitative
approach to science embodied in such systems, in
contrast to the currently successful (or at least
popular) quantitative approach, should mean the WS
student is less dismissive of approaches used by
other cultures such as the Chinese. This
dismissive approach, typical of the West in recent
centuries, causes much resentment amongst other
peoples, due to a sort of implied racism ('our
knowledge is superior to yours' etc).
Clara:
Raymond - I understand and appreciate your
position. I think many people think this way about
what goes on on WSs. It must sound like critics of
W are freaking fundamentalists when they argue
against the teaching of the four elements, if one
thinks that this teaching is done alongside the
teaching of ortodox science.
But the problem is - it is not. It is taught as a
FACT. As *the* fact. Not in a cultural comparative
approach, which might, I agree, be an interesting
educational endeavour.
The whole problem is, a scientific approach to
nature and the human life is not encouraged - is
in fact avoided - at WSs. As I said in another
post, it is less a matter of contents than of the
way things are taught. The teaching is dogmatic,
in the sense that contents are pre-selected and
passed on theacher-student exclusivelly.
What happens with the children, in my experience,
is that they become very poorly prepared to deal
with the world. It becomes difficult to
differentiate facts from legends, for example;
largely, because legends and facts are presented
as one thing. When old testament stories are your
curriculum for ancient history...The four elements
are the basic concepts for organic chemistry...
Steiner¥s theory about human development is the
content of courses named Anthropology in high
school... Well it gets hard to understand the
world.
And the worst part is (IMO) that because all this
knowledge is build in a teacher-student,
one-way-only hand, you don¥t develop the ability
to sort things out for yourself. It becomes all
blurred in your mind. It would be fine if,
alongisde for example the theory of evolution in a
darwinian sense, you knew there were other
theories on evolution, for example spiritual
theories, for example Steiner¥s. Then you could
form your own opinion - fine. But this is not how
it happens; you have it all as one big blurry
picture, and you cannot make the difference. (that
is - *when* all you have is not Steiner¥s
theories).
Have you read my posts about my philosophy course
at HS? I think it demostrates my point well.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:40:30 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?owledge/was=5F=22=5Ffo_=3D=3Fi?=
| --- Clara Paix (paixs yahoo.com.br) wrote:
| )
| ) Michael C. wrote (on the teaching of science
at
| ) WSs):
| | ) | I am pretty sure this is what they are
trying to
| ) do in| ) | Waldorf Education is build up the
body of
| ) knowledge in| ) | the child in the same way as
it was built up in
| ) | humanity.
| )
| ) Clara here:
| | ) In this case the building of knowledge had
better
| ) include ALL stages that ALL cultures had gone
| ) through. Why isn¥t the body of knowledge of
| ) Eastern peoples - Chinese, Indian...-
included? Or
| ) the Inca, the Maia, the Aztec body of
knowledge?
| ) Why not Native Amazonian peoples? Australian
| ) Aborigens? The Swahili? The Bantu body of
| ) knowledge?
| | ) If one is to accept the notion you forward
above,
| ) then the knowledge built by those cultures
would
| ) have to be included too. Otherwise, well, then
the
| ) concept of "Humanity"
|
| Michael C:
| Clara,
| | It looks like you caught me in a mistake here
Clara.
| Actually I just didn't explain what I meant
clearly
| enough. What I meant was the body of knowledge
that is
| passed to children through schools in grades K
to 12,
| in the industrial and post industrial world. Now
of
| course there are variations in this body of
knowledge,
| but I think you can accept this concept without
me
| having to write a book to explain it (the
concept of
| an industrail and post industrial world
curricullem
| for K - 12)
Clara:
I understand that. But then; if you are referring
to "an industrail and post industrial world
curricullem", why the restriction on Copernicus?
Or, for example - why should Goethe¥s theory on
colour be preferred? Why should Darwin¥s theory of
evolution be ignored?
I think it is more that that Michael. It is not an
"industrail and post industrial world curricullem"
that is passed on at WSs; they are curriculum
based on Steiner, what *he* believed, what *he*
thought was valid in this culture. And remember -
Steiner lived a hundred years ago. Neverhtelss,
the curriculem has not changed!!!
Michael:
| I basically agree with you that it MIGHT be wise
to
| include the knowledge from all cultures in
education.
| On the other hand nearly all education that has
taken
| place in the modern industrial world is very
Euro
| Centric. (snip)
Clara:
You see I¥m not defending school curriculem should
include the knowledge from all cultures. I was
only pointing out that in order to be coherent,
the waldorf postulate that knowledge should be
build into the child following the way in which it
was built in humaniy should then include the
knowledge from all cultures. In fact - I was
trying to point out that this is *not* done, and
that the postulate does not hold.
Michael:
(snip)| In addition the prestigious scholar James
Needham
| makes a very good case that the Chinese and
| perticularllly the Taoists made huge
contributions to
| modern western technology and Science. I doubt
very
| much that this is taught in public schools. You
see
| although these schools change very rapidly in
| superficial ways, like having computers in the
| classroom, the public schools are also very far
behind
| the times.
| )
Clara:
May well be. I¥m not in the position to discuss
what happens in US public schools, being in
another country.
However - the comparison to public schools
anywhere is I think not always to the point in the
debates here. I gather public schools everywhere
are more likely to be identifyed with traditional
education. And when parents choose WE, it must be
because they are not happy with traditional
education in the first place. The problem is, some
end up discovering that the "alternative" provided
by WE was unsound.
I don¥t think it is valid, when arguing WE, to
ay -oh but public shools don¥t do any better. I¥m
not discussing public schools; I¥m discussing
wether WE lives up to the expectations of the
parents - expectations that were engendered by the
schools themselves. Do they deliver an education
towards freedom, are they centered on the child,
etc.
Michael:
[Clara:]
| ) In my view the statement above simply doesn¥t
| ) hold. It¥s illogic. It pressuposed that not
| ) *every* stage of the building up of knowledge
in
| ) humanity *everywhere* will be contemplated by
this
| ) form of education.
|
| Michael C:
| Clara,
| | First off I stated that this a theory behind
this
| approach to education as far as I understand it.
| Secondly we are talking about a eurocentric body
of
| knowledge when we talk about nearly all
education that
| tkes place in formal schools for children in the
| industrialized world.
Clara:
Again: I¥d expect more from WE in a comparison
with "all education in formal schools in the
industrialized world", because that is what is
advertised. Other forms of education do not
profess to be based upon Universal Spiritual
Truths. My point is, the universal truths
professed by WE are not universal.
Michael:
| | Now what if we really taught other world views
from
| other cultures to children in schools (Waldorf,
other
| private schools, public,) First of all I am in
favor
| of this to a degree but there are many problems.
We
| would have to find someone that really can see
the
| world through the eyes of a Bantu, or Eskimo and
then
| teach Americans, Europeans, Austrailians etc
that have
| been raise in the information age culture to see
the
| world in a different way. Now this would be very
| different that the lip service that we mostly
pay to
| the value of other cultures.
| What do you think would happen if this was done
in a
| public school. I can guarantee that we would
have
| people makind a big fuss over the seperation of
church
| and state. Why? Becuase in these cultures there
is
| little or know seperation between what we call
| religion and the day to day life (getting food,
| biulding housing etc.)
| Now another problem is the parents of the
children are
| going to start screaming that little bobby and
susan
| are falling behing in their arithmetic and
reading
| skills while wasting time learing to find and
eat
| edible insects. So tell me Clara, how are you
going to
| do this (really make children aware of other
cultures
| not just pay lip service).
Clara:
First of all - remember I have absolutelly nothing
to say about what is done, what should/shouldn¥t
be done at US public schools.
Now, the problem you point out is interesting.
IMO, the problem can be solved if we shift the
focus from content to method. I agree with you it
may be unfeasible to TEACH "other world views from
other cultures to children in schools". But I
would add - you don¥t TEACH a world view. People
build it, reflecting on the various experiences
they have, on the knowledge they have acces to, on
the values of the culture they live in, etc. What
I expect from a school, is that it provides
children with plenty of experiences, that it
provides access to knowledge (facts of science;
alternative perspectives from other cultures; you
name it); and that this is conducted in a way so
as to encouradge respect for different values in
different cultures. The children, and later the
young people, will build his/her perspective for
themselves.
Michael:
| In fact in thinking this through I am have
changed my
| mind. I think that children need to be grounded
in one
| culture first. Now if it is understood how their
world
| view was built than it may be easier to
deconstruct
| that world view and create another (who knows
this is
| all theoretical speculation, but that is what
you are
| mostly writing also Clara)
Clara:
First - yes, we maybe speculating theoretically -
nothing wrong with that I suppose, in a debate
list? :)
Again, I agree. But I think the children are
grounded in one culture first anyway. Their
culture, from their country, their family, etc. It
is not up to the school to choose which culture
the children should be grounded on... in fact it
is impossible.
And I agree 100%, they should be able to
understand this culture, and other cultures, and
be able to deconstruct them, etc etc. Perfect. But
I think this is *not* what happens in WSs. They
may present an illusion that this happens; but it
does not.
| ) Which only shows, doesn¥t it, yet again, the
| ) limited/eurocentric character of the
| ) pressupositions held by WE and mantained (even
| ) nearly 100 years on) by its advocates.
|
| Michael C:
| Clara, this is from another letter I wrote
earlier.
|
| By the way I don't claim to have outgrown my
American
| middle class culture. I still have some racial
| prejudice, but less than most people that claim
they
| are not racists. Here is a little joke for all
of you
| that are free from prejudice(I have mat many
people
| but I have never met a "normal" adult human that
was
| entirely free from prejudice although some
claimed to
| be(this was added and not in the original
Clara)). If
| it offends anyone then I am sorry but the joke
makes a
| point.
| | A large African American man enters his
apartment and
| is greeted by his wife who notices his sweating
and
| shaking. She says "Honey whats wrong you look so
| nervous" He replies, "I just rode up on the
elevator
| with a couple of white liberals"
|
Clara:
Don¥t worry, I¥m not offended. I try not to be
prejudiced etiher. I have a couple of white
friends and I fully respect them. :)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:47:18 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei wrote:
)Clara:
))The elementary difference between scientific
)knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is that
the
)former is *verifyable*, while the latter are
not -
)if I may add my 2c.
I would take this argument of yours one step
further by suggesting
that if something is not empirically verifiable at
all, it is not
"knowledge" per se.
Clara:
Please not that I was not talking about
*empirically* verifyable. See my post to Raymond;
of course not everything is empirically testable.
This is true especially of the human sciences,
which are nevertheless, sciences. Also in a way,
true of astrophysics, for example.
Tarjei:
[Clara:]
)By verifyable I mean, in a very elementary sense,
that scientific
)facts, concepts, or theories are those who are
publicized along with
)the steps taken to reach the conclusions. I.e.,
in such a way that
)they can be *verifyed* by others.
I agree.
[Clara:]
)So if a natural scientist publicizes the results
of an experiment,
)he does so by including all the steps he
followed, so that another
)scientist can repeat)them, and verify the
conclusions drawn.
True. And this is why I wrote in the preciously
quoted excerpt from my article:
"Steiner claimed that anybody could expand the
abilities he or she
already possessed. To this end, he published a
series of books with
detailed exercises and advice.There are yet many
reasons to believe
that Steiner may have overestimated his
contemporaries in several
fields.
"Steiner thought the claims he presented as occult
facts could be
followed up and tested to a certain extent without
advanced
claivoyance, or "initiation." Inner experiences
cultivated with
sharpened powers of thought, observations of
external phenomena that most people overlook,
historical documents, etc. - all this could be
used to affirm or invalidate Steiner's
communications. When one
developed real occult abilities later, e.g. by
working with the
guide's communications, one could do one's own
research as well, also in unknown territories."
In other words, Rudolf Steiner did include the
steps he followed.
These are admittedly quite challenging and
difficult to reproduce,
but the same must be said about many claims from
natural science. The average reader of a popular
scientific magazine, for instance, does
not have a laboratory available or the opportunity
to visit a remote
location on a distant continent to verify the
discoveries and claims
of a given researcher.
Clara:
Ok then, I must revise my former statement: "By
verifyable I mean, in a very elementary sense,
that scientific facts, concepts, or theories are
those who are publicized along with the steps
taken to reach the conclusions. I.e., in such a
way that they can be *verifyed* by others (I add
now:), and provided that it is not required that
the others develop into a state of altered
conciousness".
OK it was a joke, but c¥mon Tarjei. If I bring you
a theory that I call scientific, but you cannot
refute my premises because I was under the effect
of acid when I built it, but nevertheless I
indicate with full details how I took the acid,
how long it took to make the effect, etc - and you
must reproduce this thoroughly before you start
debating my theory... is this scientific?
Tareje:
[Clara:]
)If a historian presents his interpretation about
an episode in
)history, he presents all the sources he¥s read,
primary data or
)research on other historians¥ works, so that his
interlocutors have
)a chance to read all that too and verify the
pertinence of the
)interpretation.
Rudolf Steiner did not violate this principle. As
previously noted
and quoted, his sources were radically different
from those of
ordinary historians. He did not make any
historical claims where the
Akashic Record was not the sole, or at least the
primary, source.
When referring to other historians and occult
seers, it was to point
out that some of his own findings had also been
discovered by others,
or were indicated by the discoveries of others.
In other words, if the premise is accepted that
the Akashic Record,
or the occult script of history and evolution, is
available to all
human beings, Steiner _always_ sites his source in
full. On the other
hand, Anthroposophy openly admits being a cultural
heresy through and through, which makes it
perfectly understandable that those who do _not_
accept the above-mentioned premise may also
disagree with what kind of sources Steiner _should
have_ used.
Clara:
You are right. I actually did not include a very
important¥aspect in my "definition": one
fundamental point in scientific methodology is
that the sources must be public and openly and
unrestrictedly available to anyone else.
Would you seriously accept a study by an
archeologist, for example, who claimed that he¥d
found in his diggins a human fossile dated a
million years old, which he presented as evidence
for a radical shift in the history of the world -
if access to this fossile were denied? Imagine
this, he¥d publish the results of his findings in
a scientific magazine, but saying that the
products of the dig had been destroyed by the
contact of air or something.
This would be unacceptable. Other people have to
be able to verify your material if you are
producing scientific work.
Tarjei:
[Clara:]
)This procedure is a simple elementary way to
define what is
)scientific knowledge, what is not. If the facts
brought out by
)scientific work end up to be overcome by other
findings, this does
)not make the original findings less scientific.
It is a matter of
)metodology.
I agree with you a hundred per cent on your
definition of science and
scientific research. And this is precisely what
makes the topic at
hand, namely the relationship of Anthroposophy to
science and to
religion and to dogma, extremely complicated. At
the risk of
repeating myself, let me stress again for the
purpose of clarity that
although Rudolf Steiner expressed the high hope in
his day and age
that anthroposophy would become a science proper
just like biology
and physics and so on, he was nevertheless
successful, as Peter
Normann Waage pointed out in (his first response
to Peter S.'
aricle), "Humanism and Polemical Populism, "To
create a bridge
between insights that until now have been reserved
for religion and
faith, and modern, scientific reason."
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/pnw/pnweng1.html)
[Clara:]
)Some may take a dogmatic approach to facts
brought up by science,
)when they deny that those can be reinterpreted.
Good point. This is why I hesitated for a moment
after writing in my
response to Diana that "scientific dogma" is an
oxymoron. What I
meant here was science in its pure sense, not
opinions about or
attitudes to science.
[Clara:]
)This does not mean *science* can be dogmatic; but
that *its
)interpreters* can. Science is opposed to dogma by
definition; if its
)dogmatic, its not science.
Exactly.
[Clara:]
)That is also why you cannot speak of occultist
science. If it is
)occultist, it is not scientific; if only
initiates can grasp the
)concepts, it is not scientific.
Another very good point, and a valid objection.
The reason why an
anthroposophist would disagree with you is that he
or she takes the
point of departure from an epistemology and a view
of ecolution where occultism is available to all
who are willing to make the effort,
just like the laboratory or a remote excavation
site is avalibale to
anyone willing to make the necessary effort to go
there and conduct
or observe the experiments or research in
question.
Clara:
What I don¥t understand, Tarjei, is this
ambivalence that anthroposophers show with respect
to science. On the one hand, they tend to
relativize scientific findings. On the other hand,
they want their own system to be thought of as
scientific. Why does it have to be? One can build
a theory about humanity, it may be valid for some,
even if it is not scientific.
I sometimes think it is the occultists and
spiritualists in general that approach science in
a fundamentalist way. Science has nothing to say
about the spiritual world, simply because it is
not scientifically definable as an object of
study. This does not mean the spiritual world is
scientifically proven *not* to exist. It only
means, it is not available for scientific study.
Science is a limited endeavour: it has to restrict
to certain objects and methods of study.
I¥d say, go on and think of the spiritual world as
much as you want. Fine; people should be able to
think of whatever they want to. Just please don¥t
say you are doing science, because you are not;
and why would you have to be?
Tarjei:
[Clara:]
)What happens with anthroposophy is preciselly
this. The
)self-proclaimed initiates argue, they "know"
things we others cannot
)know.
Experienced brain surgeons might argue something
quite similar.
Clara:
Oh, c¥mon now. The reason brain surgeons know more
about brain surgery than we lay people is that
they have studied it. If I want to study it, and
become a brain surgeon, I can do it. This is very
different from being an initiate in spiritual,
occult matters.
And the comparison does not hold. If a brain
surgeon published a new technique in a scientific
journal, it will have to undergo the evaluation of
his peers. Other brain surgeons will have to
accept it, by verifying it. And they can do it,
because they are in a position of equals. (he -
peers).
Can you tell me - is that done with Steiner¥s
theories? Who are Steiner¥s peers? Where are there
other people with access to the Records to check
out if Steiner interpreted them validly?
Tarjei:
[Clara]:
)It is claimed that one cannot argue the
postulates of anthroposophy,
)because they are the result of spiritual research
into the spititual
)world, and since we do not all have access to the
spiritual
)records... there you have: unscientific.
Your observations are very astute and to the
point. When I
_respectfully_ disagree with your conclusion, it
is because I do not
regard the spiritual realm as inaccessible to
others.
[Clara:]
)So the following words (enphasis added) by Tarjei
represents an oximoron:
)"The theosophical-anthroposophcal outline of
evolution is not a
)theory per se, but *spiritual-scientific facts
based upon the
)results of trained seership*".
I can accept and respect that this looks like an
oxymoron to you, but
as pointed out above, I disagree because my
epistemological point of
departure is different from yours when it comes to
Anthroposophy.
Clara:
Agreed Tarjei. But the point is: my
epistemological point of departure is scientific;
anthroposophy¥s is not.
What is science anyway. It is a way that one
culture developed in order to build knowledge in a
controlled way. It ensures a certain level of
trustworthiness to the developments of the body of
knowledge. It more or less ensures that
interlocutors (scientists) are speaking the "same
language". This is not so with anthroposophy,
Tarjei, simply isn¥t. When you poin out, very
correctly, that the whole debate depends on wether
the point of departure is accepted or not - that
is what you are saying, in other words. You say
you do not
regard the spiritual realm as inaccessible to
others. Fine. So you can debate within the field
marked by this supposition. But you cannot argue
within a field in which suppositions have to be
evidenced - and this field is science.
And I also say this very respectfully, because I
don¥t think everything has to be scientific in
order to be valid for everyone. Only, to be valid
for science.
Tarjei:
[Clara:]
)... Because if the facts are based on results of
"trained seership",
)then they are *not scientific*. Scientific facts
must be
)*verifyable*.
Spiritual-scientific facts are verifyable if
seership is available to
everyone. They are also veryfiable to a lesser
degree without such
faculties.
Clara:
Ok, see above; I mean verifyable by anyone, wether
or not seership is available for them.
You see the whole thing is in fact very simple. If
we come to a point in the debate about a theory
when it is argued that the other part cannot
debate any further because there are occult facts
that this part has no access too - then the theory
is not scientific. Because one of the things that
define science is, that all the parts must have
access to the evidence (be it empirical evidence
or otherwise).
Now just because something is not scientific, it
does not mean it can¥t be true. It simply means
that it is not acceptable as a scientific fact.
I *personally* prefer to debate things within
scientific limits. For example; I have nothing to
say about re-incarnation. It does not interest me
as a topic of debate; it does not make part of the
way I see the world; I actually couldn¥t care
less. I prefer to talk about the human being in
other terms - neuro-biological,
psychoanalitiacal-subjective, etc. I find it more
consistent and interesting.
Neverheless, I am aware that other people see this
as too limited. These people argue that there is
*more* to it; there is karma, reincarnation,
spiritual life... Fine by me; I¥m just not
interested. I find all these to be simplistic
explanations, in contrast. But it is fine by me if
others like to think the world like this; I¥m not
the one to say they are wrong. But I make it a
very strong point to say: I don¥t know if this is
true or not; but I know this is not science.
Now - (and re what you say about WSs, and I snip):
The problem begins, to me, when I send my children
to school, and school is based on this vision of
the world. Because you see, I don¥t agree with it,
and I don¥t think it¥s the best thing my kids can
have. So very simply, I don¥t want my kids to be
raised within this notional system. You¥ll agree I
have a right to that.
But there are many people who would not have this
objections. On the contrary - they¥d love their
children to be educated by a teacher who beleives
in reincarnation. Fine! Who am I to tell them this
is wrong.
The point is, simply, that all this has to be
explicitated. Learn about anthroposophy; if it
seems to you a fantastic view of the world, send
your kids imediatelly to a WS. If OTOH it seems to
you prejudiced, irrational, and limited, don¥t
send them. That is it. It is up to each family.
Only the schools have got to be clear about wich
view of the world they embrace.
Tarjei:
Thank you, however, for a very interesting,
challenging, and
thought-provoking post, Clara.
Clara:
Welcome anytime...though; I don¥t beleive I¥m
spending so much time on this list lately! Does
anyone else feel they are addicted??!!
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being
completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of
one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
=================
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:58:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
)TARJEI SAID
)I would take this argument of yours one step further by suggesting that if
)something is not empirically verifiable at all, it is not "knowledge" per
)se.
)
)Tarjei,
)
)Are you not dismissing pure mathematics as a body of knowledge then?
)
)Regards, Raymon
How is pure mathematics empirically unverifiable?
Tarjei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:12:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com)
Subject: FWD: Re: Steiner's Anti-Racism
I WROTE:
)My understanding of 'racism' is that it is not in the actual ascribing of
the characteristics, as you state above, but it is in the categorization or
judgment of those characteristics as being superior to those of another
race.
DIANA WROTE
I don't think that's correct.
Diana,
Well I did look up a few dictionaries to make sure I understood the term.=
=20
For this type of racism (as opposed to the 'judging by stereotypes' type of
racism - which has a different definition) the word 'superior' was always
mentioned in the definition. Perhaps it would help if we agreed on a
definition of racism - as I mentioned there are two kinds mentioned in
dictionary definitions, and if we are not clear what is being meant the
discussion can ramble somewhat - we may be talking at cross purposes. You
may like to mention some well-established on-line dictionary we could use
for a reference. For example, dictionary.com has:
rac=B7ism (rszm) n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
DIANA WROTE:
I don't know why anthroposophists are so loathe to give this up. These
differences simply do not exist.
Diana,
I have had a bit of hunt round but could not find an example. I will need
you to help me - please quote a typical racist statement.
I WROTE:
)(The other definition of racism, whereby one judges an individual accordin=
g
to some stereotype held of the individual's race, is I understand not the
issue here?)
DIANA WROTE:
Why would you think that's *not* the issue?
Diana,
Because I thought Steiner was being accused only of the first type of
racism, not the second type defined above. (They are not the same thing,
which is why the dictionary needs two entries for the word.)
DIANA WROTE:
If a racial characterization is not accurate, it is by definition a
stereotype.
Diana,
That is correct. And if it is accurate, it follows it is not a stereotype?=
=20
You mentioned 'Unless there is some kind of scientific evidence for racial
differences...' ie you do leave the door open for certain differences to
exist. Clearly the controversy has to do with which differences do and
which don't actually exist. The quote requested above should clarify this
for me.
DIANA SAID:
Why is this so painful to let go of?
Diana,
I only communicated with you once on this topic. What made you judge
already that it is 'so painful'?
DIANA SAID:
He should have refrained from inventing a complicated fictional scenario
ascribing different spiritual characteristics to different races. ...
Certain races don't have "certain characteristics" beyond the physical.
Diana,
They do though - you said so yourself: here is a quote from your last
message 'There aren't any differences between you and someone whose skin
color is different, except cultural differences...'. Now, is it not
possible that some misunderstanding in this forum has arisen through people
using 'race' or 'racial' when they should have said 'culture' or 'cultural'
and vice-versa? For cultural differences do exist, and are easily confused
with or described as racial differences.
Regards, Raymon
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
--- Raymon Ford (raymon_ford email.com) wrote:
) TARJEI SAID
) I would take this argument of yours one step further
) by suggesting that if
) something is not empirically verifiable at all, it
) is not "knowledge" per
) se.
)
) Tarjei,
)
) Are you not dismissing pure mathematics as a body of
) knowledge then?
)
) Regards, Raymon
)
)
Michael C:
This is a good point Raymon. There are individuals
such as Kurt Godel that subscribe to the Platonic
school of thought and believe(d) that numbers and
other concepts from mathematics can be directly
experienced with a higher sensory facility and
therefore are "objective" and "real". I forgot the
the name of the opposing school of thought that claims
that that mathematics is purely a human construct that
the idea of the number 5 has no "objective" existance
Now this all creates a dilema for science because much
of what we call science today is a collection of
mathematical formulas that makes predictions. The
philosophical problem is this, either we must admit to
higher sense facilities or else we must say that
scientific formulas are subjective. There is possibly
another alternative but I do not know what it is.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:52:24 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Michael C wrote:
| )
| ) The sun circling the earth is an abstract
notion,
| ) just as as the earth circling the sun. It is
*not*
| ) an experience. What we experience, what pure
| ) observation shows, is that *the sun appears at
one
| ) side* in the morning, and *goes down at the
other
| ) side* at noon.
|
| Micheal C:
| | Clara I won't jump on you here for what
appears to be
| an obvious mistake and you must have meant
something
| like the sun is highest at noon and then goes
down on
| the other side at night. Also take note this is
the
| experience of persons out side of the polar
regions. I
| am not being picyunish here Clara I am very
impressed
| with this letter and another one that you wrote.
I
| pasted the part of the other letter that
logically
| fits this one.
|
Clara:
wooops. Wasn¥t that a funny one I wrote...
And also; good point about the polar regions vs
others... see not even the experiences are
universal.
Michael C.:
(snip)
[Clara:]
| ) And in this selection, European medieval
concepts
| ) are favoured.
|
| Michael C:
| This is the case with dogmatic Anthroposophy but
need
| not be.
Clara:
Maybe not, in theory; I¥m not sure. But I¥ve never
seen it happen, have you?
Michael C.: [quotes another post]:
[Clara:]
| ) BTW when my 5 year-old son found out that the
sun
| ) goes round the earth earth, and we showed him
how
| ) it worked with a small lamp and a globe
| ) (heresy!!!),
|
| Michael C:
| Not Heresy in my book, more like practical
genius, and
| yet so simple.
Clara:
But heresy in waldorf teachers¥ book, believe me.
Showing how it works when the sun goes round the
earth to a five-year-old would get me in big
trouble if he were at a W KG. What I should have
done, when he asked, was tell him something about
the fairies and how the sun goes to the fairy
world at night or something along these lines,
preferrably in a sing-song voice.
Showing him how it works encourages rational
thinking. This is not done for children at this
age. In fact it is believed to be extremelly
harmful. It hardens up their organs; it kills
their fantasy; it generally awakens them too soon
to "thinking" (which is only supposed to raise to
surface much later, around 14).
Believe me, I know what I¥m talking about; other
parents with KG kids at WS will confirm that -
*knowing* parents, at least.
Michael C.:
[Clara:]
| )and he concluded that the Japanese
| ) sleep when we are awake and v.v. - it meant
many
| ) weeks of exquisite wonder for him... He played
| ) Japanese all day; when we were having
breakfast he
| ) giggled that they were having supper, when he
went
| ) to bed he sayd Good Morning to his "little
friend
| ) in Japan"; he had HUGE fun and wonderment. I
am so
| ) glad he could have this experience and feel
the
| ) wonders of how nature really works... I don¥t
| ) think this will make him a cynic at all - OTOH
I
| ) know that too much gnome talk can make
children
| ) unbelievable cynics at a very tender age.
|
| Michael C:
| Yes Clara I think that this will make him more
| confident to accept that there are unkowns that
may
| become known. Now this is very different from
what
| happens in either the Waldorf or public school,
but I
| assert that what you did with your son is much
closer
| to the spirit of Waldorf.
Clara:
Oh no, I can assert you it is not!
As I said above; what I did is highly
anti-waldorf, taking into account my son¥s age (5,
as I said). I shouldn¥t even have paid attention
to his initial quesiton (sun goes round the
earth?); I should have distracted this rational
tendencies with a lovely song; let alone actually
*show* him how it worked!
OK maybe if he were ten or older, my procedure
would not be condemned. But the fact is; he was
five when he asked; and I answered; I shouldn¥t
have, by the waldorf book.
Believe me, I have commited faults like this often
enough (nearly daily!) to know they are faults.
Plenty of people have tryed to point this out to
me. But my son can no longer be saved (sigh - BWG)
; he is awaken. He is a thinker. I have had people
mourning this, believe me.
Michael C.:
| By the way didn't you say in a previous letter
that
| you went to Waldorf schools as a child Clara ?
Clara:
Yes, I was at WS. And I can tell you one good
thing about waldorf education:
Most times, it does not work!
I have very rarelly seen a child educated at a WS
receive pure waldorf education, globally speaking
(and I know plenty of people who went to WS,
naturally). The outside world simply insists in
butting in.
To stick to our topic of rationality in education:
so the school makes this tremendous effort to
shield the child from rational thinking; it
involves the child in this artificial world of
gnomes and fairies; it ignores the budding
questions from the children; but it normally fails
to fulfill its aims, and most children
nevertheless wake up to thinking "too early".
This, despite all the effort the school makes to
educate the parents, too.
Most parents do not stick perfectly to the waldorf
agenda. C¥mon now, who¥s got the patience, in the
first place, to come up with a fairy story or a
lalala song every time a child asks about
something. It does not come naturally to most
parents; we tend to answer kids, we tend to enjoy
talking to them, to enjoy observing how they
develop, how they take their own conclusions, etc.
And that saves them.
Even in the most waldorf families - if kids are
lucky, there is always a grandfather who comes up
with enciclopedias, an uncle who lets you have a
look at a microscope. Or the other, less waldorf
children at school, who secretly tell you about
what they saw on TV about the *dinossaurs* (all
whispered, like you were talking dirty secrets).
So children who go to waldorf school can very well
escape the system. But you see, if they develop
into rational thinkers, it is *despite* the
school. And it may create a very difficult
situation for this child at school, with serious
psychological consequences. It can be hard to be
the only child in first grade who does not see
gnomes in the garden.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:58:09 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Clara wrote:
) Believe me, I know what I¥m talking about; other
) parents with KG kids at WS will confirm that - *knowing* parents,
at least.
Sarina:
Clara, ALL the parents at a Waldorf school know this - the teachers
make absolutely sure that they do. It's just that some of them *buy*
it, and some of them don't.
) It can be hard to be the only child in first grade who does not see
) gnomes in the garden.
Sarina:
Or the only child in first grade who can read - well. That's why I
can't send my son back, even though I think the folks at my local
school are doing a great job! My son would just be too different from
their ideal, and both he and the school would be set up for a
disaster...
Sarina "oh well" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:21:25 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
I wrote:
)Michael C. said that the Copernican system is only sensible "if
)you take the sun as the still point," implying that this does not give )a
)complete picture. But then why give the earth as the
)still point?
Michael C:
)Although it is possible to experience things
)differently this is what I believe most people
)actually experience most of the time, the earth is
)still.
The problem was the illogic. I said why shouldn't they learn things that are
not sense perceptible, like how the earth circles the sun? You said, well
that's only true if you take the sun as the "still point." You implied it
was therefore incorrect and therefore a reason *not* to teach children this.
I pointed out that by the same logic, the earth being the "still point" is
also clearly incorrect. I'm going to assume that your real argument is just
that children must learn only sense-perceptible things.
Of course I don't see any justification for this either, since 1) obviously
there would be a great many things children need to learn that have to be
either left out or distorted (welcome to Waldorf education) and 2) in
Waldorf children are actually encouraged to believe in a great many
non-sense perceptible things - the fairies and gnomes, the angels and saints
. . .
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:28:22 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion
I wrote (seizing the chance to talk about Waldorf's anti-literacy bias
again):
)One could learn very little about the world beyond one's own
)backyard -- other cultures, history, geography -- if one refused to
) )believe anything not verifiable by one's own sense
)experiences. There would be little point in reading a book.
Michael C:
)All or nearly all of the childrens books and for that
)matter adult books written about other cultures are
)written form the perspective of the writer, a person
)born and raised with industrail age or post industrial
)age values.
Well if you are just critiquing children's literature, go for it. Though it
seems a pretty odd complaint. How else is a person supposed to write a book,
other than from their own perspective? How is any person born today supposed
to *not* have been raised with post-industrial age values . . . the human
race should just not write any more books I guess?
Or are you suggesting that there should be an all-out effort to locate (or
write a few) really good, unbiased books about other cultures for children?
Bravo! Somehow, I don't think that's your point . . .
. . . and it's certainly not why Waldorf teachers try to minimize childrens'
reading time - a sort of protest that not enough high-quality books about
other cultures are available for children, or that all the authors writing
today have post-industrial age values?!
What's the alternative, anyway? The answer in Waldorf, of course, is that
the teacher is the best authority. None of the books available are going to
be more informative or more unbiased than the teacher? This is obviously
almost never going to be the case, even if the teacher is exceptionally
literate, well-educated, and well-traveled.
And finally, that's not the reason Waldorf discourages and delays literacy.
The reason is to encourage spiritual development instead (the two being seen
as incompatible).
Michael C:
)It is a lot easier to teach them to read then it is to
)teach them orally.
Excuse me, but that is totally absurd. Do you know anything about teaching
reading? It is an art, and is not one Waldorf teachers spend much time on in
their training.
If you mean that to stand there all day being a wise and all-knowing
authority figure and spiritual guide, dispensing the secrets of the ages, to
a roomful of children is difficult, I'd agree with you there. It's
impossible and absurd, and a violation of trust with the family anyway.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:34:16 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
Clara wrote:
)OK it was a joke, but c¥mon Tarjei. If I bring you
)a theory that I call scientific, but you cannot
)refute my premises because I was under the effect
)of acid when I built it, but nevertheless I
)indicate with full details how I took the acid,
)how long it took to make the effect, etc - and you
)must reproduce this thoroughly before you start
)debating my theory... is this scientific?
LOL! I think that's a very good analogy.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:48:04 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Clara wrote:
)Showing how it works when the sun goes round the
)earth to a five-year-old would get me in big
)trouble if he were at a W KG. What I should have
)done, when he asked, was tell him something about
)the fairies and how the sun goes to the fairy
)world at night or something along these lines,
)preferrably in a sing-song voice.
)Believe me, I know what I¥m talking about; other
)parents with KG kids at WS will confirm that -
)*knowing* parents, at least.
)Believe me, I have commited faults like this often
)enough (nearly daily!) to know they are faults.
(great post, Clara) -
Confirm, confirm, as former Waldorf parent and probably one who has a better
repertoire of "acceptable" Waldorf answers to small childrens' questions
than most parents, having worked in the kindergarten. Michael probably truly
has no idea about this. Waldorf looks so wonderful at a distance, musing
over the beautiful theories. Visit a Waldorf kindergarten, Michael, and tell
the children about the children in Japan (assuming you are in the Western
hemisphere) who go to bed when these children are getting up . . . you won't
be invited back. This is "intellectualizing" the children.
Yes, unless you are "in the know" it is virtually impossible to talk to
small children in a manner Waldorf kindergarten teachers approve of. It's
like learning a new language - or maybe more like *unlearning* one. Best to
say as little as possible. Working as a kindergarten assistant I was
reproached many times a day, at first, for common, everyday conversations
with children, responding to their curiosity, answering simple questions
(believe me - I mean simple; I was not trying to teach them biochemistry,
honestly) - *chatting* with the children, basically.
If a child was curious about the sun's movements or its comings and goings,
the only really good Waldorfian answer would be, "The sun goes to bed at
night when the lights go out like you do," and yes, the sing-song voice is
required.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
Michael C:
Diana,
When I read what you write I believe that we are not
so very far apart in our thinking. However you seem to
respond to my ideas as if they are wounding you
personally. Let me make one thing clear as to who I am
in this moment and why I am spending my time in this
discusion. I am a memeber of the Anthoposophical
Society. I completed year one of the Waldorf teacher
trainging in 1996 and decided that I did not want to
continue at that time. I am critical of Waldorf
Education and Antroposophy but I think that that there
is something very valuable at the core. I may be wrong
about this, but this is what I believe. That is why I
am here to learn and to help others learn.
One thing that bothers me is dogma although I myself
am not free from it. I think that Waldorf Critics is a
good thing except when the dogma flies from both side
and no dialog is possible.
) I wrote:
Michael C:
WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS A COMBINATION OF A
CHOPPED OUT THINGS THAT I WROTE ALONG WITH CHANGES
MADE DIANA. WHETHER IT IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO
MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID OUR PERHAPS A
MISUNDERSTANDING ONLY DIANA KNOWS FOR SURE. ONE THING
THAT I HAVE PICKED UP FROM THIS LETTER WAS THAT I DID
NOT ANSWER A QUESTION FROM HER ABOUT TEACHING ONLY
THINGS THAT COULD BE DIRECTLY OBSERVED. I WILL ANSWER
THAT QUESTION AT THE END DIANA.
)
) )Michael C. said that the Copernican system is only
) sensible "if
) )you take the sun as the still point," implying that
) this does not give )a
) )complete picture. But then why give the earth as
) the
) )still point?
)
)
Michael C:
NOTICE PARAPHRASING OF DIANA MIXED IN WITH A SELECTED
QUOTE. SHE WRITES (AND YOU CAN CHECK ABOVE OR BETTER
STILL IN THE ORIGINAL LETTERS THAT I WROTE AND THAT
DIANA WROTE) "Michael C. said that the Copernican
system system is only sensible" then she chops out
some of of my actual text that says "if you take the
sun as the still point" .
)
) Michael C:
)
) )Although it is possible to experience things
) )differently this is what I believe most people
) )actually experience most of the time, the earth is
) )still.
)
) The problem was the illogic. I said why shouldn't
) they learn things that are
) not sense perceptible, like how the earth circles
) the sun? You said, well
) that's only true if you take the sun as the "still
) point."
Michael C:
MORE OF THE SAME PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH THAT I
NEVER DID WRITE
) You implied it
Michael C:
I don't know what I implied, but I will tell you what
I am thinking now. It seems to me that what it is
mostly likely that young school age children actually
experience is the that earth is still. In fact think
that if a proper study was done that it would show
that the vast majority of school age children actually
experience the earth as stationary. So why not start
them with this.
Now after coresponding with Clara I am currently
entertaining the idea that perhaps all schooling
should be home schooling until who knows when. Perhaps
high school age. But it would have to be different for
different children. The reason for this is I don't buy
into the idea that all children at a certain age are
ready to learn this or that piece of information. I
think that this might be a broad tendency this
approach has the same problems as the difficulties
that I mentioned in selecting medical treatments based
on the statisical success rate. Now of course there
would be many problems with this one being that if
children had older siblings that the older siblings
might tell them things that they arenot ready to
learn. And of course many other problems.
Now in Clara's case she says that when her son had
heard or figured out that the earth was round that
Clara and I think her husband put on a demonstration
of the sun going around the Earth. This really seemed
to stimulte her son and I suggest you go back and read
what was said because I cannnot represent it as well
as Clara did.
) was therefore incorrect and therefore a reason *not*
) to teach children this.
) I pointed out that by the same logic, the earth
) being the "still point" is
) also clearly incorrect. I'm going to assume that
) your real argument is just
) that children must learn only sense-perceptible
) things.
Michael C:
Close but not exactly
)
) Of course I don't see any justification for this
) either, since 1) obviously
) there would be a great many things children need to
) learn that have to be
) either left out or distorted (welcome to Waldorf
) education) and 2) in
) Waldorf children are actually encouraged to believe
) in a great many
) non-sense perceptible things - the fairies and
) gnomes, the angels and saints
Michael C;
Take your objections about gnomes and faries up with
some one that is a proponnent of this part of the
curriculum.
) . . .
)
) Diana
Michael C:
Now if I somehow didn't answer your question about
whether or not I believed young children should only
taught sense perceptible things I will attempt to
answer it now. What I can remeber writing when this
whole thing started was that I was entertaining the
idea (that young children should only be taught sense
perceptible things). If you would be so kind as to go
back and see what I wrote I am very confident to find
that this is the case.
As to what I belive or think in this moment I am not
so sure but I will stand by an aseration that I made
early that the education of the senses does not
receive adequate attention.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE LETTER THAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU
RESPONDED TO DIANA WHEN YOU WROTE THE ONE THAT I
RESPONDED TO ABOVE.
_______________________________________________________
) --- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
)
)
) Clara wrote:
)
) )The sun circling the earth is an abstract notion,
) )just as as the earth circling the sun.
)
) Thanks, Clara, I was going to comment on that and
) forgot. I was going to
) note that Michael C. said that the Copernican system
) is only sensible "if
) you take the sun as the still point," implying that
) this does not give a
) complete picture. But then why give the earth as the
) still point?
)
Michael C:
Although it is possible to experience things
differently this is what I believe most people
actually experience most of the time, the earth is
still. Now there are exceptions, one would be during
an earthquake. Another would be a person that has
damage to their inner ear. A more usefull eception
would be experienced by some that has done the work to
be able to actually experience things differently. A
real simple way to due this would be to watch the sun
set and keep reminding yourself the the earth is
spinning and that is why the sun appears to be moving
down. After a certain amount of time you will probably
have this a sense experience.
One more thing that I want to say is that I stared
this line of thought as a question as to why the
public schools teach the Copernican theory and they
teach it as fact or at least it is taken that way. You
bought into this Diana because you said
" Yes, it denies "sense experience" that the earth
circles the sun.
Nevertheless it does so. Get a grip!"
What other theories have we taken as dogma?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:39:55 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: OFFTOPIC - FW: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS,
NEW ZEALAND
Hey, New Zealanders...did this happen anywhere near you?
...Gary
----------
) From: sedas ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov
) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:39:17 -0600 (MDT)
) Subject: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
)
) The following information is provided by the USGS
) National Earthquake Information Center. This information
) is preliminary and subject to revision.
)
) A magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND has occurred
) at:
) 29.46S 178.61W Depth 191km Sun Jun 3 02:41:59 2001 UTC
)
) Time: Universal Time (UTC) Sun Jun 3 02:41:59 2001
) Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) Sat Jun 2 22:41:59 2001
) Central Daylight Time (CDT) Sat Jun 2 21:41:59 2001
) Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) Sat Jun 2 20:41:59 2001
) Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) Sat Jun 2 19:41:59 2001
)
) Location with respect to nearby cities:
) 45 miles (75 km) WSW of Raoul Island, Kermadec Islands (pop N/A)
) 610 miles (975 km) SSW of NUKU'ALOFA, Tonga
) 640 miles (1020 km) NE of Auckland, New Zealand
) 900 miles (1440 km) NNE of WELLINGTON, New Zealand
)
) For additional information, including a map for this event please
) consult this web page:
) http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/010603024159.html
)
) Further information can be obtained from the USGS National
) Earthquake Information Center at http://neic.usgs.gov/,
) the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/,
) and the USGS home page at http://www.usgs.gov/
)
) You will continue to receive messages like this when
) earthquakes occur that have magnitude 5.5 or greater
) anywhere in the world OR 4.5 or greater in the contiguous
) US, Hawaii, and Alaska (excluding the Aleutian Islands).
)
) The subscription form for this service is located at:
) http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/data_services/data_services.html
) If you do not wish to receive these messages, please visit
) that site, select "bigquake," enter your Email address, and select,
) "unsubscribe."
) --
) U.S. Geological Survey -- Science for a Changing World
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:36:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
[I believe this law names Anthroposophy--Dan Dugan]
U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
By Bert Roughton Jr., Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 26, 2001
PARIS -- French legislators are expected to enact a new "anti-cult"
law on Wednesday that has alarmed religious rights activists both
here and abroad who fear it could jeopardize mainstream religious
practices.
The French Senate approved the anti-cult bill on May 3, paving the
way for next week's final vote by the National Assembly. The measure,
which has generated little controversy in France, is expected to pass
easily.
Officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations have
expressed grave concerns about the law and its potential effect on
the religious freedom, particularly its perceived threat to minority
religions. American policymakers generally oppose any law that seeks
to undermine basic First Amendment rights, and they complain that the
wording of the proposed French law is vague and could lead to abuses.
Among the controversial provisions: The proposal would make it a
crime for religious groups to engage in "mental manipulation" when
recruiting members; leaders of groups could become criminally
responsible for illegal actions of their followers; and judges will
gain the power to dissolve a group whose leaders are convicted of two
or more criminal offenses.
"We are concerned that the language in this context is dangerously
ambiguous and could be used against legitimate religious endeavors,
such as religious schools, seminaries, monasteries or retreats,"
Michael Parmly, an assistant U.S. secretary of state, told a Senate
committee holding hearings in Washington earlier this month.
Parmly also warned that the French legislation is part of a dangerous
trend that could spread elsewhere in Europe and beyond.
The Washington-based Institute on Religion and Public Policy, which
is monitoring the bill, also condemned the measure.
"This law makes the practice of one's religion into a criminal
offense," said Joseph Grieboski, president of the non-denominational
institute, adding that it "represents the latest effort of extremists
in France to pass repressive legislation designed to infringe upon
the rights of targeted minority religions . . . ."
French officials deny the law would infringe on religious rights and
complain that American officials and religious leaders have
misinterpreted the law.
Catherine Picard, the National Assembly member who co-authored the
bill, said she was surprised that the legislation has been construed
as a threat to religion.
"We don't care about religion, that's not our problem," Picard said.
"You can worship an orange in your kitchen as long as you don't
disturb public order, as long as you don't force people and don't act
in illegal ways."
The bill is aimed at "people who have gotten into trouble with the
authorities many times for misappropriation of funds, fraud, incest,
mistreatment of children, illegal practice of medicine, etc.
"There are groups using the excuse of religion, or philosophy, yoga,
psychology, psychoanalysis to enslave other individuals. This is what
we're interested in."
Picard also expressed considerable irritation over what she considers
arrogant American meddling. "It disturbs us and we won't let
ourselves be pushed around," she said.
bertr coxnews.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)
) There is real science and pseudoscience in China,
) just as there is
) here. The majority of institutions teach real
) science, same as here.
Michael C:
Dan, if you are refering the traditional Chinese
medical arts. It is my understanding that there is
about a 50/50 distribution between the prescientific
traditional medicine and the industrial age western
medicine in China as far as both teaching and practice
go.
) The traditional Chinese elements don't represent
) Chinese science
) today any more than the Greek four elements
) represent European
) science today. Science is a world-wide culture.
Michael C:
Yes I agree that this is true but what I don't agree
with is the idea that only scientifically verified
ideas have nerit. If that was the case we would have
to eliminate most surgery because scientific double
blind studies have not been performed on most forms of
surgeries for obvious reasons. There is another
problem, it cost a lot of money to perform scientific
studies on alternative medical treatements. However a
lot of studies have been done with various results.
These studies seem to be useless for the people on
either side that have already made up thier minds.
They either ignore the results or just explain them
away.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:07:33 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
) Now after coresponding with Clara I am currently
) entertaining the idea that perhaps all schooling
) should be home schooling until who knows when. Perhaps
I agree with you.
) high school age. But it would have to be different for
) different children. The reason for this is I don't buy
) into the idea that all children at a certain age are
) ready to learn this or that piece of information. I
I'm not sure if you have children or not, but my experience is that
children have very good filters and are very good at selecting from a
rich environment those bits that they need at each time. I don't think
any adult can accurately predict what a child will need in advance.
)From my experience (my parents raised me this way) this way of being
with children will achieve all that Waldorf claims to have as their
goals, i.e critical thinking skills, a strong feeling of wonder and
respect for life and the world, the ability to learn what one needs to
learn.
) think that this might be a broad tendency this
) approach has the same problems as the difficulties
) that I mentioned in selecting medical treatments based
) on the statisical success rate. Now of course there
) would be many problems with this one being that if
) children had older siblings that the older siblings
) might tell them things that they arenot ready to
) learn. And of course many other problems.
Which to me is proof that we are designed to filter out those bits that
we don't need at any given time. The way that humans have lived since
the first humans came around was with older siblings. The idea that
children need to be kept in groups of children of only their own age is
a very new idea and a pretty silly one in my view. I am not afraid that
my children will be damaged by contact with the ideas of older children,
the important thing is that the children are strong healthy and loved
and they can learn most anything they need to.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:48:24 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Cc: "Franci" (franci-tony juno.com)
Subject: The Daily Rhythm
I will quote from Rhythm in the Kindergarten by Nancy Foster:
))"The extent to which the children became imbued with the day's rhythm
was graphically illustrated by an experience in our kindergarten some
years ago. The parents had joined us, first thing in the morning, for
our Harvest Festival, and as part of the Festival we shared a snack with
them - the harvest loaf we had baked. In due course we said good-bye
and continued with the morning.
When planning the day, I had reasoned that we would not need to have our
usual snack time, following circle, since we would already have eaten.
Thus, after playtime, clean-up and a short circle, I said to the
children sitting quietly on the rug, "And now lets get our coats; it is
outdoor time." The children got up - and went straight to the snack
tables and sat down! There was nothing to be done but to gather
together quickly the remnants of our harvest loaf and have snack after
all!"((
This passage sums up what I feared most about a Waldorf Kindergarten and
its emphasis on rhythm. In the passage above the teacher expresses
pride that the children in her kindergarten were so imbued with the
rhythm of the kindergarten that they ignored the fact that their tummies
were full from having already had a snack and went to the table for
snack because that is what they always do after circle. How can this be
healthy for children? To be so out of touch with their own bodily
needs?
My son would have to be starving hungry before he would choose to eat
snack rather than play outside. But I am sure that had he had Miss
Nancy as his teacher he would soon be joining all those other kids at
the table, and my heart would break.
Thank goodness his kindergarten teacher lets the kids follow their own
rhythms. Her children do not often sit "quietly on the rug" they are
very noisy and chaotic. Just how they like it.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Michael C, you wrote,
)
) )Perhaps it is even more important from a moral
) point
) )of veiw that the child believe that life is beyound
) )their complete comprension and therefore somehow
) )sacred.
)
) It isn't necessary for something to be a mystery to
) be respected.
Michael C:
This is true and all things that seem mysterious are
not treated with respect.
) Attitudes are adopted from the behavior of role
) models and peer
) groups.
Michael C:
Yes Dan, this is mostly the case and for better ( as
when the group respects life) or for worse (when they
don't)but what we have failed to achieve is ethical
individualism. Now to expect that from children is one
thing but hopefully a few adults will achive this
lofty goal that is also pointed to by the humanistic
branch of existentialism.
)
) )Unfortunately there are people that see their
) )life's mission to explain life and conciousness
) purely
) )in mechanistic/materialistic terms.
)
) Fortunately most teachers see their life's mission
) as the sharing of
) the best available knowledge, rather than the dogma
) of a particular
) sect.
Michael C:
Yes Dan but who is to determine what is the best
avilable knowledge, some dogamtic commitee of
polically connected "scientists". Do the public school
science teachers get to teach what they personally
think is the best or do they just have to prepare the
students for the SAT's and the soon to be coming
national standards.
)
) )While I think this
) )is great up to a point I have very good reason to
) )believe that it can never be done.
)
) I think the process of reducing consciousness to its
) biochemical
) elements is well under way; however this frame of
) reference will be
) useful for some purposes but won't supplant other
) frames of reference
Micheal C:
Maybe it will be done and maybe it won't be
accomplished. As far as supplanting other frames of
reference this has more to do with politics in my
estimate than the value of the theory.
) that are more useful for many other purposes.
) Psychology, for
) example, based on human behavior.
Michael C:
Not all psychologoies are based on human behavoir
although they all must take into account human
behavoir. Some theorist went toward behavior only in
an attempt to be more scientific most notably Skinner.
But if we are being true to the word psyche it is the
study of mind not behavior. Because we can directly
observe our own mind, it is hard to be scientific here
but it can be done.
By the way Psycholgy is an area where the "great
protectors of science" have infringed deeply on human
liberty. Tell me what happened to Willhelm Reich
(wether or not he was right or wrong in his theories
is meaningless) do you think peoples books should be
burnes by the U. S. Government? What about Timothy
Leary whose offenses included dangerous ideas?
When I program a
) computer, I work
) in a symbolic language, and I don't care whether the
) actual computing
) elements are electronic or mechanical, as long as
) the system behavior
) is modeled accurately.
Michael C:
Do you accept the idea that the model can only be so
complete. I am not saying that we should make models
but the limits must be realized or else you might as
well just be a dogmatic Anthroposophist.
) Similarly, I don't expect
) increasing knowledge
) of how the brain works to supplant principles of
) psychology, only to
) deepen them.
Michael C:
I for one believe that this is a possibilty but only
when the inner experience is give it's due. And
perhaps more importantly the observer of the inner
experience.
)
) )How ever what can
) )be done is that people buy into this as the truth
) (the
) )brain= the mind, the brain is made out of matter,
) )matter is subject to mechanistic deterministic
) laws,
) )therefore the human beings are not responsible for
) any
) )of their actions).
)
) This argument is often used against science by
) religious people.
Michael C:
Agreed it is an overly simplistic argument sometimes
employed by religious people. But it has some merit.
)My
) ethics come from my culture,
Michael C:
Suppose you were born in Christian Bosnia, should your
ethics come from that culture, or Nazi Germany ?
) and that is very little
) affected by
) knowledge of brain biochemistry.
Michael C:
Correct it is my understanding that the ethics of
this culture come primarily from Judeo/Christian
values. However the notion of the personal liberties
you so value come from utilitarian philosphy and
Masonry. Now imagine if you will a culture where the
official belief is that life and minds are just
matter. The two poles that this implies is
1. Life and minds are reduced in value, after all they
are just chemicals
2. Matter is seen as sacred and we return to animism.
Now of course there are other possibilites that I
haven't thought of and the two I stated are extreme.
However I think is is reasonable to say that such a
society would tend to move in the direction of pole
#1. The results could be even greater misuse of the
planet and life by those in power who would
undoubtably still believe in thier own self worth.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: " four elements" was: another old discussion addendum
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)
) It isn't necessary for something to be a mystery to
) be respected.
Michael C:
You are right Dan I will agree with you like I did in
the previous letter. In fact mysterious often provokes
fear and causes people to demonize the object that
seems mysterious.
However I would suggest that you take a look at
Einstein's autobiographical notes and get an idea of
what he thinks of the way that "science' is taught in
conventional education.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight please
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
)
) Michael C.:
) )Steiner was stating that it is only possible to
) understand what he
) )says about the diversity of cultures :) on the
) basis of spiritual
) )science in general and the laws of R&K as stated
) therein specifically.
)
MICHAEL C:
PLEASE GET YOUR PERSONS STRAIGHT DIANA, I DID NOT
WRITE THIS IT MAY HAVE BEEN MICHAEL SIEBER WHOSE NAME
I HAVE PRABLY MISPELLED AN WHO'S NAME I HAVE
MISSPELLED AS MICAEL SILBER BEFORE.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
--- "Michael J. Sieber" (michael_j.sieber t-online.de)
wrote:
) On 3 Jun 2001, at 11:35, michael C wrote:
) )
) ) --- "Michael J. Sieber"
) (michael_j.sieber t-online.de)
) ) wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Still I believe that understanding could be
) possible
) ) ) because I feel that
) ) ) there is an almost continuous sequence between
) these
) ) ) different
) ) ) attitudes or moods:
) ) )
) ) ) Fanatic Anthroposophist
) ) ) Dogmatic Anthroposophist
) ) ) Critical Anthroposophist
) ) ) Anthroposophy Critic
) ) ) Dogmatic Anthroposophy Critic
) ) ) Fanatic Anthroposophy Critic
) ) )
) ) ) (You could exchange Anthr. and Waldorf, but in
) the
) ) ) current context
) ) ) of "spiritual underpinnings" it is rather the
) ) ) A-topic.)
) ) )
) ) Michael C:
) )
) ) Nice analysis Michael Sieber
) )
) Thanks!
)
) But what is your conclusion?
)
) You think that some sort of understanding will be
) possible here?
)
) Michael S.
)
)
Michael C:
First of all let me apoligize for spelling your name
incorrectly Michael Sieber. Next I think that some
sort of understanding will be possible but the smart
money is not on that for the moment unless long odds
are given.
However because I realize that my computer simulation
of the various people who contribute to this list is
only so accurate and my prophetic vision is not well
developed I would have to say that yes some sort of
understanding between you and Diana specifically and
the Anthropops (I count myself amoung them) and the
anti Anthropops on this list is likely. I am after all
an optomistic fool. Now what I mean is simply and
understanding whereby we can really see and respect
eachothers opinions, it certainaly doesn't mean that
we will agree.
If we did find a place of total agreement, lets say a
Hegelian synthesis of the opposing veiw points we
might be in danger of starting a whole new dogma. So
arguing is not so bad, but the problem is that there
are often total misunderstandings. I think people
should back what they believe but often attacks are
launched one another only because of
misunderstandings, and that seems to be a waste of
energy that could be avoided through the good will of
really trying to understand what the other person is
saying.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:_Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn =?iso
Michael C:
Clara,
This is an excellent reply I wish that I had more time
to answer it. You point out very well what is probably
a huge gap between the actual and the ideals and
stated goals of Waldorf Education and the actual
practice. Being that I have not been involved in the
actual what I mostly discuss on this site is the
theoretical and in fact in many ways that concerns me
more.
When I bring up public schools I do so because that
seems to be the basis for comparison for the science
curriculem. I fancy my self one that has enough of an
understanding of philosophy to understand the
epistemoligical basis science.
This organization PLANS recieves backing from both
Scientistic Materialistic Fundemantalists and
Christian Fundemantalists. As a person that values
freedom of thought and so forth I realize that
Anthropops can be extremely dogmatic however when
compared to the two mentioned groups that are backing
PLANS I think that Anthroposophy is a breath of fresh
air (it is really rather stale but I said in
comparison)
--- Clara Paix (paixs yahoo.com.br) wrote:
)
) | --- Clara Paix (paixs yahoo.com.br) wrote:
) | )
) | ) Michael C. wrote (on the teaching of science
) at
) | ) WSs):
) | | ) | I am pretty sure this is what they are
) trying to
) | ) do in| ) | Waldorf Education is build up the
) body of
) | ) knowledge in| ) | the child in the same way as
) it was built up in
) | ) | humanity.
) | )
) | ) Clara here:
) | | ) In this case the building of knowledge had
) better
) | ) include ALL stages that ALL cultures had gone
) | ) through. Why isn¥t the body of knowledge of
) | ) Eastern peoples - Chinese, Indian...-
) included? Or
) | ) the Inca, the Maia, the Aztec body of
) knowledge?
) | ) Why not Native Amazonian peoples? Australian
) | ) Aborigens? The Swahili? The Bantu body of
) | ) knowledge?
) | | ) If one is to accept the notion you forward
) above,
) | ) then the knowledge built by those cultures
) would
) | ) have to be included too. Otherwise, well, then
) the
) | ) concept of "Humanity"
) |
) | Michael C:
) | Clara,
) | | It looks like you caught me in a mistake here
) Clara.
) | Actually I just didn't explain what I meant
) clearly
) | enough. What I meant was the body of knowledge
) that is
) | passed to children through schools in grades K
) to 12,
) | in the industrial and post industrial world. Now
) of
) | course there are variations in this body of
) knowledge,
) | but I think you can accept this concept without
) me
) | having to write a book to explain it (the
) concept of
) | an industrail and post industrial world
) curricullem
) | for K - 12)
)
) Clara:
) I understand that. But then; if you are referring
) to "an industrail and post industrial world
) curricullem", why the restriction on Copernicus?
) Or, for example - why should Goethe¥s theory on
) colour be preferred? Why should Darwin¥s theory of
) evolution be ignored?
) I think it is more that that Michael. It is not an
) "industrail and post industrial world curricullem"
) that is passed on at WSs; they are curriculum
) based on Steiner, what *he* believed, what *he*
) thought was valid in this culture. And remember -
) Steiner lived a hundred years ago. Neverhtelss,
) the curriculem has not changed!!!
)
) Michael:
) | I basically agree with you that it MIGHT be wise
) to
) | include the knowledge from all cultures in
) education.
) | On the other hand nearly all education that has
) taken
) | place in the modern industrial world is very
) Euro
) | Centric. (snip)
)
) Clara:
) You see I¥m not defending school curriculem should
) include the knowledge from all cultures. I was
) only pointing out that in order to be coherent,
) the waldorf postulate that knowledge should be
) build into the child following the way in which it
) was built in humaniy should then include the
) knowledge from all cultures. In fact - I was
) trying to point out that this is *not* done, and
) that the postulate does not hold.
)
) Michael:
) (snip)| In addition the prestigious scholar James
) Needham
) | makes a very good case that the Chinese and
) | perticularllly the Taoists made huge
) contributions to
) | modern western technology and Science. I doubt
) very
) | much that this is taught in public schools. You
) see
) | although these schools change very rapidly in
) | superficial ways, like having computers in the
) | classroom, the public schools are also very far
) behind
) | the times.
) | )
)
) Clara:
) May well be. I¥m not in the position to discuss
) what happens in US public schools, being in
) another country.
)
) However - the comparison to public schools
) anywhere is I think not always to the point in the
) debates here. I gather public schools everywhere
) are more likely to be identifyed with traditional
) education. And when parents choose WE, it must be
) because they are not happy with traditional
) education in the first place. The problem is, some
) end up discovering that the "alternative" provided
) by WE was unsound.
) I don¥t think it is valid, when arguing WE, to
) ay -oh but public shools don¥t do any better. I¥m
) not discussing public schools; I¥m discussing
) wether WE lives up to the expectations of the
) parents - expectations that were engendered by the
) schools themselves. Do they deliver an education
) towards freedom, are they centered on the child,
) etc.
)
) Michael:
) [Clara:]
) | ) In my view the statement above simply doesn¥t
) | ) hold. It¥s illogic. It pressuposed that not
) | ) *every* stage of the building up of knowledge
) in
) | ) humanity *everywhere* will be contemplated by
) this
) | ) form of education.
) |
) | Michael C:
) | Clara,
) | | First off I stated that this a theory behind
) this
) | approach to education as far as I understand it.
) | Secondly we are talking about a eurocentric body
) of
) | knowledge when we talk about nearly all
) education that
) | tkes place in formal schools for children in the
) | industrialized world.
)
) Clara:
) Again: I¥d expect more from WE in a comparison
) with "all education in formal schools in the
) industrialized world", because that is what is
) advertised. Other forms of education do not
) profess to be based upon Universal Spiritual
) Truths. My point is, the universal truths
) professed by WE are not universal.
)
) Michael:
) | | Now what if we really taught other world views
) from
) | other cultures to children in schools (Waldorf,
) other
) | private schools, public,) First of all I am in
) favor
) | of this to a degree but there are many problems.
) We
) | would have to find someone that really can see
) the
) | world through the eyes of a Bantu, or Eskimo and
) then
) | teach Americans, Europeans, Austrailians etc
) that have
) | been raise in the information age culture to see
) the
) | world in a different way. Now this would be very
) | different that the lip service that we mostly
) pay to
) | the value of other cultures.
) | What do you think would happen if this was done
) in a
) | public school. I can guarantee that we would
) have
) | people makind a big fuss over the seperation of
) church
) | and state. Why? Becuase in these cultures there
) is
) | little or know seperation between what we call
) | religion and the day to day life (getting food,
) | biulding housing etc.)
) | Now another problem is the parents of the
) children are
) | going to start screaming that little bobby and
) susan
) | are falling behing in their arithmetic and
)
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:11:52 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
Dan Dugan wrote:
) [I believe this law names Anthroposophy--Dan Dugan]
What makes you believe it does?
) U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
)
) By Bert Roughton Jr., Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 26, 2001
)
) PARIS -- French legislators are expected to enact a new "anti-cult"
) law on Wednesday that has alarmed religious rights activists both
) here and abroad who fear it could jeopardize mainstream religious
) practices.
A briefing by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(http://www.house.gov/csce/2religbrief.htm) in 1998 described the
deterioration of religious liberty in Europe at the time.
A U.S. 'Department of State Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom'
(http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/irf_rpt/1999/irf_exec99.html)
describes the situation internationally for 1999 for different types of
spiritually oriented groups.
Another 'US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eur/index.cfm?docid=754)
describes the situation in France for 2000.
The US report for 1999 describes the criticism by a Swedish report (is says
in 1999, but it probably was in 1998) on the issue criticizing the absence
of objective methodology in the French and Belgian reports, finding that
the French commissioners had conducted their efforts in "common cause" with
biased private antisect groups. (For a summary in English of the probable
Swedish report referred to, see
http://www.social.regeringen.se/propositionermm/sou/pdf/sou98_113eng.pdf)
In France the situation led to to the persecution and conviction in March
2000 of Jacques Guyard, the President of the French parliamentary
commission on 'cults' for slandering three anthroposophical institutions.
The US State Department Country Report on Human Rights for 2000 describes
the conviction:
"In March a Paris Correctional Court fined Jacques Guyard, the president of
the parliamentary commission and a drafter of the 1996 National Assembly
report on so-called sects, approximately $2,850 (20,000 francs) in response
to complaints by three groups that were named in a parliamentary
commission's June 1999 report on the financing of religious groups named in
the original report.
The court also ordered Guyard to pay approximately $12,850 (90,000 francs)
in damages. The Federation of Steiner Schools, the New Brotherly Economy,
and "le Mercure Federale" (an anthroposophical medical association) had
filed a complaint against Guyard for slander for calling the groups "sects"
in a June 1999 television interview. The court found that Guyard had made
accusations against these groups when existing evidence did not warrant
even a serious inquiry into their activities.
The court noted that the parliamentary commission's report resulted from
written declarations from persons claiming to be victims of anthroposophy,
but that the parliamentary commission had not heard any of the claims in
person, and that there was no supporting documentation for accusations that
the groups had used mental manipulation, pressured persons to give them
money, or used practical medicine that endangered lives. The court rejected
Guyard's attempts to qualify his statements, and also rejected a request
from Guyard's lawyer for parliamentary immunity."
(The case was also described in Le Monde on 23 March 2000
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/000323-LeMonde-eng.html)
The loose work of the French Parliamentary Commission developed 'in "common
cause" with biased private antisect groups' constitutes the basis for the
legislation and inquisitionlike persecutions now being implemented in
France.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:09:29 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC - FW: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC
ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
)Hey, New Zealanders...did this happen anywhere near you?
)
)...Gary
Well, from me, almost 1,500 kilometres, which is just under a thousand
miles, for your metrically-challenged Yanks who won't come into the modern
world.
It was felt here in Wellington -- indeed over most of the North Island --
but not by me. It was not felt in the South Island.
Quakes like this happen more often than you would suppose, but we don't
hear much about most of them because they are too deep within the earth's
crust or mantle to do much damage at the surface. The focal depth of this
quake was 191 km, or about 120 miles.
The Kermadec Islands (part of NZ) are, like all of this country, on the
Pacific Ring of Fire, the junction of the crustal plates, between the
Pacific plate and the Indo-Australlian plate to the south and the Asian
plate to the north.
I sit on top of that jucnture here in Wellington, atop a San Andreas-sized
fault that is overdue and is likely to give me a wild ride when it goes,
about 15 feet up and 50 feet north. We're on top of a discontinuity in the
plate junctions, where the plates reverse the direction of their
subduction, or diving under one another. In the North Island, the Pacific
plate is diving under the Indo-Australian plate, and we have active
volcanoes and lots of earthquakes. In the South Island the Indo-Australian
plate is diving under the Pacific plate, pushing up the long chain of
Souther Alps mountains, very young, sharp peaks.
It's a fun place to be, if you like really big amusement rides. I enjoy
earthquakes (as a science reporter and amateur scientist) to the amazement
and consternation of other people around me when the earth moves. There
ain't much one can do about a quake, so one might as well pay attention and
learn as much as possible. I've gotten so I can tell which direction a
quake's epicentre is, whether it's a deep or shallow one, roughly how big
it was, and sometimes how far away. I've been in buildings where on the
eighth floor the movement was enough to displace objects by about a foot at
the height of the quake.
But I'm not looking forward to "the big one" here, because it will do a
huge amount of damage. They predict as many as 3,000 deaths in the region
(out of a population of about a million) when the Wellington fault goes
again -- and it will.
Any more questions? (G)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
)
)----------
)) From: sedas ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov
)) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:39:17 -0600 (MDT)
)) Subject: Magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
))
)) The following information is provided by the USGS
)) National Earthquake Information Center. This information
)) is preliminary and subject to revision.
))
)) A magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND has occurred
)) at:
)) 29.46S 178.61W Depth 191km Sun Jun 3 02:41:59 2001 UTC
))
)) Time: Universal Time (UTC) Sun Jun 3 02:41:59 2001
)) Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) Sat Jun 2 22:41:59 2001
)) Central Daylight Time (CDT) Sat Jun 2 21:41:59 2001
)) Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) Sat Jun 2 20:41:59 2001
)) Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) Sat Jun 2 19:41:59 2001
))
)) Location with respect to nearby cities:
)) 45 miles (75 km) WSW of Raoul Island, Kermadec Islands (pop N/A)
)) 610 miles (975 km) SSW of NUKU'ALOFA, Tonga
)) 640 miles (1020 km) NE of Auckland, New Zealand
)) 900 miles (1440 km) NNE of WELLINGTON, New Zealand
))
)) For additional information, including a map for this event please
)) consult this web page:
)) http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/010603024159.html
))
)) Further information can be obtained from the USGS National
)) Earthquake Information Center at http://neic.usgs.gov/,
)) the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/,
)) and the USGS home page at http://www.usgs.gov/
))
)) You will continue to receive messages like this when
)) earthquakes occur that have magnitude 5.5 or greater
)) anywhere in the world OR 4.5 or greater in the contiguous
)) US, Hawaii, and Alaska (excluding the Aleutian Islands).
))
)) The subscription form for this service is located at:
)) http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/data_services/data_services.html
)) If you do not wish to receive these messages, please visit
)) that site, select "bigquake," enter your Email address, and select,
)) "unsubscribe."
)) --
)) U.S. Geological Survey -- Science for a Changing World
))
)
--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:00:29 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
)Clara:
)Please not that I was not talking about *empirically* verifyable.=20
)See my post to Raymond; of course not everything is empirically=20
)testable. This is true especially of the human sciences, which are=20
)nevertheless, sciences.
Good point. The human sciences are more theoretical in the sense that=20
they provide structured concepts as tools to understand human=20
behavior and social development and so on. Which makes them more=20
subject to change than e.g. the technology-producing sciences.
)Also in a way, true of astrophysics, for example.
Astrophysics is an empirically verifyable science dependent upon=20
available technology, I would think.
)Clara:
)Ok then, I must revise my former statement: "By verifyable I mean,=20
)in a very elementary sense, that scientific facts, concepts, or=20
)theories are those who are publicized along with the steps taken to=20
)reach the conclusions. I.e., in such a way that they can be=20
)*verifyed* by others (I add now:), and provided that it is not=20
)required that the others develop into a state of altered=20
)conciousness".
If you draw an analogy between the requirement of developing an=20
enhanced consciousness on the one hand, and building and equipping a=20
suitable laboratory on the other, the question of verifiability=20
stands on an equal footing in both instances.
)OK it was a joke, but c=B4mon Tarjei. If I bring you a theory that I=20
)call scientific, but you cannot refute my premises because I was=20
)under the effect of acid when I built it, but nevertheless I=20
)indicate with full details how I took the acid, how long it took to=20
)make the effect, etc - and you must reproduce this thoroughly before=20
)you start debating my theory... is this scientific?
Difficult question, because some researchers did experiment with LSD=20
at one point. But my answer would be "no," it is _not_ scientific,=20
because the effects of LSD are extremely subjective varying from=20
person to person, and the intake of mind-altering chemicals by-passes=20
completely the rigorous discipline necessary for research of this=20
nature to be scientific. It would be a stroke of pure luck if my=20
experience with acid should match yours.
)Clara:
)
)You are right. I actually did not include a very important=B4aspect in=20
)my "definition": one fundamental point in scientific methodology is=20
)that the sources must be public and openly and unrestrictedly=20
)available to anyone else.
I agree. It is also my opinion that Steiner endeavored to do just=20
this - which is why I support _his_ right to call Anthroposophy=20
scientific. I am not qualified to ascertain whether or not other=20
anthroposophists have earned the same right, and on this point, I=20
have a tendency to agree with critics.
)Would you seriously accept a study by an archeologist, for example,=20
)who claimed that he=B4d found in his diggins a human fossile dated a=20
)million years old, which he presented as evidence for a radical=20
)shift in the history of the world - if access to this fossile were=20
)denied?
It would be a question of credibility. If people were deliberately=20
prevented from accessing the evidence or information, it would look=20
odd. That analogy does not fit Anthroposophy however.
)Imagine this, he=B4d publish the results of his findings in a=20
)scientific magazine, but saying that the products of the dig had=20
)been destroyed by the contact of air or something.
In that case, the claim would probably need to be corroborated by=20
other findings and facts to be credible.
)This would be unacceptable. Other people have to be able to verify=20
)your material if you are producing scientific work.
True.
)Clara:
)
)What I don=B4t understand, Tarjei, is this ambivalence that=20
)anthroposophers show with respect to science. On the one hand, they=20
)tend to relativize scientific findings. On the other hand, they want=20
)their own system to be thought of as scientific. Why does it have to=20
)be? One can build a theory about humanity, it may be valid for some,=20
)even if it is not scientific.
I understand why this is confusing. It is my distinct impression that=20
many anthroposophists, perhaps most, are themselves confused about=20
this because a distinction needs to be made between science of today=20
as it is understood and defined by the Scientific Community on the=20
one hand, and the direction Steiner endeavored to extend or expand=20
this definition on the other. Because I am not a scientist myself,=20
this is off my turf, in spite of my claim to a certain grasp of the=20
basic problem involved here.
The best qualified people to take a shot at clearing up this=20
confusion - which is due to the fact that the relationship of=20
Anthroposophy to science is complicated - would, in my opinion, be=20
anthroposophists who work as researchers in ordinary scientific=20
fields preferably in non-anthroposophical environments.
)I sometimes think it is the occultists and spiritualists in general=20
)that approach science in a fundamentalist way.
Anthroposophists may be occultists, but they are _not_ spiritualists.=20
You may find anthroposophists with fundamentalist views, also with=20
regard to science, but such people are hardly scientists or=20
researchers themselves.
)Science has nothing to say about the spiritual world, simply because=20
)it is not scientifically definable as an object of study. This does=20
)not mean the spiritual world is scientifically proven *not* to=20
)exist. It only means, it is not available for scientific study.=20
)Science is a limited endeavour: it has to restrict to certain=20
)objects and methods of study.
That is the difference between natural (orthodox) science and=20
spiritual science. The latter seeks to extend the discipline and=20
certainty derived from ordinary science into the spiritual realm.
)I=B4d say, go on and think of the spiritual world as much as you want.=20
)Fine; people should be able to think of whatever they want to. Just=20
)please don=B4t say you are doing science, because you are not; and why=20
)would you have to be?
Because anthroposophists openly admit being cultural heretics. There=20
is, for this reason, a difference between the anthroposophical=20
definition of science and the orthodox one. Anthroposophists should=20
be sufficiently cognizant and respectful of the latter, however, to=20
refrain from creating fruitless disputes and confusion about such=20
definitions.
)))Clara:
))
)))What happens with anthroposophy is preciselly this. The=20
)))self-proclaimed initiates argue, they "know" things we others=20
)))cannot know.
))Tarjei:
))Experienced brain surgeons might argue something quite similar.
)
)Clara:
)
)Oh, c=B4mon now. The reason brain surgeons know more about brain=20
)surgery than we lay people is that they have studied it. If I want=20
)to study it, and become a brain surgeon, I can do it. This is very=20
)different from being an initiate in spiritual, occult matters.
The analogy between the occult researcher and the brain surgeon is=20
valid, provided you can become an occultist too if you want it.
)And the comparison does not hold. If a brain surgeon published a new=20
)technique in a scientific journal, it will have to undergo the=20
)evaluation of his peers. Other brain surgeons will have to accept=20
)it, by verifying it. And they can do it, because they are in a=20
)position of equals. (he - peers). Can you tell me - is that done=20
)with Steiner=B4s theories?
That question would be better addressed by anthroposophists working=20
in specific fields of scientific endeavor.
)Who are Steiner=B4s peers? Where are there other people with access to=20
)the Records to check out if Steiner interpreted them validly?
That is an excellent question, Clara. In fact, I don't think the=20
peers of Steiner occur much more than twice or thrice in a=20
millennium. There are people who claim fledging clairvoyance of=20
different kinds, including some anthroposophists, and others who=20
still have retained the very last vestiges of atavistic clairvoyance,=20
but to my knowledge, no one has stood forth and claimed the ability=20
to do scientific research in the spiritual realm like Steiner, with=20
the exception a modest few in whom my confidence is rather limited at=20
this point.
I did address this issue in my afore-mentioned article=20
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/anarchant.html). In my opinion,=20
anthroposophists should admit, when confronted with your very good=20
question above, that the acceptance of claims made by Steiner that=20
have not been followed up by any peers of his, has a religious=20
character, and that Anthroposophy may therefore, within certain=20
limits of its definition, be called a religion. For the purpose of=20
simplicity that is; but it's not really that simple. The way I see=20
it, Rudolf Steiner was right when he said that Anthroposophy is a=20
science and not a religion. He spoke from intellectual honesty as=20
evidenced in his epistemological works from the 1890's. The question=20
remains: Can present-day anthroposophists clam that Anthroposophy is=20
a science and not a religion with the same intellectual honesty? My=20
answer is no, they cannot do that. But on the other hand, it is not=20
intellectually dishonest to claim that Anthroposophy is a science and=20
not a religion if it is tacidly understood that Anthroposophy does=20
not incorporate religion or religious concepts in the traditional=20
sense because it is not based upon faith as such, but upon a mode of=20
cognition more closely related to that of science, which provides a=20
higher degree of certainty, of _knowledge_.
What Steiner's honesty as a scientist of the spirit is concerned, I=20
pointed out in my article that he claimed _anybody_ could expand the=20
abilities already possessed, and that he published a series of books=20
with detailed exercises and advice - but that he may have=20
overestimated his contemporaries and his immediate posterity.
Steiner thought the claims he presented as occult facts could be=20
followed up and tested to a certain extent without trained seership.=20
Inner experiences cultivated with sharpened powers of thought,=20
observations of external phenomena that most people overlook,=20
historical documents, etc. - all this could be used to affirm or=20
invalidate Steiner's communications. When one developed real occult=20
abilities later, e.g. by working with the guide's communications, one=20
could do one's own research as well.
The question of Steiner's _credibility_ is raised in a parallel post=20
of mine in response to Diana, entitled "Akasha."
The credibility of Anthroposophy as a whole remains to be seen. It=20
will be to a great extent dependent, I think, upon the occurence of=20
Steiner's peers during the next few centuries.
(snip)
)Clara:
)
)Agreed Tarjei. But the point is: my epistemological point of=20
)departure is scientific; anthroposophy=B4s is not.
That would again depend upon the question: What is scientific? The=20
epistemology I am talking about involves a rigorous examination of=20
thinking itself as the basic tool to all scientific knowledge,=20
including the recognition of things we take for granted as=20
prerequisites for the acceptance of scientific truths.
)What is science anyway. It is a way that one culture developed in=20
)order to build knowledge in a controlled way. It ensures a certain=20
)level of trustworthiness to the developments of the body of=20
)knowledge. It more or less ensures that interlocutors (scientists)=20
)are speaking the "same language". This is not so with anthroposophy,=20
)Tarjei, simply isn=B4t. When you poin out, very correctly, that the=20
)whole debate depends on wether the point of departure is accepted or=20
)not - that is what you are saying, in other words. You say you do=20
)not regard the spiritual realm as inaccessible to others. Fine. So=20
)you can debate within the field marked by this supposition. But you=20
)cannot argue within a field in which suppositions have to be=20
)evidenced - and this field is science. And I also say this very=20
)respectfully, because I don=B4t think everything has to be scientific=20
)in order to be valid for everyone. Only, to be valid for science.
You are absolutely right from the vantage point of natural, material=20
science alone. The anthroposophical idea is that the discipline and=20
the mode of thinking acquired from natural-scientific endeavors can=20
be applied in the spiritual realm as well.
)))Clara:
)))... Because if the facts are based on results of "trained=20
)))seership", then they are *not scientific*. Scientific facts must=20
)))be *verifyable*.
))Tarjei:
)
))Spiritual-scientific facts are verifyable if
))seership is available to
))everyone. They are also veryfiable to a lesser
))degree without such
))faculties.
)
)Clara:
)
)Ok, see above; I mean verifyable by anyone, wether
)or not seership is available for them.
If investigation or verification of spiritual phenomena should not be=20
conditioned by seership, then research of light and color should not=20
require eyesight. Beethoven did compose music after becoming deaf,=20
but it was because he remembered what he had learned when still=20
hearing. Steiner said religion originated as a memory of events and=20
conditions prior to the fading and disappearance of atavistic=20
clairvoyance in humanity. Today, man remembers close to nothing and=20
must consult old manuscripts to find an echo of what he once new. The=20
idea of Anthroposophy is to develop a new clarvoyance for the future,=20
based upon the self-dependent objective consciousness acquired=20
through five centuries of science and explorations.
)You see the whole thing is in fact very simple. If we come to a=20
)point in the debate about a theory when it is argued that the other=20
)part cannot debate any further because there are occult facts that=20
)this part has no access too - then the theory is not scientific.
A blind man can participate in a debate about light and color based=20
upon the concepts and images he has created for himself by listening=20
to scholars with healthy eyes.
)Because one of the things that define science is, that all the parts=20
)must have access to the evidence (be it empirical evidence or=20
)otherwise).
Apart from the above reservations, I agree. This is why Anthroposophy=20
is a science of the future rather than of the present. If seership=20
does indeed evolve in humanity, there will be no such discrepancy.
(snip)
)The problem begins, to me, when I send my children to school, and=20
)school is based on this vision of the world. Because you see, I=20
)don=B4t agree with it, and I don=B4t think it=B4s the best thing my kids=20
)can have. So very simply, I don=B4t want my kids to be raised within=20
)this notional system. You=B4ll agree I have a right to that.
Of course.
)But there are many people who would not have this objections. On the=20
)contrary - they=B4d love their children to be educated by a teacher=20
)who beleives in reincarnation. Fine! Who am I to tell them this is=20
)wrong.
Exactly. Those of us who do prefer this notional system have a right=20
to that too.
)The point is, simply, that all this has to be explicitated. Learn=20
)about anthroposophy; if it seems to you a fantastic view of the=20
)world, send your kids imediatelly to a WS. If OTOH it seems to you=20
)prejudiced, irrational, and limited, don=B4t send them. That is it. It=20
)is up to each family. Only the schools have got to be clear about=20
)wich view of the world they embrace.
Absolutely. And I think the Waldorf schools in America have made a=20
very big mistake by seeking to enroll as many children as possible=20
without properly informing unsuspecting parents who have strong=20
disagreements with their notional system.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 330
-- Topica Digest --
Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:related thinking of Nazi era
By alice javanet.com
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By soma mwt.net
Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner buried in his OTO reg
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=5FRe=3A=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=A5s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
By dan dandugan.com
Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
By dan dandugan.com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=A5s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fknowledge=2F?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion addendum
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author
straight pleas
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=?ISO-8859-1?B?tA==?=s_body_of_kn
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner
buried in his OT
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner
buried in his O
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:00:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
Diana wrote:
)Although actually I didn't recognize the zealotry when I saw it, at
)first, in Waldorf/anthroposophy, probably because it does have that
)emotional draw for me. I'm not here because I think there will ever
)be a meeting of the minds between anthroposophy and its critics,
If we were talking about only critics, the situation would have been
different. The Reason why I tend to write "critics" in quotation
marks is that they're more like attackers and smearers. Saying that
anthroposophists are like the pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm" or like
the ruling party in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by the same author, that
we are far-right wingers promoting Nazism, practitioners of hypnotism
etc. etc. is _not_ criticism.
)I admit it is utterly fascinating to me to see how important it is
)to anthroposophists to defend every detail of Steiner, no matter how
)insane or even dangerous it may be (and I don't think that about all
)of Steiner; most of it is harmless if silly, and though he may have
)had a worthwhile insight or two, personally I think he made most of
)it up.)
Fascinating. Stewart C. Easton toyed with the same idea. His conclusion:
*****************************************************************
A sceptical reader might be willing to concede that higher powers
latent in man can be developed by systemtic effort along the lines
proposed by Rudolf Steiner. But this is a very long way from
conceding that all the knowledge given out by Steiner, including
knowledge of what actually happened in Palestine in the time of
Christ, could be acquired directly by any kind of spiritual vision,
however systematically developed. If one is to be convinced that
Steiner could in truth acquire such knowledge, and that the knowledge
is in fact in ccordance with truth, it seems to me that we hve no
option but to take it at least as a working hypothesis tht Steiner
was speaking the truth when he claimed that he had the ability to
read what has always been called, in the East and West alike, the
Akashic Record, or better, the Akasha Chronicle. There is no way of
proving or disproving his claim, but at least Steiner supported it
with as much evidence s he could. He stated exactly what the Akasha
Chronicle is, and he explained, if in a somewhat guarded manner, how
he gradually acquired the ability to read and how others could follow
in the same path and learn to read it themselves. He warned all those
who heard him and read his writings that they must accept nothing he
said or wrote on blind faith, but must test it in every possible way
and especially whether what he said at different times was always
internally consistent - a very difficult feat for a liar - as well as
consistent with all that is truly _known_ from other sources (which
of course does not include temporary scientific hypotheses).
Everything that has ever happened on earth, Steiner tells us, and
even events that have taken place in the spiritual worlds, are
indelibly recorded, not by an earthly or even by a heavenly scribe,
but imprinted, _while they are hppening_, in what he calls the
"astral light." Though few occultists are able to "read" it, they
have always been aware of the existence of this Akasha Chronicle,
which we may imagine as a kind of infinitely wide memory. Our own
memories are mysterious enough, even to ourselves, and we should
recognize that they do not exist in space, only in time, and that
they are in all respects immaterial. We can conceive that some other
human being could "read" in our memories because they are not
spatially attached to us; and it should be fairly easy to conceive
that their contents might well be able to survive long after our
bodies have decayed and been forgotten. Indeed, some well-known
mediumistic phenomena are perhaps best explined as resulting from the
accessibility of our memories to beings other than ourselves. The sum
total of _all_ memories, not only our own, but those also of higher
beings, constitutes the Akasha Chronicle, and Steiner tells us that
at a certain stage of initiation it becomes possible for a man to
"read" it. This does not mean that he can necessarily understand what
he "sees"; the depth and pfofundity of a man's vision into the
Chronicle depends upon the degree of his development, while his
ability to understand depends on many more factors that need not be
entered into here.
Steiner tells us a little of his own development in Chapters 32 and
33 of his autobiography. "While carrying out the plans together with
Marie von Sievers for the external activity," he writes, "I
elaborated the findings of my spiritual vision. On the one hand I
stood within the spiritual world in full consciousness. About the
year 1902 and in the years following I had imaginations,
inspirations, and intuitions regarding many things. But only
gradually, were these combined into what I then gave out publicly in
my writings..... During the years from 1901 to approximately a907 or
1908 I stood with all the forces of my soul under the impression of
the facts and Beings of the spiritual world that were drawing near to
me. Out of the experience of the spiritual world in general developed
specific details of knowledge."
The rest of Chapter 33, which deserves careful study by those who
doubt Rudolf Steiner's gifts and capacities, is devoted to the
struggle in which he engaged in order to be able to speak in a
suitably scientific manner about the knowledge he had won out of the
spiritual worlds. It seems unthinkable that he should while on his
deathbed have devoted some of the little strength that remained to
him to a detailed account of the difficulties involved in translating
his spiritual experiences into an acceptable scientific form, so that
they could be communicated to mankind, _if he had never had the
experiences at all_. That he could have _invented_ all that he tells
us from the Akasha Chronicle, seems equally unthinkable. His
judgement may be doubted, as we may also have reasonable doubts about
his _understanding_ of all that he saw, and even his ability to
remember it. The _existence_ of the Akasha Chronicle, as we have
said, is attested by all occultists before him who have spoken of the
matter as well as by Rudolf Steiner himself. Whether Steiner's own
vision was blurred, or his understanding and judgement impaired, must
be left to the discernment of those who read his books and lectures,
to say nothing of his autobiography; and it is also legitimate to
take into considertion the practical work inspired by his vision and
understanding.
**************************************************************
[Stewart C. Easton: "Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch,"
Anthroposophic Press 1980]
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:08:51 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re:related thinking of Nazi era
[Alice here]
Did anyone read the article in the latest Tricycle magazine?
It is about the Nazi mission to Tibet in 1938 by Alex McKay. The article
discusses other influential thinkers of the time... occultists etc.
What is the relationship to anthroposophy/Steiner of the "Vril" society?
Anyone know this?
I thought it gave an interesting summary of the fervor by which these
Aryan racists would have in searching for a superior race...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:43:16 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
Sharon:
Hello everyone, as you've noticed I've been quiet lately due to the piles and
piles of *interesting* books that have come my way. I've got so much to tell you
all, about sex magic and heads of God etc, but not enough time at the moment,
although I had to pop in to let you know a fascinating detail I just stumbled
across - Steiner was buried in his OTO regalia! Here's the quote:
"Crowley left Memphis-Misraiim to join the OTO and then became its Grand Master,
and another influential figure who crossed from the former to the OTO was Rudolf
Steiner.
He is most famous for his 'pure' brand of mysticism - Anthroposophy - and
deliberately played down his association with the OTO, so successfully that many
of his most ardent modern followers have no knowledge of it. When he died,
however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
[p 176 The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ,
by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. Touchstone, c 1997. Published by Simon and
Schuster.]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:16:40 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia]
soma mwt.net wrote:
) Sharon:
) Hello everyone, as you've noticed I've been quiet lately due to the piles and
) piles of *interesting* books that have come my way. I've got so much to tell you
) all, about sex magic and heads of God etc, but not enough time at the moment,
) although I had to pop in to let you know a fascinating detail I just stumbled
) across - Steiner was buried in his OTO regalia! Here's the quote:
)
) "Crowley left Memphis-Misraiim to join the OTO and then became its Grand Master,
) and another influential figure who crossed from the former to the OTO was Rudolf
) Steiner.
) He is most famous for his 'pure' brand of mysticism - Anthroposophy - and
) deliberately played down his association with the OTO, so successfully that many
) of his most ardent modern followers have no knowledge of it. When he died,
) however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
)
) [p 176 The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ,
) by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. Touchstone, c 1997. Published by Simon and
) Schuster.]
Just a short 'occultist tricky comment':
Steiner was not buried, when he died. He was cremated. Only some years ago,
his ashes were buried. They must have put the ashes in a costume then,
then, to have somethng to put the regalia on ...
Reminds a little about what you wrote on 20 Dec last year:
) ... Ahern, in "Sun at Midnight" wrote that it never
) dawned on Steiner that some places in the world don't have seasons like the
) kind we experience here in Wisconsin or Europe.
In his autobiography, Steiner tells how he learnt about it when he was
about 10 years old:
'I owe to the priest also, because of a certain profound impression made
upon me, a very great deal in the later orientation of my spiritual life.
One day he came into the school, gathered round him in the teacher's little
room the "riper" children, among whom he included me, unfolded a drawing he
had made, and with the help of this explained to us the Copernican system
of astronomy. He spoke about this very vividly - the revolution of the
earth around the sun, its rotation on its axis, the inclination of the axis
in summer and winter, and also the zones of the earth. In all of it I was
t; absorbed; I made drawings of a similar kind for days together, and then
received from the priest further special instruction concerning eclipses of
the sun and the moon; and thence-forward I directed all my search for
knowledge toward this subject. I was then about ten years old, and I could
not yet write without mistakes in spelling and grammar.'
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/tcoml;bytes=4437-43202
Next book ;-\ ?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:50:30 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
See the following for info on Steiner and OTO:
=20 http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
Other "interesting information" about Rudolf Steiner:
In a leading article, 14 September, 1922, "The Patriot" warns its=20
readers against "The Subterranean War" and writes:
*******************************************************
=46or those who desire to learn we publish to-day the first of a series=20
of articles by 'G.G.' (or 'Dargon'), a writer who has made a study of=20
secret societies. The purpose of 'The Anatomy of Revolution' is not=20
to take the reader deeply into any part of the subject, but to give a=20
general and historical view of that complex of subversive=20
organization which is working for the destruction of Christianity, of=20
Civilization, and of the British Empire. The writer, who is a true=20
Briton and a good patriot, has one purpose only - to warn the British=20
public of the unsuspected danger which, as he believes and we believe=20
also, imminently threatens it.
To quote G.G.:
"Here we must note that there has always been among the Arcane=20
societies a dual movement - on the one hand mystical, on the other=20
hand political. Such esoteric bodies as the Fraternity of the=20
Rosy-Cross, the Martinists, the Swedenborgians and Theosophists have=20
consisted no doubt largely of harmless enthusiasts to whom mysticism=20
and magic appealed. But they have also been used, as the cover for=20
political intrigue, and as a net wherein to catch, test, and select=20
persons who could be used for subversive ends. For it is one of the=20
methods of the revolutionary directorate to use, wherever possible,=20
harmless bodies as their cloak, and innocent people as their=20
unconscious agents....
"I may refer briefly to the existence of an offshoot of the=20
Theosophical Society, known as the Anthroposophical Society. This was=20
formed as the result of a chism in the ranks of the Theosophists, by=20
a man of Jewish birth who was connected with one of the modern=20
branches of the Carbonari. Not only so, but in association with=20
another Theosophist he is engaged in organising certain commercial=20
undertakings not unconnected with Communist propaganda; almost=20
precisely in the manner in which 'Count St. Germain' organised his=20
dyeworks and other commercial ventures with a like purpose. And this=20
queer business group has its connections with the Irish Republican=20
movement... and also with another mysterious group which was founded=20
by Jewish 'intellectuals' in France about four years ago (about=20
1918), and which includes in its membership many well-known=20
politicians, scientists, university professors, and literary men in=20
=46rance, Germany, and England, It is a secret society... although=20
nominally a 'Right Wing' society, it is in direct touch with members=20
of the Soviet Government Russia..."
**********************************************************
The above text was not only published in "The Patriot," but it was=20
printed on flyers and distributed all over Europe. I came across the=20
excerpt above in a book entitled "The Trail of the Serpent" by=20
Inquire Within, Boswell Publishing Co. Ltd. 1936 - Chapter IX,=20
"Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy," page 203. Fascinating reading,=20
because the chapter links Steiner, Schur=E9, the Rosicrucians,=20
Gnosticism etc. to Communism and the Jews. On pqge 213, we can read:
**************************************************************
Moreover, with regard to intellectual connections, necessary for this=20
World State, we might quote the report 1928-29, of the "Society for=20
Cultural Relations Between the Peoples of the British Commonwealth=20
and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics," in which it was noted=20
that the Anthroposophical Society (Steiner's) was one of the=20
organisations in contact with it. A British Government Blue Book thus=20
describes this S.C.R.: "The Communist International favours it as a=20
fertile ground for Communist propaganda of the intellectual variety."=20
And there is little doubt that to-day every nation is conscious of=20
the Soviet life "pulsing through its own daily interests," largely=20
detrimental and disintegrating economically, political, and=20
spiritually.
****************************************************************
the rest of the chapter reads pretty much like "Anthroposophy and=20
Ecofascism," except that the Communists have replaced the Nazis.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:26:36 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
DAN DUGAN
) ) There is real science and pseudoscience in China,
)) just as there is
)) here. The majority of institutions teach real
)) science, same as here.
)
)Michael C:
)
)Dan, if you are refering the traditional Chinese
)medical arts. It is my understanding that there is
)about a 50/50 distribution between the prescientific
)traditional medicine and the industrial age western
)medicine in China as far as both teaching and practice
)go.
I doubt either of us has hard data. My friend Dr. Wallace Sampson who
toured Chinese medical facilities a couple of years ago formed the
opinion that about 85% of Chinese use evidence-based medicine and 15%
traditional.
) ) The traditional Chinese elements don't represent
)) Chinese science
)) today any more than the Greek four elements
)) represent European
)) science today. Science is a world-wide culture.
)
)Michael C:
)
)Yes I agree that this is true but what I don't agree
)with is the idea that only scientifically verified
)ideas have nerit.
Why not? Especially when people's health is involved, isn't it
responsible to use what has passed tests for safety and efficacy?
)If that was the case we would have
)to eliminate most surgery because scientific double
)blind studies have not been performed on most forms of
)surgeries for obvious reasons.
Not long ago a common cardiac surgical procedure was found to be
ineffective, and it isn't done any more. Tell me about an
"alternative" medical practice that alternative people have decided
not to do any more because it doesn't work.
)There is another
)problem, it cost a lot of money to perform scientific
)studies on alternative medical treatements.
Because high standards for safety and efficacy have been set. I'm
happy about that.
)However a
)lot of studies have been done with various results.
)These studies seem to be useless for the people on
)either side that have already made up thier minds.
)They either ignore the results or just explain them
)away.
An unwarranted conclusion. Real science is based on evidence, not opinions.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:39:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=5FRe=3A=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=A5s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
=?iso
Michael C., you wrote,
)This organization PLANS recieves backing from both
)Scientistic Materialistic Fundemantalists and
)Christian Fundemantalists.
And everybody in between those extremes.
)As a person that values
)freedom of thought and so forth I realize that
)Anthropops can be extremely dogmatic however when
)compared to the two mentioned groups that are backing
)PLANS I think that Anthroposophy is a breath of fresh
)air (it is really rather stale but I said in
)comparison)
If you consider rejecting the enlightenment and much of the
renaissance, too, "a breath of fresh air," you're welcome to it,
Michael.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:42:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
At 1:11 AM +0200 6/5/01, Sune Nordwall wrote:
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) [I believe this law names Anthroposophy--Dan Dugan]
)
)What makes you believe it does?
The friend who sent it to me said it did, that's all. Do you have any
further information about it?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:34:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=A5s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fknowledge=2F?=
was_"_fo =?i
Michael C., you wrote (to Clara),
)I basically agree with you that it MIGHT be wise to
)include the knowledge from all cultures in education.
)On the other hand nearly all education that has taken
)place in the modern industrial world is very Euro
)Centric. A gross and obvious example of this is the
)depiction of the Early Egytpians as white Mediteranean
)people. Yes well before the time of Cleopatra Alexader
)the Great conquered Egypt and set up a white
)Mediteranean ruling class.(If you can believe history,
)personally I take it with a grain of salt).
)
)Now when I was in school which was some time ago all
)Egyptians were depicted as white Mediteranian peoples
)which could in no way be mistaken for black Africans.
)However one need only look at how these people
)depicted themselves with there art to see that they
)appear to be black Africans.
I agree about the Eurocentricity, but you chose a bad example. The
Egyptians depicted themselves as reddish-brown-skinned. I recall an
ancient Egyptian painting showing Egyptians with a group of captured
slaves who were clearly negroid in features and color, the painter
making the distinction quite clear.
There is a dispute about this in American education. A group of
Afro-centric scholars claims that ancient Egyptians were the
ancestors of African-Americans, and that they had advanced sciences
and technology, including aircraft. Their most notorious product is
called the "Portland Baseline Essays," race-based pseudo-history in
the same class of fantasy as Anthroposophy's. Some urban school
districts adopted these texts!
It would be better to point at the sophisticated African culture that
built Great Zimbabwe.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:42:27 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Michael Sieber, you drew a false dichotomy:
)"Then one has to believe about r&k before doing further research into
)anthroposophy?"
)No, I do not think so.
)But I do think that one has
)
)1. to try to understand as impartially as possible what is meant e.g.
)by the concept of r&k (and the other basics of spiritual science).
)
)2. After that there are two alternatives:
)
)a) You are not convinced but you are able to understand these
)concepts and are willing to accept them experimentally as basis for
)examining the further structure.
)
)b) You find them that repulsive or ridiculous that you won't even use
)them experimentally.
)Ok. That is your choice. But I feel that we have to stop further
)arguments there and then if we are interested in a meaningful
)discourse. Building the first floor on a nonexistent ground floor is
)bound to fail.
How about 2. c): You view reincarnation and karma as religious
beliefs common to a number of sects.
This is neither "finding them ridiculous" nor "accepting them
experimentally"; it's viewing them objectively. You appear to say
that an objective view cannot result in a useful research program
into Anthroposophy. I don't agree.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:00:46 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: " four elements" was: another old discussion addendum
michael:
) However I would suggest that you take a look at
) Einstein's autobiographical notes and get an idea of
) what he thinks of the way that "science' is taught in
) conventional education.
what era are we talking about?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:02:04 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author
straight please
michael, whats with the capitals?are you shouting?
bea
)
) MICHAEL C:
) PLEASE GET YOUR PERSONS STRAIGHT DIANA, I DID NOT
) WRITE THIS IT MAY HAVE BEEN MICHAEL SIEBER WHOSE NAME
) I HAVE PRABLY MISPELLED AN WHO'S NAME I HAVE
) MISSPELLED AS MICAEL SILBER BEFORE.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:06:01 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=?ISO-8859-1?B?tA==?=s_body_of_kn
) Michael C:
)
) Clara,
)
You point out very well what is probably
) a huge gap between the actual and the ideals and
) stated goals of Waldorf Education and the actual
) practice. Being that I have not been involved in the
) actual what I mostly discuss on this site is the
) theoretical and in fact in many ways that concerns me
) more.
I fell that a lot of people involved in waldorf ed that I have come accross
spend a lot of time with the ideals and constantly ignore the actual fact
that the ideals dont work in practise
bea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:08:56 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner
buried in his OTO reg
)
))
)) "Crowley left Memphis-Misraiim to join the OTO and then became its Grand
)) Master,
)) and another influential figure who crossed from the former to the OTO was
)) Rudolf
)) Steiner.
)) He is most famous for his 'pure' brand of mysticism - Anthroposophy - and
)) deliberately played down his association with the OTO, so successfully that
)) many
)) of his most ardent modern followers have no knowledge of it. When he died,
)) however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
what is OTO?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:35:07 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner cremated, not buried in the 1920s [Sharon: Steiner
buried in his OT
)what is OTO?
"Ordo Templis Orientis." Check them out at http://www.otohq.org/oto/.
They also have a women's lodge in Austin:
http://www.scarletwoman.org/.
OTO is for the most part associated with the left-handed (=black
magic) occultist Aleister Crowley -
http://www.lsi.usp.br/usp/rod/magick/aleister_crowley.html,
http://www.thelemicgoldendawn.org/acf/
Aleeister Crowley, who aspired to be the Beast in the Apocalypse of
St. John, dabbled in sexual magic and weird rituals. He earned the
title "The most evil man in the world." His final words before he
died were, "I am confused."
When Steiner lived, rumors occurred that he was or had been a member
of OTO and that he had been a practitioner of sexual magic. These
rumors came in addition to the allegations that he was an agent for
the Zionist-Bolshevik conspiracy. The latter appears to have been
dropped today because the red scare doesn't raise an eyebrow anymore,
and replaced with Nazi allegations instead because it's more scary.
But the black magic, sexual magic, and OTO rumors still enjoy some
popularity in special circles. PLANS seems to the right place for
this kind of thing.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:25:44 GMT
From: Sune Nordwall (sune.nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Re: U.S. officials wary as French anti-cult law nears passage
Dan, you wrote:
) At 1:11 AM +0200 6/5/01, Sune Nordwall wrote:
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) )) [I believe this law names Anthroposophy--Dan Dugan]
Me [Sune:]
) )What makes you believe it does?
You:
) The friend who sent it to me said it did, that's all. Do
) you have any further information about it?
Not any primary sources or texts. Can you ask your friend
to substantiate his and your claim more in detail; sources,
quotes or some other way?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological
cell biology, EU and social threefolding
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 331
-- Topica Digest --
Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the authorstraight pleas
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: The Daily Rhythm
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
By soma mwt.net
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By steve premofine.com
Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: _Re:=?iso-8859-1?Q?=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight pleas
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5FRe:=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
By steve premofine.com
Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=?ISO-8859-1?B?tA==?=s_body_of_kn
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight pleas
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By snell gv.net
Re: Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
By snell gv.net
Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:10:16 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "children should stick to what they experience"/ was " four elements" was: a
Michael C., this post completely confuses me, but I'll do my best to wade
through it.
You wrote:
)When I read what you write I believe that we are not
)so very far apart in our thinking. However you seem to
)respond to my ideas as if they are wounding you
)personally.
I'm not sure why you think that, I try to stick to the issues.
Michael C., nobody wants to hear two people do a "You said this," "No I
didn't" thing. Those discussions get impossibly confusing very quickly and I
have deleted all your shouting. I don't think I misquoted you, and anybody
else who is interested in who said what when, can go re-read it for
themselves.
And re: your later shouting at me to get your name straight, chill out. I am
sorry I mixed you up with Michael S. There are so many Michaels lately I've
decided to call everybody Michael. (kidding) I've been called Liz, Sharon,
and Debra myself in the past 2 weeks, and had one of my posts mixed up with
Clara's, there's really no need to take it personally.
)It seems to me that what it is mostly likely that young school age
) )children actually experience is the that earth is still. In fact think
)that if a proper study was done that it would show that the vast )majority
)of school age children actually experience the earth as )stationary.
So my eventual conclusion, that you feel children should be taught only what
they can experience via the five senses, is correct? I was trying to
understand your reasoning in discussing whether the earth or the sun is the
"still point"; I concluded that since the answer is neither, you were
actually more concerned with the "sense-perceptible only" criterion.
)So why not start them with this.
Well, because education is about going *past* your starting point, isn't it?
Expanding the mind? If they *already* think this, and all you aim to do is
reinforce it, what's school for?
No one needs to go to school to learn that the earth *feels* like it is
standing still.
)Now in Clara's case she says that when her son had
)heard or figured out that the earth was round that
)Clara and I think her husband put on a demonstration
)of the sun going around the Earth. This really seemed
)to stimulte her son and I suggest you go back and read
)what was said because I cannnot represent it as well
)as Clara did.
I don't know why you keep suggesting I, in particular, should re-read
things. I read Clara's post, I answered it as well. Is there something in it
you think I must have missed? I thought it was a great idea too.
What you seem to be missing is that this does not happen in Waldorf. If you
post here to defend Waldorf, you can expect Waldorf parents here to tell you
what actually happens in Waldorf, since it obviously does not match your
ideas!
)Take your objections about gnomes and faries up with
)some one that is a proponnent of this part of the
)curriculum.
I can see where you're coming from; if you don't think the gnomes etc.
should be part of the curriculum, then I can see it would feel unfair that I
would be insisting you reconcile it with your own views. The thing is, I am
not addressing only you. Your own ideas about what Waldorf *should* be are
interesting, but the list is about what actually happens in Waldorf. Perhaps
you are actually not aware that gnomes, fairies, numerous spirits, are in
fact a huge part of the Waldorf early curriculum.
I would like prospective parents to know what actually happens in Waldorf
classrooms. Individuals may have other ideas, or usually misconceptions,
about what Waldorf "should" be, or what they think Steiner *really* meant.
Don't take offense if I seem to brush those ideas off - Michael C. may have
great ideas, but they aren't being implemented in the approx. 800 Waldorf
schools worldwide.
)What I can remeber writing when this whole thing started was that I )was
)entertaining the idea (that young children should only be taught )sense
)perceptible things). If you would be so kind as to go
)back and see what I wrote I am very confident to find
)that this is the case.
Really, I don't need to go back, I understood it then and I re-stated it
only this afternoon, so I don't know where you think I am so dreadfully
mucking up your views here.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:34:38 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the authorstraight pleas
Clara:
Michael, I want to second Bea¥s question. This and
the other post directed to Diana, with all the
capitals, come out as aggressive.
Are you aware that capitals stand for shouting in
internet linguo? I don¥t think we should be
shouting at one another here... It is shocking.
|
| michael, whats with the capitals?are you
shouting?
| bea
| )
| ) MICHAEL C:
| ) PLEASE GET YOUR PERSONS STRAIGHT DIANA, I DID
NOT
| ) WRITE THIS IT MAY HAVE BEEN MICHAEL SIEBER
WHOSE NAME
| ) I HAVE PRABLY MISPELLED AN WHO'S NAME I HAVE
| ) MISSPELLED AS MICAEL SILBER BEFORE.
|
|
=================
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:56:43 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei wrote:
)))[Clara:]
)))))What happens with anthroposophy is preciselly
this. The
)))self-proclaimed initiates argue, they "know"
things we others
)))cannot know.
))[Tarjei:]
))Experienced brain surgeons might argue something
quite similar.
)[Clara:]
))Oh, c¥mon now. The reason brain surgeons know
more about brain
)surgery than we lay people is that they have
studied it. If I want
)to study it, and become a brain surgeon, I can do
it. This is very
)different from being an initiate in spiritual,
occult matters.
The analogy between the occult researcher and the
brain surgeon is
valid, provided you can become an occultist too if
you want it.
Clara:
Quite frankly Tarjei: I think this is rhetorical
only from your part. I don¥t think the analogy is
valid. Alow me to "test" you ;) :
Let us suppose you have a brain tumor (sorry to be
so extreme). You go to two doctors, trying to
solve your problem. The first doctor is a regular
brain surgeon, graduated in a respectable medical
school, with a PhD and papers published in medical
journals, etc etc. The second doctor is not
actually a doctor, but a spiritual healer. You
question them in turn: "What can you do to help
me, and how do I know you are qualifyed to do it?"
The first doctor answers:
"I¥m going to perform a surgery in your brain to
remove the tumor, in hospital XXX (respected
institution), following my technique YYY, which I
developed based on other current techniques. YYY
has been published in the journal WWW (scientific
magazine); it has been aproved by the Norwegian
Association of Brain Surgeons. You may consult the
Association and enquire about me. I am qualifyed
to perform that surgery because I went to
university, because other surgeons have examined
and approved my work."
The second doctor answers:
"I¥m going to perform a surgery in you brain to
remove the tumor, right here in my surgery,
folowing my techinque ZZZ, which I developed based
on my findings in the Spiritual Records. ZZZ has
been published in the Spiritual Records;
unfortunatelly, no one else has had the
opportunity to check it out, because as you know,
not many other people have access to the Records.
But it has been approved by other healers who
dwell in the Spiritual World. You may consult them
and enquire about me, that is, provided you are
enough Spiritually Developed. I am qualifyed to
perform this surgery because I have studied the
Spiritual World for decades, and the Spiritual
Beings have examined and approved of my work."
Now - *seriouly* Tarjei: to which of the two
doctors would you trust your precious brain, to be
revealed to the light of day and have a
considerable chunk taken off it ???
*********
As you may imagine, I¥d take the first doctor
anytime. And I imagine anyone in their right minds
would.
And why is that? Because the evidence he presents
to the quality of his work, I can *verify*. Other
people have examined his work; I can talk to this
people.
I cannot do that with the evidence provided by th
second "doctor"; it is unverifyable - unless of
course, I have acces to the Spiritual World -
which I don¥t.
So if I accepted him - or if you answer me that
you¥d accept him - it would be on the grounds of
FAITH. Anyone who accepts this doctor is acting
out of faith. He may even perform a hell of a
surgery and save your life; that is not my point.
I only want to point out - with this surgeon,
nothing but faith could guide you.
It is the same with believing in anthroposophy or
not. You may believe and accept it; but you do it
out of faith. You have had no access to the A.
Records (have you?); yet you *believe* what
Steiner says is there. Argue what you want: this
is faith.
Please don¥t forget to answer: which surgeon would
you choose Tarjei?
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:07:39 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: The Daily Rhythm
Liz wrote:
| I will quote from Rhythm in the Kindergarten by
Nancy Foster:
| ))"The extent to which the children became
imbued with the day's rhythm| was graphically
illustrated by an experience in our kindergarten
some| years ago. The parents had joined us, first
thing in the morning, for| our Harvest Festival,
and as part of the Festival we shared a snack
with| them - the harvest loaf we had baked. In
due course we said good-bye| and continued with
the morning.
| | When planning the day, I had reasoned that we
would not need to have our| usual snack time,
following circle, since we would already have
eaten.| Thus, after playtime, clean-up and a short
circle, I said to the| children sitting quietly on
the rug, "And now lets get our coats; it is
| outdoor time." The children got up - and went
straight to the snack
| tables and sat down! There was nothing to be
done but to gather
| together quickly the remnants of our harvest
loaf and have snack after
| all!"((
|
| This passage sums up what I feared most about a
Waldorf Kindergarten and| its emphasis on rhythm.
In the passage above the teacher expresses| pride
that the children in her kindergarten were so
imbued with the| rhythm of the kindergarten that
they ignored the fact that their tummies| were
full from having already had a snack and went to
the table for| snack because that is what they
always do after circle. How can this be| healthy
for children? To be so out of touch with their
own bodily| needs?
|
| My son would have to be starving hungry before
he would choose to eat| snack rather than play
outside. But I am sure that had he had Miss
| Nancy as his teacher he would soon be joining
all those other kids at
| the table, and my heart would break.
|
| Thank goodness his kindergarten teacher lets the
kids follow their own| rhythms. Her children do
not often sit "quietly on the rug" they are| very
noisy and chaotic. Just how they like it.
Clara:
Thank you for this post, Liz. It is sometimes
necessary for us to listen to someone else
pointing out to a fact that worries us, in order
to become concious of how it worries us... this
was the case with me when I read your words above.
What the teacher describes in your quote I¥ve had
the opportunity to observe, and experience, many
times. It describes very well what can happen in a
waldorf KG environment. It is in itself
disturbing, as you mention, to see children acting
like this, detached from their bodily needs...
But what is most disturbing for me, is the
teacher¥s attitude, taking pride in what happened.
This is *typical*, in my experience. And you can
expand this to other situations; waldorf teachers
become so enamoured of the method, of the setting
up of situations, they end up oblivious of the
CHILDREN.
And the children, in turn, become oblivious of
themselves. They can get so conditioned, they do
not know what they want, wnat they think or what
they feel anymore.
This is I think, one big mark that some W pupils
carry - and they carry it for life. Not all; some
children rebell against the conditioning, and
there you have the Wild Waldorf Kids. Much
healthier, IMO, than the ones who lose contact
with themselves so deeply, that they don¥t even
rebel.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:24:22 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
)Clara:
)
)Quite frankly Tarjei: I think this is rhetorical only from your=20
)part. I don=B4t think the analogy is valid. Alow me to "test" you ;) :
)
)Let us suppose you have a brain tumor (sorry to be so extreme). You=20
)go to two doctors, trying to solve your problem. The first doctor is=20
)a regular brain surgeon, graduated in a respectable medical school,=20
)with a PhD and papers published in medical journals, etc etc. The=20
)second doctor is not actually a doctor, but a spiritual healer. You=20
)question them in turn: "What can you do to help me, and how do I=20
)know you are qualifyed to do it?"
)
)The first doctor answers: "I=B4m going to perform a surgery in your=20
)brain to remove the tumor, in hospital XXX (respected institution),=20
)following my technique YYY, which I developed based on other current=20
)techniques. YYY has been published in the journal WWW (scientific=20
)magazine); it has been aproved by the Norwegian Association of Brain=20
)Surgeons. You may consult the Association and enquire about me. I am=20
)qualifyed to perform that surgery because I went to university,=20
)because other surgeons have examined and approved my work."
)
)The second doctor answers: "I=B4m going to perform a surgery in you=20
)brain to remove the tumor, right here in my surgery, folowing my=20
)techinque ZZZ, which I developed based on my findings in the=20
)Spiritual Records. ZZZ has been published in the Spiritual Records;=20
)unfortunatelly, no one else has had the opportunity to check it out,=20
)because as you know, not many other people have access to the=20
)Records. But it has been approved by other healers who dwell in the=20
)Spiritual World. You may consult them and enquire about me, that is,=20
)provided you are enough Spiritually Developed. I am qualifyed to=20
)perform this surgery because I have studied the Spiritual World for=20
)decades, and the Spiritual Beings have examined and approved of my=20
)work."
)
)Now - *seriouly* Tarjei: to which of the two doctors would you trust=20
)your precious brain, to be revealed to the light of day and have a=20
)considerable chunk taken off it ???
)*********
)As you may imagine, I=B4d take the first doctor
)anytime. And I imagine anyone in their right minds
)would.
)
)And why is that? Because the evidence he presents
)to the quality of his work, I can *verify*. Other
)people have examined his work; I can talk to this
)people.
)
)I cannot do that with the evidence provided by th
)second "doctor"; it is unverifyable - unless of
)course, I have acces to the Spiritual World -
)which I don=B4t.
)
)So if I accepted him - or if you answer me that
)you=B4d accept him - it would be on the grounds of
)FAITH. Anyone who accepts this doctor is acting
)out of faith. He may even perform a hell of a
)surgery and save your life; that is not my point.
)I only want to point out - with this surgeon,
)nothing but faith could guide you.
)
)It is the same with believing in anthroposophy or
)not. You may believe and accept it; but you do it
)out of faith. You have had no access to the A.
)Records (have you?); yet you *believe* what
)Steiner says is there. Argue what you want: this
)is faith.
)
)Please don=B4t forget to answer: which surgeon would
)you choose Tarjei?
I'm sorry, Clara, but I can't oblige you this time. The description=20
you give of the second "doctor" has no parallel in the real world of=20
medicine. If your second doctor is supposed to represent=20
anthroposophical medicine in any way, he doesn't fit the bill at all,=20
because anthroposophical doctors have the same medical training as=20
regular doctors, although they specialize in anthroposophical=20
medicine. They are not faith healers.
Secondly, the choice would depend upon what was at stake. If a=20
surgical operation entailed a high risk of becoming paralyzed or=20
total and permanent loss of memory, an alternative treatment with a=20
new drug at the experimental stage, for instance, might be the lesser=20
of two evils - except doing nothing, of course, which might mean=20
certain death (for the sake of argument mind you).
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:31:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei to Clara:
)The description you give of the second "doctor" has no parallel in the
) )real world of medicine.
I'm sure Dan or someone will give an opinion about anthroposophic medicine
now, but I just wanted to point out that there is a very real parallel with
education. Most Waldorf classroom practices derive from Steiner's
"indications," which are not verifiable scientifically (and for this reason
are largely ignored by other educators), and do not make sense, unless we go
astral traveling . . .
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:51:40 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Diana wrote:
)I'm sure Dan or someone will give an opinion about anthroposophic
)medicine now, but I just wanted to point out that there is a very
)real parallel with education. Most Waldorf classroom practices
)derive from Steiner's "indications," which are not verifiable
)scientifically (and for this reason are largely ignored by other
)educators), and do not make sense, unless we go astral traveling . .
).
Because medicine and pedagogy are both off my own turf, I will
encourage professionals in these fields to address the issues at
hand. The only point I wish to comment is that astral travelling is
not a requirement for Steiner's statements to make sense.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:35:39 -0300 (ART)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Clara=20Paix=E3o?= (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei wrote:
(Clara:)
) )) )Please don¥t forget to answer: which surgeon
would) )you choose Tarjei?
)
) I'm sorry, Clara, but I can't oblige you this time.
) The description ) you give of the second "doctor"
has no parallel in) the real world of ) medicine. If
your second doctor is supposed to) represent
) anthroposophical medicine in any way, he doesn't fit
) the bill at all, ) because anthroposophical doctors
have the same) medical training as ) regular doctors,
although they specialize in) anthroposophical
) medicine. They are not faith healers.
Goodness, no Tarjei, you¥ve got me all wrong. Maybe my
post was unclear.
I¥m trying an analogy here, I¥m not talking about
meicine specifically, let alone A. medicine.
Lets recapitulate: I said in a post that cientific
evidence is verifyable, but spiritual evidence is not;
the former is available to everyone, the latter, to
initiates only. You then argued that one could compare
the difficulty in accessing the Spiritual Records
(spiritual evidence) to the difficulty for a layman to
understand science, giving the example of how only
brain surgeons understand brain surgery. By this you
meant: the "initiates" are simply people who know
more, just like brain surgeons. The evidence is there,
in the two cases; only, one has to study in order to
understand it (undergo a proces of initiation in the
first case, go to meical school in the second).
Then I answered: No, I don¥t think this analogy is
valid. I mantain that the fundamentals of the brain
surgeon¥s work is verifyable; the occultist¥s is not.
You replied, yes it is, provided you have access to
occult records.
It was then that I suggested the "test" with the 2
surgeons. The one, a scientific doctor, the other, a
spitirual healer. What I want to know is, how far you
would mantain your own analogy. Remember, you said
that the fundametals of spiritual knowledge and the
fundamentals of scientific knowledge are both equally
verifyable. If we accept that, it should make no
difference if a doctor has had a scientific trainig,
or a spiritual training.
I just thought the surgery would be an extreme example
that shows that most of us do regard scientific
knowledge as more relyable. Frankly - how can one know
that what the spiritual healer says is true? He could
simply have made the whole thing up. WHO guarantees
for the veracity of his statements? In turn - the
other doctor couldn¥t have made it all up. We have a
guarantee that he is a doctor: because he graduated in
this world, not the other.
So logic shows that there is nothing, for us human
beings living on earth, that can guarantee that that
doctor studied the Spiritual Records and gained
knowledge there that enabled him to perform brain
surgeries.
If we believe him, we do it out of FAITH in his words.
Because WE don¥t have access to the suppose Records,
and we don¥t know any person or institution who does.
That is what I was trying to point out.
Now: it is all very well for us to be debating
philosophycally here; you can say that you trust the
initiates as much as you trust the scientists. Now, in
*real* life; if your brain was at the stake: would you
hold this view? Would you not prefer to play safe and
run to the university hospital in Oslo?
That was my first point. The second point, as I said,
was: *even* if you believe in the healer: it is your
faith that makes you believe him. You haven¥t had
access to the Spiritual World yourself.
That was it, Tarjei, I¥m not making any reference to
anthroposophical medicine or otherwise.
Clara
(PS I have nothing against alternative healers a
priori. They may work; I don¥t know. But I know they
are not scientific. If I go to a healer, I go knowing
it is my faith who is taking me. I don¥t try to
convince myself I¥m acting acording to science. If I
want science I go to the hospital. That is not a
judgement of value, it is only being reasonable)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCites. Š f·cil e gr·tis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:23:15 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
Sharon quotes occult experts Picknett and Prince:
) ) "Crowley left Memphis-Misraiim to join the OTO and then became its Grand Master,
) ) and another influential figure who crossed from the former to the OTO was Rudolf
) ) Steiner.
) ) He is most famous for his 'pure' brand of mysticism - Anthroposophy - and
) ) deliberately played down his association with the OTO, so successfully that many
) ) of his most ardent modern followers have no knowledge of it. When he died,
) ) however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
) )
) ) [p 176 The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ,
) ) by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. Touchstone, c 1997. Published by Simon and
) ) Schuster.]
Sune:
) Just a short 'occultist tricky comment':
)
) Steiner was not buried, when he died. He was cremated. Only some years ago,
) his ashes were buried. They must have put the ashes in a costume then,
) then, to have somethng to put the regalia on ...
Sharon:
Glad you are finally 'fessing up' that you guys are tricky. I was *QUOTING* expert
occult researchers, writers, lecturers, Picknett and Clive. I was not making that
statement up, nor was it a memory from my reading, it is a quote. Now who do you
think I would believe, a group of tricksters that duped me with their deception and
by with holding information....or a couple of occult experts who wrote a coherent
book to impart information? I have come across enough references connecting Steiner
to OTO that I believe them... and... not you Sune! (BTW, lots of mystery cult
followers believe all sorts of strange things about Christ's burial so why would I
believe you Sune about Steiner's burial? Some say Christ did not rise on the third
day but that he was stolen by a gardener, or another version is that he had his head
chopped off and mummified and the Knight's Templars have it at Rosslyn Chapel in
Scottland, another version is that Christ was stoned and not crucified...etc, etc.)
That's the problem with religion, too many stories to be believed, take your pick!
) Sune:
)
) Reminds a little about what you wrote on 20 Dec last year:
)
) ) ... Ahern, in "Sun at Midnight" wrote that it never
) ) dawned on Steiner that some places in the world don't have seasons like the
) ) kind we experience here in Wisconsin or Europe.
Sharon:
Is that the best you can do old chap? I'm going to find that chapter from Ahern and
throw it in your face. Unfortunately I don't have the book at the moment, I've lent
it to my Waldorf friend. (She asked to borrow it.) You are quite confused because
although I admit my statement about seasons was from memory, the OTO statement above
is a direct quote. I am not saying it, the experts are. (I remember Ahern saying all
sorts of things about Steiner's Anthroposophy, including mention of a system of
racial differences much like that of South Africa. That is not a quote, but a memory
from the book I read which I will find and quote for you one of these days.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:29:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
)Clara:
)
)Lets recapitulate: I said in a post that cientific evidence is=20
)verifyable, but spiritual evidence is not; the former is available=20
)to everyone, the latter, to initiates only. You then argued that one=20
)could compare the difficulty in accessing the Spiritual Records=20
)(spiritual evidence) to the difficulty for a layman to understand=20
)science, giving the example of how only brain surgeons understand=20
)brain surgery. By this you meant: the "initiates" are simply people=20
)who know more, just like brain surgeons. The evidence is there, in=20
)the two cases; only, one has to study in order to understand it=20
)(undergo a proces of initiation in the first case, go to meical=20
)school in the second).
So far so good.
)Then I answered: No, I don=B4t think this analogy is valid.
Judging from the below, you seem to have misunderstood my analogy.
)I mantain that the fundamentals of the brain surgeon=B4s work is=20
)verifyable; the occultist=B4s is not. You replied, yes it is, provided=20
)you have access to
)occult records.
I was referring to the occultists' work in the spiritual realm, _not_=20
in the surgeon's operating room. Just like I was referring to the=20
surgeons physical work on his patient, _not_ in any other fields.
)It was then that I suggested the "test" with the 2 surgeons. The=20
)one, a scientific doctor, the other, a spitirual healer. What I want=20
)to know is, how far you would mantain your own analogy.
That is _not my analogy, Clara, it is _yours_. My analogy was that of=20
an occultist and a brain surgeon because each requires rigorous=20
training. I have never suggested that their performances are=20
interchangeable, unless we're talking about two occultists who both=20
happen to be formally educated as brain surgeons. Secondly, I have=20
never suggested that the occultist should be a faith healer. That is=20
_your_ idea, Clara, _your_ analogy.
)Remember, you said that the fundametals of spiritual knowledge and=20
)the fundamentals of scientific knowledge are both equally=20
)verifyable. If we accept that, it should make no difference if a=20
)doctor has had a scientific trainig, or a spiritual training.
It does make a difference, Clara. A doctor cannot be a match for, or=20
an equal to, a brain surgeon unless he or she is also trained as a=20
medical physician. Their fields of expertise may be different, or the=20
methods they command may be different, but their education and=20
training must be basically similar. By the same token, a second=20
opinion about a purely spiritual question or problem requires a=20
training that matches that of the first investigator. For this very=20
reason, you cannot make a choice in a given situation between a=20
person who knows only medicine and a person who knows only the=20
spiritual. In other words, the ideal brain surgeon would be someone=20
who possessed both of these disciplines. A seer _without_ medical=20
training is no match for a physician _with_ medical training, just=20
like a physician without seership is no match for a seer when it=20
comes to reading the Akasha.
)I just thought the surgery would be an extreme example that shows=20
)that most of us do regard scientific knowledge as more relyable.
My point is that scientific knowledge in addition to apiritual sight=20
is even more reliable.
)Frankly - how can one know that what the spiritual healer says is true?
If what he or she does not make sense to you, you cannot know that.=20
If it does, it's up to you.
)He could simply have made the whole thing up. WHO guarantees for the=20
)veracity of his statements? In turn - the other doctor couldn=B4t have=20
)made it all up. We have a guarantee that he is a doctor: because he=20
)graduated in this world, not the other.
I have not suggested that it is recommendable to consult or to=20
receive treatment from a doctor who did not graduate in this world.=20
Where did you get that from?
)So logic shows that there is nothing, for us human beings living on=20
)earth, that can guarantee that that doctor studied the Spiritual=20
)Records and gained knowledge there that enabled him to perform brain=20
)surgeries.
You're mixing the cards here it seems. Medical training _in this=20
world_ is a requirement for practicing medicine, and especially for=20
performing surgery. I made the analogy to the occultist because both=20
fields require training, not because their practices are=20
interchangeable.
)If we believe him, we do it out of FAITH in his words.
By the way, I have not suggested or promoted faith healing.
)=20 Because WE don=B4t have access to the suppose Records, and we don=B4t=
=20
)know any person or institution who does.
In an emergency situation, you wouldn't anyway. You wouldn't be in=20
shape to demand personal access to medical journals and record if=20
your life had to be saved in a half hour. You would have to trust,=20
have faith in, the surgeons without such personal advance=20
verivication.
)That is what I was trying to point out.
)
)Now: it is all very well for us to be debating philosophycally here;=20
)you can say that you trust the initiates as much as you trust the=20
)scientists.
To me, scientists and initiates are not two separate or competing=20
groups. Which person I would trust about which topic would have to be=20
on a case by case basis. When you give me the hypothetical option=20
between a top-notch trained physician and a layman with spiritual=20
sight whom you describe as a caricature, the question is not relevant=20
for me to answer, because it's unrealistic and because it implies=20
that I prefer non-doctors to doctors for medical treatment, which is=20
nonsense.
)Now, in
)*real* life; if your brain was at the stake: would you hold this=20
)view? Would you not prefer to play safe and run to the university=20
)hospital in Oslo?
Are you suggesting that I have indicated that I would go to a=20
non-physician with a serious medical problem, Clara? Would you please=20
quote me to show how I created this impression?
)That was my first point. The second point, as I said, was: *even* if=20
)you believe in the healer: it is your faith that makes you believe=20
)him. You haven=B4t had access to the Spiritual World yourself.
Again, Clara: Please repeat back to me what I have said about faith=20
healing. The answer is: nothing.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:00:11 -0700
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
On 5 Jun 2001, at 3:00, Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Diana wrote:
)
) )Although actually I didn't recognize the zealotry when I saw it, at
) )first, in Waldorf/anthroposophy, probably because it does have that
) )emotional draw for me. I'm not here because I think there will ever
) )be a meeting of the minds between anthroposophy and its critics,
)
) If we were talking about only critics, the situation would have been
) different. The Reason why I tend to write "critics" in quotation
) marks is that they're more like attackers and smearers. Saying that
) anthroposophists are like the pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm" or like
) the ruling party in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by the same author, that
) we are far-right wingers promoting Nazism, practitioners of hypnotism etc.
) etc. is _not_ criticism.
But Tarjei, the critics are not a unified group. We're just a bunch of
people who are critical of Waldorf and Anthroposophy, in differing
degrees. What we share are certain opinions, and I'm not even sure we all
share those:
1. Waldorf does not belong in public schools because it is based on a
religious system, Anthroposophy. What makes it essentially religious is
not the adherence to dogma that some Anthroposophists seem to exhibit, but
rather the subject matter itself. It deals with the spiritual nature of
god, Christ, angels, and the soul, all of which are basically religious
subjects.
2. Waldorf schools, public or private, should be upfront about their
beliefs. Parents may be told that gnomes and fairies are used to explain
nature to young kids, but they also need to be told that the teachers
really believe that these things exist.
3. Anthroposophy is not a type of science unless you define "science" in
a way that is contrary to the modern usage of the term.
4. Many of Steiner's fanciful pronouncements were either figments of his
imagination, concepts borrowed from other occultists, or fabrications, and
in any case, are useless.
Again, though, I'm not even sure that all the critics agree on those
items. In any event, no one else speaks for me, and I'm getting really
tired of hearing you complain about how we critics are oppressing the poor
Anthroposophists by expressing our opinion that Steiner was full of crap.
You're taking this stuff way too personally, and generalizing about the
critics way too much. If you have a problem with Kopp using "Animal Farm"
as an analogy, your problem is with Kopp, not with critics as a group.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:06:20 +0800
From: raymon_ford email.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
CLARA WOTE
It is true that my statement above was not very
clear. But I did not mean simply "scientific facts
are verifyable facts", I meant the construction of
knowledge in science, in a broader sense, has got
to be verifyable. So in the examples you give;
psychology - I don¥t think it necessarily fails my
definition. A theory about the human
mind/behaviour/etc. can very well be scientific,
if it works with concepts that can be publicly
debated, if it conducts research to verify the
pertinence of its statements, etc.
I don¥t think rationality is the yardstick, as you
affirm. A theory may be rational without being
scientific. First of all, what is "rational"? What
is accepted as rational for many, may not be
accepted for some. It is maybe the case of
Antrhoposophy; it aims at rationality; some think
it¥s rational, others that it is irrational... Or
Spiritualism (Kardecist line). Who decides what is
rational?
Clara,
You are correct. Who decides what is rational, you ask? It is the scientific community at large (or the specific communities eg those professionals in the field of Psychology) who decide what is rational. As new theories are put into the 'marketplace' then debate ensues. As new theories replace old ones, they typically start off being classed 'irrational' but as scientific opinion changes then they can enter the mainstream.
CLARA SAID:
You see, I¥m speaking in methodological terms, not
empiric terms. What you say about physics may be
true, empirically speaking. But methodologically,
physics is scientific (in fact it is the most well
established of sciences in this sense!). The
current theories of physics may not have been
"empirically tested"; but they are veryfyable.
There may be a confusion on the two terms.
Verifyable doesn¥t mean empirically tested (or
proven). Not all fields of science can test their
theories empirically. Biology can do it;
chemistry; but in astrophysics for example, this
is more complicated. The classical examples would
be the human or social sciences. How can a theory
of history be empirically tested? It cannot;
empirical test is not pertinet to this field.
Nevertheless, History can be considered a science
if research is conducted in solid methodological
basis.
Clara,
You are correct.
CLARA SAID
As I said; I¥m talking about verifying, not
proving. For example, if we were debating Piaget¥s
theories on child development. His concepts have
not been "proven". But they are verifyable; one
can debate his ideas scientifically. Not with
anthroposophy. If it is stated that the child only
incarnated completely at age seven - this is
undebatable, and unverifyable. Because either you
accept incarnation, or you don¥t - it is a matter
of faith.
Clara,
The scientific approach would be to regard incarnation as a hypothesis - if it is held as an article of faith then yes one is not acting in the current scientific spirit.
CLARA SAID
I¥d disagree. Steiner¥s theories can be rational,
for some. They are nevertheless unscientific. You
can build the most rational description of the
hierarchy of angels and archangles in heaven; it
can make the most perfect sense. But it is not
science.
Clara,
You are correct as long as one holds the hierarchies as an article of faith. But one is permitted to use it as a working hypothesis, surely, and to then proceed with a scientific approach?
CLARA WROTE
Good comparison. What happens with Freud, then; he
suggested a theory of the unconcious. Well nobody
has ever seen the Unconcious walking around,
however the evidence brought by Freud was solid
enough to have inspired a century of debate about
the unconcious.
Now, this debate is conducted scientifically; the
concepts engendered by Freud have been examined
from various points of view, discussed, turned
inside out, etc. The theory has been changed,
developed; there are different lines stemming from
the core theory, etc. And for the most part, I
don¥t see the freudians freaking about that Freud
is being wronged. I have never heard of a freudian
saying: "Freud knew about the unconcious because
he had secret access to it. If you don¥t accept
it, it¥s because you are not developed enough. In
fact you¥d better not even debate it: it is the
Truth".
So the Unconcious, for freudians (well maybe not
for some fanatic-religious ones... but by large),
is a concept that can be debated. Is the spiritual
world a debatable concept for anthroposophers? No
it isn¥t; it is an article of faith.
Clara,
You are correct - this should not be so. Steiner did worry about this very thing happening.
CLARA WROTE
Raymond - I understand and appreciate your
position. I think many people think this way about
what goes on on WSs. It must sound like critics of
W are freaking fundamentalists when they argue
against the teaching of the four elements, if one
thinks that this teaching is done alongside the
teaching of ortodox science.
But the problem is - it is not. It is taught as a
FACT. As *the* fact. Not in a cultural comparative
approach, which might, I agree, be an interesting
educational endeavour.
Clara,
Well if it is being taught as fact (though as an aside it must be admitted orthodox science in orthodox schools is still being so presented, ie as fact - Kuhn's ideas are still percolating through) then this is being done in contradiction to what I would call the current opinion (in GS circles) re Goethean Science. It is NOT intended to replace orthodox science.
CLARA WROTE
The whole problem is, a scientific approach to
nature and the human life is not encouraged - is
in fact avoided - at WSs. As I said in another
post, it is less a matter of contents than of the
way things are taught. The teaching is dogmatic,
in the sense that contents are pre-selected and
passed on theacher-student exclusivelly.
Clara,
Yes I would agree that such an approach is out of date. Since Kuhn's work forty or so years ago, the scientific community has been becoming more and more aware that its own orthodoxy cannot be said to be 'true' in the sense that was once thought. Hence their increased tolerance for other perspectives. This is welcomed by current proponents of Goethean science of course (I am talking about the academics here). Teachers need to be aware of this, not only when presenting Goethean science (which will itself be superceded some day by some ather variant of qualitative science) but when presenting the orthodox science.
CLARA WROTE
And the worst part is (IMO) that because all this
knowledge is build in a teacher-student,
one-way-only hand, you don¥t develop the ability
to sort things out for yourself. It becomes all
blurred in your mind. It would be fine if,
alongisde for example the theory of evolution in a
darwinian sense, you knew there were other
theories on evolution, for example spiritual
theories, for example Steiner¥s. Then you could
form your own opinion - fine. But this is not how
it happens...
Clara,
It is regrettable if this is not how it happens in some WS's.
CLARA WROTE
Have you read my posts about my philosophy course
at HS? I think it demostrates my point well.
Clara,
Please point me to them
Regards, Raymon
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) DAN DUGAN
) ) ) There is real science and pseudoscience in
) China,
) )) just as there is
) )) here. The majority of institutions teach real
) )) science, same as here.
) )
) )Michael C:
) )
) )Dan, if you are refering the traditional Chinese
) )medical arts. It is my understanding that there is
) )about a 50/50 distribution between the
) prescientific
) )traditional medicine and the industrial age western
) )medicine in China as far as both teaching and
) practice
) )go.
)
) I doubt either of us has hard data.
Michael C:
I can't speak for you but I do not have hard data.
My friend Dr.
) Wallace Sampson who
) toured Chinese medical facilities a couple of years
) ago formed the
) opinion that about 85% of Chinese use evidence-based
Michael C:
Please define evidence based medicine? what counts as
evidence and who decides what counts as evidence. On
other thing is that what you wind up getting when the
evidence is very stringent and the cost of duplicating
the study very expensive is essential a priesthood. If
I cannot personally replicate the study I must take it
on faith or trust my intuition about who is telling me
the truth.
) medicine and 15%
) traditional.
)
) ) ) The traditional Chinese elements don't
) represent
) )) Chinese science
) )) today any more than the Greek four elements
) )) represent European
) )) science today. Science is a world-wide culture.
) )
) )Michael C:
) )
) )Yes I agree that this is true but what I don't
) agree
) )with is the idea that only scientifically verified
) )ideas have nerit.
)
) Why not? Especially when people's health is
) involved, isn't it
Michael C:
Sounds alarmist to me Dan
) responsible to use what has passed tests for safety
) and efficacy?
Michael C:
Well I have a better question who, will decide this,
will the goverment decide it for me or can I be
trusted to make BAD decision all on my own without the
help of demagogues.
A brief history of the types of healing that are
licensed in each of the 50 United States is in order.
Currently I am pretty certain that all of the states
license Medical Doctors (M.D.) Doctors of Osteopathy
(D.O.) and Doctors of Chiropratic. The direct
ancestors of the M.D. were the practioners of herioc
medicine that favored bleeding (large amounts) and
highly poisoness drugs. The name of the prestigious
medical journal "Lancet" testifies to the bleeding.
Both the D.C. D.O. probably derived from the
traditional art of bone setting that was practiced in
many cultures although the founder of each these
schools claims to have invented these arts in an
independent intuitive flash. There were other schools
that where either totaly eliminated or else greatly
reduced in influence. Why did these three survive. The
practioners organized to gain political clout.
The three schools sort of became like the big three in
Detroit. However the M.D. school became dominent and
wisely aliied itself with science they also aligned
them selves with the drug industry. Believe it or not
the fruits of this alliance with science are just
beginning to really ripen. The M.D. continued to
practice in a very unscientific way that gradually
changed and has not completely changed yet.
Another reason for the success of the M.D. school was
they waged all out war on the D.C. school and also
waged war on the D.O. school until the D.O. school
decided to sythesize thier teachings with the
teachings of the M. D. school. In their war against
the D.C. school the M.D. as represented by the A.M.A.
broke many laws I believe that thay were anti trust
laws. Now why would they bother with this. The only
answer that I can think of is a combination of
zealotry and greed.
But it is my contention that the alliance of the M.D.
school with scientific thinking is in no way
responsible for their dominance, that there success is
do to politics and salemanship. I say this because
most of what they have done in the past and what they
do now is not signifcantly more scientific than any
other school of healing. What is true is this is
finally starting to change, that the study of cellular
biology and so forth is leading to truly scientific
drug therapies rather than just taking a drug like say
kumidin (probably spelled wrong) which was used as a
rat poison. It was observed that kumidin caused the
rats to bleed to death. Then it was realized that a
small dose might reduce blood clots. so it was tested
many years ago when the standards were not so
stringent and there was really no significant outside
sources to assure that the data wasn't fudged and low
and behold we have a drug. This is really no different
than how traditional chinese herbal medicine came
about. And kumidin is probabaly a very useful and life
saving drug when adiministered intelegently.
By the way if you think that data cannot be fudged and
bad drugs slip through in more recent times, think
about phen fen. Also there was a recent drug I think
for diabetes that in many cases caused severe liver
damage. I am sure there are many more exmples. On top
of that many people get ill or die from reasonably
safe drugs that have been admistered either correctly
or incorrectly.
One last word I take history with a grain of salt but
if the details are wrong here I feel confident that
there is are lot of truth in the essence of what I
wrote above.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:29:43 +0800
From: raymon_ford email.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
)TARJEI SAID
)I would take this argument of yours one step further by suggesting that if
)something is not empirically verifiable at all, it is not "knowledge" per
)se.
)
RAYMON SAID
)Are you not dismissing pure mathematics as a body of knowledge then?
)
TARJEI SAID
How is pure mathematics empirically unverifiable?
Tarjei,
In the sense of 'empirical' meaning 'relying on or derived from observation or experiment', mathematics does not proceed in an emprical fashion, but proceeds rather in the applying of various agreed rational principles. Much of pure maths is inaccessible in the normal sense of observation or experiment.
Regards, Raymon
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) )If that was the case we would have
) )to eliminate most surgery because scientific double
) )blind studies have not been performed on most forms
) of
) )surgeries for obvious reasons.
)
) Not long ago a common cardiac surgical procedure was
) found to be
) ineffective, and it isn't done any more.
Michael C:
What do you mean by not long ago. I can remember
reading about a study I think that was done on the
50's on surgery for angina where there was actually a
single blind and a false surgerey was done on some of
the patients. The patients that recieved the false
surgery were anesthetized and and recieved an incision
in his chest so that upon awakening they would not
know that no surgery was performed. But this is not
even a double blind because the surgeons knew which
patients recieved the surgerey and which hadn't.
If it was more recently tell me then how was it
decided that the treatment wasn't effective. From
follow up study? Also a more important question is the
medical practice was so scientific to begin with how
did an ineffective treatment come to be used in the
first place. Additionally I would be very surprised if
some if not all of the persons using the now rejected
technique were not saying how scientific their
approach to medicine was and all the while using an
apparently unscientifically tested technique.
) Tell me
) about an
) "alternative" medical practice that alternative
) people have decided
) not to do any more because it doesn't work.
Michael C:
I think that you have a very limited idea of what
alternative medical practice is about. These practices
must evolve or they do die. As for an across the board
consensus of what works and what doesn't within in any
school of alternative medicine I doubt such a thing
exists. For that matter I doubt that it exist in the
M.D. school also.
I have heard alterenative medical practitioners say
that they cannot get this or that technique that they
have learned to produce the results that they have
been told that it is suppose to. But, and this is a
big but, they didn't always assume that it was the
methodolgy or the technique that was no good. Often
they just claimed not to know why it wasn't working
for them. It could be that they were not using it very
well or in the wrong situations. So until they had a
good reason thy stopped using the technique
)
) )There is another
) )problem, it cost a lot of money to perform
) scientific
) )studies on alternative medical treatements.
)
) Because high standards for safety and efficacy have
) been set. I'm
) happy about that.
) )However a
) )lot of studies have been done with various results.
) )These studies seem to be useless for the people on
) )either side that have already made up thier minds.
) )They either ignore the results or just explain them
) )away.
)
) An unwarranted conclusion. Real science is based on
) evidence, not opinions.
Michael C:
Most of what we argue about Dan is in the realm of
oppinion. This is a logical question. I respect your
intellence and that you are informed. You must have
misread what I said above. Actually after rereading
what I wrote I will soften it a little to say that
these studies seem to be usless for many of the people
that have already made up their minds.
One more thing Dan,
Tell me where to find some of this "real" science that
is free from human oppinions. Will we find it with
Wallace Sampsom M.D. or James Randi. Yes there are
likely to be many charlatans in this world and perhaps
these individuals will expose a few. But I think the
deffinition of skeptic is one that doubts that any
knowledge is possible. James Randi and Wallace Sampsom
use it to mean they doubt that any knowledge that
doesn't agree with their oppinions of the truth is is
possible. A "real" priesthood if ever there was one.
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:05:27 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: _Re:=?iso-8859-1?Q?=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) ) Michael C:
) )
) ) Clara,
) )
) You point out very well what is probably
) ) a huge gap between the actual and the ideals and
) ) stated goals of Waldorf Education and the actual
) ) practice. Being that I have not been involved in the
) ) actual what I mostly discuss on this site is the
) ) theoretical and in fact in many ways that concerns me
) ) more.
............First, to ( ( ( dream ) ) ),
now to ====) think (=====, which is to say, to frame the ocean's tides, then,
armed with resolve, don your boots,
and !!!$$$$ DO $$$$$!!!
(and wonders, as if practicing unprotected, half-hieroglyphic philosophy 'out
loud',
which of these is not necessary, which is trashable......)
Theoretical is good to clarify intent, but the "Intent made Achievable" is
called life on earth.
(Earlyfire is saying this to remind himself that the blueprints of gourmet
meals, as well as food for thought, have (the good news is, I suppose ) NO
calories or cholesterol. ;-) ) You are welcome to snoop behind the
parentheses. Man cannot live on blueprints alone..........
)
)
) I fell that a lot of people involved in waldorf ed that I have come accross
) spend a lot of time with the ideals and constantly ignore the actual fact
) that the ideals dont work in practise
The same level of dysfunctionality can be attributed to the epic tragic
failings (, or, if the cup is half full: the as yet unrealized ideals) of the
American electoral process, where factors such as level of popular voting, the
degree of responsibly informed intellectually-potent participation, the
ability of the system to interest citizens in ideas meaningful to the creation
of culturally inspiring long-range goals and visions which form a reliable
basis for responsible political decision-making which amounts to MORE than a
November shopping list of vain and vacuous platform statements. Not to
mention, of course, the level of wealth required to enter the democratic
infrastructure which some might justifiably argue, by precluding access to
representation based upon similarity of circumstance to those represented, by
that call alone, compromises and calls into question the moral integrity of
the entire system itself.
Not to rail on, but the degree of lack of correspondence between a professed
ideal and the shabby implementation, TOGETHER, with the what one would have to
diagnose as a 'raging indifference' to the degree of the gulf, a term which
implies if not justifies the coining of a term 'Functional Hyprocrisy', is a
longstanding and broadbandwidthed cultural problem. WE is but the tip of one
of its many icebergs, and the Human race the Titanic. Its a footnote and an
echo of the New Testament thunderclap:
"Thy will NOT YET be done, in the Real world as it is in the Ideal
World"......
(Anyone hear that brisk slap to the face of the human race, and the
phrase "Get Ideal")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlyfire's untorchlike, cool and camphory suggestion, or a useful point of
departure for a creation of a solution, for getting rid of taking things with
a grain of salt:
Between PLANS and WE there is a gulf, (he said, pretending he was born
yesterday)
Perhaps we could create a dialogue which lives in the respect for human beings
rather than is entrenched in the compulsive-obsessive energy of ideologically
armed encampments. (The more traditional word for compulsive-obsessive energy
is 'Dogma', for my 2cents, more an dangerous as an issue of attitude than
contents) And, just as the New Testament, gracefully replaces the Old
Testament, diaLOGUE becomes the new "Microsoft upgrade" to diaTRIBE. (AP's, do
I hear "Diasoph?)
Talk about getting real:
We are roughly 2001 years downstream of the time when, to loosely paraphrase,
in our not altogether unjustifiably eccentric way, we need to recall:
"When Zero or less are gathered in My Name, I shall be AWOL!"
2001 years - seems like it was born only yesterday!
The point: The coordination, the metaphysically-chiropractic (re)alignment of
the real and ideal should be considered an aspiration, a Prime Directive, not
as an abandoned goal in whose absence we are forced to tolerate and endure
destructive cynicism and melancholy. Chiropractice makes perfect! We need
embassies in PLANS AND ASWNA and toastable, not heavable Molotov Cocktails!
(Those damned peacemakers, trying to interfere with our spicy, regularly
scheduled recreational outrage and righteously ecstatic flamethrow.)
Kirk out
)
) bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:09:58 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
Steve Premo wrote:
)But Tarjei, the critics are not a unified group. We're just a bunch of
)people who are critical of Waldorf and Anthroposophy, in differing
)degrees. What we share are certain opinions, and I'm not even sure we all
)share those:
)
)1. Waldorf does not belong in public schools because it is based on a
)religious system, Anthroposophy. What makes it essentially religious is
)not the adherence to dogma that some Anthroposophists seem to exhibit, but
)rather the subject matter itself. It deals with the spiritual nature of
)god, Christ, angels, and the soul, all of which are basically religious
)subjects.
So? I don't care if WE is thrown out of public schools in America. I
have no quarrel with that.
)2. Waldorf schools, public or private, should be upfront about their
)beliefs. Parents may be told that gnomes and fairies are used to explain
)nature to young kids, but they also need to be told that the teachers
)really believe that these things exist.
So? I have no argument against that either.
)3. Anthroposophy is not a type of science unless you define "science" in
)a way that is contrary to the modern usage of the term.
I've just been through this dance with Clara, and frankly I don't
give a damn about what non-anthroposophists think about the was
anthroposophists define science. No sweat about that either.
)4. Many of Steiner's fanciful pronouncements were either figments of his
)imagination, concepts borrowed from other occultists, or fabrications, and
)in any case, are useless.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about Steiner's statements
and their usefulness or uselessness. That is not the point at all.
)Again, though, I'm not even sure that all the critics agree on those
)items. In any event, no one else speaks for me, and I'm getting really
)tired of hearing you complain about how we critics are oppressing the poor
)Anthroposophists by expressing our opinion that Steiner was full of crap.
When the anthroposophical community in Norway is being targeted with
a rubberstamp that says Adolf Hitler, replete with swastika, Nazi
eagle, and photos of the Dachau death camp being linked to our local
Waldorf schools and to the Goethanum, I don't give a damn about how
tired you get, because I'm a lot more angry than you about this -
especially when Waldorf children have been bullied and Waldorf
parents have been told that their kids have been sent to a "nazi
lair" as a direct result of such propaganda - a fact that Peter S.
apparently refuses to believe.
)You're taking this stuff way too personally, and generalizing about the
)critics way too much. If you have a problem with Kopp using "Animal Farm"
)as an analogy, your problem is with Kopp, not with critics as a group.
If it was only Kopp, you would have a point. It was Sharon, however,
who suggested that Orwell's "1984" - which is a lot worse than
"Animal Farm" - had "lots of perfect analogies" to Anthroposophy. It
is Peter Staudenmaier and many many others who insist that _my_
philosophy and world-view is "racist to the core."
Where have you been? The latest historical revisionist absurdity is
the idea that Steiner was buried in "OTO regalia."
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:15:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
Raymon wrote:
)In the sense of 'empirical' meaning 'relying on or derived from
)observation or experiment', mathematics does not proceed in an
)emprical fashion, but proceeds rather in the applying of various
)agreed rational principles. Much of pure maths is inaccessible in
)the normal sense of observation or experiment.
I would think that whatever is fully cognizable is empirical. In the
case of Steiner, this is how I understand his enthusiasm for geometry
at a young age.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight pleas Apology to Diana.
--- "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
wrote:
)
) michael, whats with the capitals?are you shouting?
) bea
) )
) ) MICHAEL C:
) ) PLEASE GET YOUR PERSONS STRAIGHT DIANA, I DID NOT
) ) WRITE THIS IT MAY HAVE BEEN MICHAEL SIEBER WHOSE
) NAME
) ) I HAVE PRABLY MISPELLED AN WHO'S NAME I HAVE
) ) MISSPELLED AS MICAEL SILBER BEFORE.
)
)
Michael C;
I am making a public apology to Diana. Although I was
a little bit angry with having words attributed to me
that I did not write and in another letter words that
I did write taken totally out of context and with
Diana's words added at the begining to alter the
meaning, I did not mean to upset her. I meant to use
the "shouting' only draw attention to this
misrepresntation which whether accidental or
intentional is serious enough to warrant the attention
in my oppinion.
I want to say that I enjoy the interaction with all of
the people on this sight whether or not we agree on
very little or on many things. I think a somewhat open
debate of issues is an important key to maintaning a
somewhat democratic form of Government. Thank you all
for participating in this work with me.
Michael C;
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:25:41 -0700
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5FRe:=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
On 5 Jun 2001, at 10:05, earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
) We need embassies in PLANS AND ASWNA and toastable, not
) heavable Molotov Cocktails!
I'll drink to that.
) Kirk out
A man after my own heart!
Live long and prosper, Harvey.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:39:14 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity=?ISO-8859-1?B?tA==?=s_body_of_kn
sorry earlyfire, I dont know *what* you're on about, I'm a simple soul so
you'll have to speak in simple language to me what are all those dollar
signs etc?
I am merely pointing out that what was important to me as a 'waldorf
consumer' was not the theory with which RS started or intended his schools
to be but how they actually are whilst my children are their getting a
hopeless education, and the very important point that waldorf schools should
be upront and honest about what goes on their
bea
earlyfire wrote:
) The point: The coordination, the metaphysically-chiropractic (re)alignment of
) the real and ideal should be considered an aspiration, a Prime Directive, not
) as an abandoned goal in whose absence we are forced to tolerate and endure
) destructive cynicism and melancholy. Chiropractice makes perfect! We need
) embassies in PLANS AND ASWNA and toastable, not heavable Molotov Cocktails!
) (Those damned peacemakers, trying to interfere with our spicy, regularly
) scheduled recreational outrage and righteously ecstatic flamethrow.)
)
) Kirk out
what is 'kirk out'? the only thing I can think of is startrek??
can someone translate that last paragraph for me??
bea
) "mypostbox.formail" wrote:
)
))) Michael C:
)))
))) Clara,
)))
)) You point out very well what is probably
))) a huge gap between the actual and the ideals and
))) stated goals of Waldorf Education and the actual
))) practice. Being that I have not been involved in the
))) actual what I mostly discuss on this site is the
))) theoretical and in fact in many ways that concerns me
))) more.
)
) ............First, to ( ( ( dream ) ) ),
) now to ====) think (=====, which is to say, to frame the ocean's tides, then,
) armed with resolve, don your boots,
) and !!!$$$$ DO $$$$$!!!
) (and wonders, as if practicing unprotected, half-hieroglyphic philosophy 'out
) loud',
) which of these is not necessary, which is trashable......)
)
) Theoretical is good to clarify intent, but the "Intent made Achievable" is
) called life on earth.
) (Earlyfire is saying this to remind himself that the blueprints of gourmet
) meals, as well as food for thought, have (the good news is, I suppose ) NO
) calories or cholesterol. ;-) ) You are welcome to snoop behind the
) parentheses. Man cannot live on blueprints alone..........
)
))
))
)) I fell that a lot of people involved in waldorf ed that I have come accross
)) spend a lot of time with the ideals and constantly ignore the actual fact
)) that the ideals dont work in practise
)
) The same level of dysfunctionality can be attributed to the epic tragic
) failings (, or, if the cup is half full: the as yet unrealized ideals) of the
) American electoral process, where factors such as level of popular voting, the
) degree of responsibly informed intellectually-potent participation, the
) ability of the system to interest citizens in ideas meaningful to the creation
) of culturally inspiring long-range goals and visions which form a reliable
) basis for responsible political decision-making which amounts to MORE than a
) November shopping list of vain and vacuous platform statements. Not to
) mention, of course, the level of wealth required to enter the democratic
) infrastructure which some might justifiably argue, by precluding access to
) representation based upon similarity of circumstance to those represented, by
) that call alone, compromises and calls into question the moral integrity of
) the entire system itself.
)
) Not to rail on, but the degree of lack of correspondence between a professed
) ideal and the shabby implementation, TOGETHER, with the what one would have to
) diagnose as a 'raging indifference' to the degree of the gulf, a term which
) implies if not justifies the coining of a term 'Functional Hyprocrisy', is a
) longstanding and broadbandwidthed cultural problem. WE is but the tip of one
) of its many icebergs, and the Human race the Titanic. Its a footnote and an
) echo of the New Testament thunderclap:
) "Thy will NOT YET be done, in the Real world as it is in the Ideal
) World"......
) (Anyone hear that brisk slap to the face of the human race, and the
) phrase "Get Ideal")
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
) ---------------------------------------
)
) Earlyfire's untorchlike, cool and camphory suggestion, or a useful point of
) departure for a creation of a solution, for getting rid of taking things with
) a grain of salt:
)
) Between PLANS and WE there is a gulf, (he said, pretending he was born
) yesterday)
)
) Perhaps we could create a dialogue which lives in the respect for human beings
) rather than is entrenched in the compulsive-obsessive energy of ideologically
) armed encampments. (The more traditional word for compulsive-obsessive energy
) is 'Dogma', for my 2cents, more an dangerous as an issue of attitude than
) contents) And, just as the New Testament, gracefully replaces the Old
) Testament, diaLOGUE becomes the new "Microsoft upgrade" to diaTRIBE. (AP's, do
) I hear "Diasoph?)
)
) Talk about getting real:
) We are roughly 2001 years downstream of the time when, to loosely paraphrase,
) in our not altogether unjustifiably eccentric way, we need to recall:
) "When Zero or less are gathered in My Name, I shall be AWOL!"
)
) 2001 years - seems like it was born only yesterday!
)
) The point: The coordination, the metaphysically-chiropractic (re)alignment of
) the real and ideal should be considered an aspiration, a Prime Directive, not
) as an abandoned goal in whose absence we are forced to tolerate and endure
) destructive cynicism and melancholy. Chiropractice makes perfect! We need
) embassies in PLANS AND ASWNA and toastable, not heavable Molotov Cocktails!
) (Those damned peacemakers, trying to interfere with our spicy, regularly
) scheduled recreational outrage and righteously ecstatic flamethrow.)
)
) Kirk out
)
))
)) bea
))
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:57:11 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei:
)I would think that whatever is fully cognizable is empirical.
This is pure Steiner - if I can think it, it must be real and true. My
thoughts, whatever is in my own head, corresponds to objective reality.
Also nicely put by Michael C., who gave us his history of alternative
medicine and adds the caveat that it may be full of mistakes, but hey, he'll
stand by it anyway.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:09:48 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism Diana get the author straight pleas
Michael C.:
)I am making a public apology to Diana.
Oh good grief, I don't think you need to apologize. Just realize there are
now three Michaels (posting regularly, anyway), two of whom started talking
at virtually the same time and expressing (to me at least, so far) similar
views on the same topics), and it is very hard to tell people apart at first
without a face to go with a name. Pretty soon we'll know you by your
personality. :) Or else tell us something really dramatic and colorful, like
your drug history or how many times you've been in prison, and we'll
remember you quicker . . . a joke!! (Do not take seriously! Not accusing you
of using illegal drugs) :)
Now if you are really thinking I was trying to mis-quote and misrepresent
you deliberately, you will just have to take me at my word that I don't do
that. It is entirely possible I completely misunderstood you and
misrepresented you, and if so I apologize. When I read back over it, I still
thought what I said made sense, but to cut and paste the conversation
together coherently takes a lot of time, not worth it and no one wants to
read it anyway.
Diana
)Although I was a little bit angry with having words attributed to me
)that I did not write and in another letter words that
)I did write taken totally out of context and with
)Diana's words added at the begining to alter the
)meaning, I did not mean to upset her. I meant to use
)the "shouting' only draw attention to this
)misrepresntation which whether accidental or
)intentional is serious enough to warrant the attention
)in my oppinion.
)I want to say that I enjoy the interaction with all of
)the people on this sight whether or not we agree on
)very little or on many things. I think a somewhat open
)debate of issues is an important key to maintaning a
)somewhat democratic form of Government. Thank you all
)for participating in this work with me.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:14:27 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
Harvey wrote:
)............First, to ( ( ( dream ) ) ),
)now to ====) think (=====, which is to say, to frame the ocean's )tides,
)then, armed with resolve, don your boots,
Hey, Harvey, I will attempt a quick translation from early-fire-ese, tell me
if I'm in the ballpark:
Just because the ideals have not been achieved, we shouldn't give up on the
ideals? (Presumably this post was about Waldorf education?)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
) Sharon:
) Glad you are finally 'fessing up' that you guys are
) tricky. I was *QUOTING* expert
) occult researchers, writers, lecturers, Picknett and
) Clive. I was not making that
) statement up, nor was it a memory from my reading,
) it is a quote. Now who do you
) think I would believe, a group of tricksters that
) duped me with their deception and
) by with holding information....or a couple of occult
) experts who wrote a coherent
) book to impart information? I have come across
) enough references connecting Steiner
) to OTO that I believe them... and... not you Sune!
) (BTW, lots of mystery cult
) followers believe all sorts of strange things about
) Christ's burial so why would I
) believe you Sune about Steiner's burial? Some say
) Christ did not rise on the third
) day but that he was stolen by a gardener, or another
) version is that he had his head
) chopped off and mummified and the Knight's Templars
) have it at Rosslyn Chapel in
) Scottland, another version is that Christ was stoned
) and not crucified...etc, etc.)
) That's the problem with religion, too many stories
) to be believed, take your pick!
)
Michael C:
For those who want and need to believe in something
(unfortunatly that is most of us still but some of us
are getting closer to outgrowing this need) everything
is going to be a problem. Take your pick, science
history, religion, politics, philosophy. Within each
of these disciplines there are many different and
often contradicting stories. A little bit scary for
some folks I am afraid.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) See the following for info on Steiner and OTO:
)
) http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
)
Michael C:
Thanks for the URL Tarjei. I went to the site and
found 2 things that rather pleased me.
1 this story says that Steiner was involved with the
OTO for a long time. The other story I read about
Steiner and the OTO claimed that he was not involved
for long that when he found out what the nature of the
OTO was he resigned. I hate to think that Steiner was
such a puritanical wimp as to resign from the OTO for
those reasons. I think it is more likely that this
story was circulated because the Anthropops were
puritanical wimps that would not have been able to
deal with the truth about Steiner and the OTO. However
this is merely wishful thinking on my part, who knows
what really happened, perhaps James Randi does?
2 there was a really good explaination of why
Anthoposophy is not a religion. The explanation
something like Anthroposophy is a collection of ideas,
not dogmas. Now of course it can and has been taken as
a collection of dogmas by many people. But some people
are rather unsophisticated I am afraid.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:10:19 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
Sharon, you write:
) Sune:
) ) Just a short 'occultist tricky comment':
) )
) ) Steiner was not buried, when he died. He was cremated. Only some years ago,
) ) his ashes were buried. They must have put the ashes in a costume then,
) ) then, to have somethng to put the regalia on ...
)
) Sharon:
) Glad you are finally 'fessing up' that you guys are tricky.
(Just as a small info: it was a teasing/ironic self-description, referring
to your description of a very mild teaser by me and my pointing to the
actual title of a lecture you quoted as 'occultist tricks')
) I was *QUOTING* expert
) occult researchers, writers, lecturers, Picknett and Clive. I was not making that
) statement up, nor was it a memory from my reading, it is a quote. Now who do you
) think I would believe, a group of tricksters that duped me with their deception and
) by with holding information....or a couple of occult experts who wrote a coherent
) book to impart information? I have come across enough references connecting Steiner
) to OTO that I believe them... and... not you Sune!
I commented on one point in your quote:
'When he died, however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
pointing out that Steiner not was buried, but cremated quite soon after he
had died. Ask Gary about it. He brought it up on an anthroposophical list
in June last year and got a number of answers on it. The careless uncorrect
info on it in your quote suggests some caution maybe is in place in judging
the value of the rest of it, that's all.
Tarjei has pointed to a site describing the issue of OTO in some detail.
) ) Sune:
) ) Reminds a little about what you wrote on 20 Dec last year:
) )
) ) ) ... Ahern, in "Sun at Midnight" wrote that it never
) ) ) dawned on Steiner that some places in the world don't have seasons like the
) ) ) kind we experience here in Wisconsin or Europe.
(What you snipped; I showed how Steiner described in his autobiography how
he learnt to understand the astronomical background of seasons at the age
of about ten:
'I owe to the priest also, because of a certain profound impression made
upon me, a very great deal in the later orientation of my spiritual life.
One day he came into the school, gathered round him in the teacher's little
room the "riper" children, among whom he included me, unfolded a drawing he
had made, and with the help of this explained to us the Copernican system
of astronomy. He spoke about this very vividly - the revolution of the
earth around the sun, its rotation on its axis, the inclination of the axis
in summer and winter, and also the zones of the earth. In all of it I was
t; absorbed; I made drawings of a similar kind for days together, and then
received from the priest further special instruction concerning eclipses of
the sun and the moon; and thence-forward I directed all my search for
knowledge toward this subject. I was then about ten years old, and I could
not yet write without mistakes in spelling and grammar.'
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/tcoml;bytes=4437-43202 )
Your comment:
) Sharon:
) Is that the best you can do old chap? I'm going to find that chapter
) from Ahern and throw it in your face.
Well, well.
) Unfortunately I don't have the book at the moment, I've lent
) it to my Waldorf friend. (She asked to borrow it.) You are quite confused because
) although I admit my statement about seasons was from memory, the OTO statement above
) is a direct quote. I am not saying it, the experts are.
...
I'm sorry if I confuse you in your intense daily efforts the last three
years to handle your situation and experiences, Sharon. If you had done
your studies and discussed them in private with your friends, I'd have no
objection or argued much with you if we had met.
I don't argue with a light heart with you. But this list is a public forum,
and what you write here on 'talismans', 'ritual magic' 'initiation' and
other things I think needs to be put somewhat in at least some perspective
in relation to facts on a number of points.
I hope the rest of the list can have an understanding for that.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:24:07 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
Tarjei:
)When the anthroposophical community in Norway is being targeted with
)a rubberstamp that says Adolf Hitler, replete with swastika, Nazi
)eagle, and photos of the Dachau death camp being linked to our local
)Waldorf schools and to the Goethanum, I don't give a damn about how
)tired you get, because I'm a lot more angry than you about this -
)especially when Waldorf children have been bullied and Waldorf
)parents have been told that their kids have been sent to a "nazi
)lair" as a direct result of such propaganda - a fact that Peter S.
)apparently refuses to believe.
Debra:
I'm certain that the Anthro movement is ticked off about this one, Tarjei.
They are busy writing denials after denials. Historians *outside* the
movement, however, see it differently. Anthroposophy can't deny it's roots
nor should it deny it's responsibility. The Anthro movement needs to
repudiate Steiner's racism by saying it was wrong and move on. Instead, we
just hear justifications like you blaming it on the angels. These kind of
arguments continue to be damning to your movement. Current and future
historians from outside the movement see these kind of arguments as
validation. I suspect many
Anthroposophy is a speck on the wall world-wide. That most people will
likely believe the outsider historians can't be helped.
)If it was only Kopp, you would have a point. It was Sharon, however,
)who suggested that Orwell's "1984" - which is a lot worse than
)"Animal Farm" - had "lots of perfect analogies" to Anthroposophy. It
)is Peter Staudenmaier and many many others who insist that _my_
)philosophy and world-view is "racist to the core."
Debra:
I don't know who you are quoting but don't forget to put me into this dog
pile too. I call your kind of racism ignorant and patronizing. Blaming it
on the angels! I'll have to remember that one.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:22:37 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
Debra:
)I'm sorry if I confuse you in your intense daily efforts the last three
)years to handle your situation and experiences, Sharon. If you had done
)your studies and discussed them in private with your friends, I'd have no
)objection or argued much with you if we had met.
Debra:
(Coughing and sputtering) Pssst, Sune, this is the Waldorf CRITICS list.
Sharon isn't breaking into your church meetings or anything. This is the
entire purpose of this list. Just think of it as a huge school parking lot.
Your need to keep this stuff in the closet is amazing. Pretty soon the
whole world will know. Well, at least the one hundred-plus subscribers here.
)
)I don't argue with a light heart with you. But this list is a public forum,
)and what you write here on 'talismans', 'ritual magic' 'initiation' and
)other things I think needs to be put somewhat in at least some perspective
)in relation to facts on a number of points.
Debra:
That's why you are here, Sune. Then the lurkers have an opportunity to make
up their own minds. You aren't suggesting that because Sharon is doing
research that she is cheating or anything, are you?
)I hope the rest of the list can have an understanding for that.
Debra:
I hope you aren't suggesting that the Anthros are the only ones allowed to
read and discuss this stuff are you?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:48:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Akasha (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
)Debra:
)
)I'm certain that the Anthro movement is ticked off about this one, Tarjei.
)They are busy writing denials after denials. Historians *outside* the
)movement, however, see it differently.
Historians do no support PLANS' or Staudenmaier's historical
revisionism related to Anthroposophy.
)Anthroposophy can't deny it's roots nor should it deny it's responsibility.
I, for one, have never denied the roots of Anthroposophy. As a matter
of fact, I have described them, spelled them out.
)The Anthro movement needs to repudiate Steiner's racism by saying it
)was wrong and move on.
I, for one, have never promoted or exemplified or expressed racism in
any form, so there is nothing for me to repudiate. And I do declare
that the roots of Anthroposophy are demonstrably not racist.
In other words, you will not hear the "confession" from me that you
apparently demand somehow, simply because it is not applicable or
relevant.
)Instead, we just hear justifications like you blaming it on the
)angels. These kind of arguments continue to be damning to your
)movement.
Nonsense. The roots of a spiritual movement are spiritual.
Anthroposophy is primarily a proclamation of the Christ.
)Current and future historians from outside the movement see these
)kind of arguments as validation.
I wonder what kind of clairvoyance you are using to read the minds of
current and future historians. The problem is not, and has never
been, historians, because they know better. They do their research
and their homework. The problem is all the unsuspecting, lesser
educated people you disinform with falsehoods about Anthroposophy.
)I suspect many
)
)Anthroposophy is a speck on the wall world-wide. That most people will
)likely believe the outsider historians can't be helped.
Exactly. Believing the outsider historians means rejecting the
falsehoods emanating from your subjective and polemical revisionisms
of history.
)I don't know who you are quoting but don't forget to put me into this dog
)pile too. I call your kind of racism ignorant and patronizing.
My kind of racism? Does that mean that I am being a racist to my own
family, which is not quite white? You have an awful nerve coming with
an allegation like that, which is borne not out of reason or balanced
judgement and information, but through irrational resentment,
hostility, prejudice, and bigotry.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 332
-- Topica Digest --
Twin Ridges newsletter on dismissal of lawsuit
By dan dandugan.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By dan dandugan.com
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By raymon_ford email.com
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: _Re:=?iso-8859-1?Q?=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RS about sexual magic (was: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
By soma mwt.net
Re: Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
By soma mwt.net
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:56:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Twin Ridges newsletter on dismissal of lawsuit
Twin Ridges News
Sponsoring Educational
Innovation and Academic
Excellence throughout
Northern California
Volume 1, Number 9 District Service Center News and Information June 1, 2001
[page 1]
Message from the Superintendent...
Dear Staff, Parents and Friends: As the school year comes to a close,
I am pleased to report that the lawsuit brought against Yuba River
Charter School and public Waldorf-methods instruction has been
dismissed. This is great news for all us at Twin Ridges, particularly
our Waldorf-methods schools. It is also a victory for public
education, including the schools, school districts and educators who
are pursuing reform through the use of innovative instructional
methods.
[page 3]
PLANS Lawsuit Dismissed
The three-year-old lawsuit against Yuba River Charter School has been
dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Frank Damrell Jr. The suit
alleged Yuba River, which uses Waldorf-inspired teaching methods,
teaches religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the
judge ruled that the plaintiffs, PLANS (People for Legal
Non-Sectarian Schools), could not show substantial public money was
being spent to teach religion at the school, and dismissed the case
against Yuba River and fellow defendant, the Sacramento City Unified
School District.
According to George Hoffecker, the suit had no merit, "We would hope
that the plaintiffs take this strong rebuff as a clear signal that
they have no basis whatsoever for a lawsuit against these innovative
and award-winning educational programs." He also said "school
administrators, parents and students at (Yuba River) are thrilled
about this recent victory" and "are looking forward to continuing
their successful program and are refocusing on the education of kids,
instead of litigation."
The Twin Ridges Elementary School District and Yuba River Charter
School may have spent as much as $100,000 in legal fees in defense of
this suit, and Yuba River is seeking donations to offset the expense.
http://www.tresd.k12.ca.us/TRESDnewsV1N9.pdf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:16:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Tarjei wrote,
)I'm sorry, Clara, but I can't oblige you this time. The description
)you give of the second "doctor" has no parallel in the real world of
)medicine. If your second doctor is supposed to represent
)anthroposophical medicine in any way, he doesn't fit the bill at
)all, because anthroposophical doctors have the same medical training
)as regular doctors, although they specialize in anthroposophical
)medicine. They are not faith healers.
Yes, Anthroposophical physicians start out with a regular MD degree.
But unfortunately that's no guarantee. Most quacks are MDs.
Anthroposophical doctors claim that they "extend" medicine with
special knowledge given by Rudolf Steiner. They do not test their
therapies and remedies scientifically. They are faith-healing quacks.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
--- michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com) wrote:
)
) --- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) ) See the following for info on Steiner and OTO:
) )
) ) http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
) )
) Michael C:
)
) Thanks for the URL Tarjei. I went to the site and
) found 2 things that rather pleased me.
)
) 1 this story says that Steiner was involved with the
) OTO for a long time.
Michael C again commenting on what I wrote before:
I looked at the site again it appears that the site
says Steiner was not a member of the OTO. Oh well just
goes to show how easy it is to project what you want
to see. In any event I find it very amusing that that
some critics think I would be black mark against
Steiner if was was involved in tht OTO. I find it even
more amusing that some anthroposophists would feel the
same way. Come on guys where is your sense of
adventure?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 06:23:12 +0800
From: raymon_ford email.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
Michael C:
This is a good point Raymon. There are individuals
such as Kurt Godel that subscribe to the Platonic
school of thought and believe(d) that numbers and
other concepts from mathematics can be directly
experienced with a higher sensory facility and
therefore are "objective" and "real". I forgot the
the name of the opposing school of thought that claims
that that mathematics is purely a human construct that
the idea of the number 5 has no "objective" existance
Now this all creates a dilema for science because much
of what we call science today is a collection of
mathematical formulas that makes predictions. The
philosophical problem is this, either we must admit to
higher sense facilities or else we must say that
scientific formulas are subjective. There is possibly
another alternative but I do not know what it is.
Raymon:
Agreed. Was this the Godel who came up with the famous 'Godel Theorem' in 1933? That was the beginning of orthodox science's realization that its conclusions could never be claimed to be absolute 'truth'. The same apples to Goethean science of course.
Regards, Raymon
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.email.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:39:37 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
)--- michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com) wrote:
) )
) ) --- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) ) ) See the following for info on Steiner and OTO:
) ) )
) ) ) http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
) ) )
) ) Michael C:
) )
) ) Thanks for the URL Tarjei. I went to the site and
) ) found 2 things that rather pleased me.
) )
) ) 1 this story says that Steiner was involved with the
) ) OTO for a long time.
) Michael C again commenting on what I wrote before:
)
)I looked at the site again it appears that the site
)says Steiner was not a member of the OTO. Oh well just
)goes to show how easy it is to project what you want
)to see. In any event I find it very amusing that that
)some critics think I would be black mark against
)Steiner if was was involved in tht OTO. I find it even
)more amusing that some anthroposophists would feel the
)same way. Come on guys where is your sense of
)adventure?
What makes you think that OTO is so adventurous?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:35:47 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: _Re:=?iso-8859-1?Q?=5FWE=5Fmirrowing=5FHumanity=B4s=5Fbody=5Fof=5Fkn?=
Diana, You're hired!
I had in mind setting up an energy pattern, a mantra, a magic spell of sorts, a
kind of subliminal cheerleading, so that whenever anyone held up side by side
the loftiness of the ideal and the shortfall of the real, they could rev-up
their optimism, and practice "sourcing a few endorphins", make their own
vitamin B-12, in this way:
If the ideal is a source of inspiration, then the ideal made real,
confronting the risk, (sometimes a terror), embracing the challenge, of
morphing a dream into a deed will be a source of courage, (in fact, thinks to
self: is the ONLY source of courage)
Now, to formalize it, in the tuxedo of a.............
A new Pythagorean Ratio you never thought you'd see on the Miller analogies
test,
this gospel brought to you by earlyfire:
Dream is to inspiration as Deed is to Courage
I keep thinking about step-down transformers, as a useful, charismatic analogy
here, to employ math as a poetry, an interior architecture, again to use math
to phrase enchanting as well as concrete relationships.
(Oops, The Jury will strike magic from the list of allowable state's evidence)
(hears echo)
inspiration creates dreams, courage steps down dreams into the clothing
of deeds
((Hears Merlin: courage is a lot easier to source when its 'bathed' in the
presence of inspiration)
((hears over and over again the reverberation: Word made Flesh, its not
theoretical)
(and whispering, concludes:)
HE didn't say it because it sounded good and HE was running for office)
All this is relevant to our tasks. Plans is going to be able to find a
benevolent means to inspire WE to cleanse its motives. Purity of motives is
the fast-track to the Angelic. (Intent voices much more graphic convincing
,'universe-hearable metaphysics than knowledge)
More B-12
Harvey
Diana Winters wrote:
) Harvey wrote:
)
) )............First, to ( ( ( dream ) ) ),
) )now to ====) think (=====, which is to say, to frame the ocean's )tides,
) )then, armed with resolve, don your boots,
)
) Hey, Harvey, I will attempt a quick translation from early-fire-ese, tell me
) if I'm in the ballpark:
)
) Just because the ideals have not been achieved, we shouldn't give up on the
) ideals? (Presumably this post was about Waldorf education?)
) Diana
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)
) Yes, Anthroposophical physicians start out with a
) regular MD degree.
) But unfortunately that's no guarantee. Most quacks
) are MDs.
) Anthroposophical doctors claim that they "extend"
) medicine with
) special knowledge given by Rudolf Steiner. They do
) not test their
) therapies and remedies scientifically.
Michael C:
Dan, when you say "They do not test their therapies
and remedies scientifically" do you mean individually
and personally test every therapy that they use
scientifically? If that is what you mean then your
term quack will have to apply to nearly all health
care practioners of any kind.
Now in the case of the Anthro Docs they take a lot on
failth and a lot of what they take on faith has
probably never been scientifically tested. On the
other hand MD's that only use very manistream
conventional therapies especially older ones that have
been "grandfathered in" are almost certainly using
some therapies that have never been scientifically
tested. Other therapies that they use may have been
scientifically tested but because the doctor using the
therapy didn't do the testing he is simply taking it
on faith that it was tested and that it was shown to
be safe and effective. So there is still no gauratee.
Any way before I digress to far down this line of
thought which is I admit a little bit, but not
completely absurd, I simply want to state that the
only way I see to resolve this issue is with the free
market. Someone wishing to get medical treatment or
send their kids to a school should just be informed.
That's all. It seem unfortunate that in many cases
that people were not informed about the nature of
Waldorf Education, but they may have not bothered to
ask questions.
Now as far as choice of treatment goes for medical
problems I have seen people milked by all forms of
Docs (MD, DC, DO, etc etc) when there was little or
nothing wrong with them. In a few cases the treatments
did make them ill. What can you do regulate ? Hogwash
it seems to only make the problem change it's
maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
there be a littany of proponents and critics and at
the end of it all let each adult decide for
him/herself and for their children.
They are
) faith-healing quacks.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Anthroposophy and dogma
--- raymon_ford email.com wrote:
) Michael C:
)
) This is a good point Raymon. There are individuals
) such as Kurt Godel that subscribe to the Platonic
) school of thought and believe(d) that numbers and
) other concepts from mathematics can be directly
) experienced with a higher sensory facility and
) therefore are "objective" and "real". I forgot the
) the name of the opposing school of thought that
) claims
) that that mathematics is purely a human construct
) that
) the idea of the number 5 has no "objective"
) existance
)
) Now this all creates a dilema for science because
) much
) of what we call science today is a collection of
) mathematical formulas that makes predictions. The
) philosophical problem is this, either we must admit
) to
) higher sense facilities or else we must say that
) scientific formulas are subjective. There is
) possibly
) another alternative but I do not know what it is.
)
) Raymon:
)
) Agreed. Was this the Godel who came up with the
) famous 'Godel Theorem' in 1933? That was the
) beginning of orthodox science's realization that its
) conclusions could never be claimed to be absolute
) 'truth'. The same apples to Goethean science of
) course.
)
) Regards, Raymon
)
)
Michael C:
Yes it was the one and only Kurt Godel. There are many
different ideas about what the philosophical
implications of his 2 theorems (consistency and
completeness). The one that seems most conservative
and makes the most sense to me and sems to be endorsed
by Godel is:
We can never replace human intuition with a formula.
This is not to say that human intuition can not be
formulated but simply to say that if it can be it can
be we would never be able to recognise the formula as
valid and there for use it. Why would we not be able
to reconise the formula as valid? Because that would
require intution that the formula itself could not
contain without ending up in an infinite regress. This
is my understanding of what Godel says.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Steiner buried in his OTO regalia
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) )adventure?
)
) What makes you think that OTO is so adventurous?
)
) Tarjei
)
Michael C:
You are are right Tarjei the OTO may not be adveturous
in the least. It is just the idea of the taboo that
may give it that quality that is sort of what I am
hinting at. But then in this day and age I would have
imagined that many people would have experimented with
tantric sex and other once exoctic sexual practices.
By the way I it think that Steiner seemed to be
against certain approaches because unless a person is
well centered mentally this type of thing can just
lead to all sorts of uselss maya and delusions.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
--- earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
Michael C:
My 2 cents Brilliant much need comic relief.
Thanks
)
)
) "mypostbox.formail" wrote:
)
) ) ) Michael C:
) ) )
) ) ) Clara,
) ) )
) ) You point out very well what is probably
) ) ) a huge gap between the actual and the ideals and
) ) ) stated goals of Waldorf Education and the actual
) ) ) practice. Being that I have not been involved in
) the
) ) ) actual what I mostly discuss on this site is the
) ) ) theoretical and in fact in many ways that
) concerns me
) ) ) more.
)
) ............First, to ( ( ( dream )
) ) ),
) now to ====) think (=====, which is to say, to frame
) the ocean's tides, then,
) armed with resolve, don your boots,
) and !!!$$$$ DO $$$$$!!!
) (and wonders, as if practicing unprotected,
) half-hieroglyphic philosophy 'out
) loud',
) which of these is not necessary, which is
) trashable......)
)
) Theoretical is good to clarify intent, but the
) "Intent made Achievable" is
) called life on earth.
) (Earlyfire is saying this to remind himself that the
) blueprints of gourmet
) meals, as well as food for thought, have (the good
) news is, I suppose ) NO
) calories or cholesterol. ;-) ) You are welcome to
) snoop behind the
) parentheses. Man cannot live on blueprints
) alone..........
)
) )
) )
) ) I fell that a lot of people involved in waldorf ed
) that I have come accross
) ) spend a lot of time with the ideals and constantly
) ignore the actual fact
) ) that the ideals dont work in practise
)
) The same level of dysfunctionality can be attributed
) to the epic tragic
) failings (, or, if the cup is half full: the as yet
) unrealized ideals) of the
) American electoral process, where factors such as
) level of popular voting, the
) degree of responsibly informed intellectually-potent
) participation, the
) ability of the system to interest citizens in ideas
) meaningful to the creation
) of culturally inspiring long-range goals and visions
) which form a reliable
) basis for responsible political decision-making
) which amounts to MORE than a
) November shopping list of vain and vacuous platform
) statements. Not to
) mention, of course, the level of wealth required to
) enter the democratic
) infrastructure which some might justifiably argue,
) by precluding access to
) representation based upon similarity of circumstance
) to those represented, by
) that call alone, compromises and calls into question
) the moral integrity of
) the entire system itself.
)
) Not to rail on, but the degree of lack of
) correspondence between a professed
) ideal and the shabby implementation, TOGETHER, with
) the what one would have to
) diagnose as a 'raging indifference' to the degree of
) the gulf, a term which
) implies if not justifies the coining of a term
) 'Functional Hyprocrisy', is a
) longstanding and broadbandwidthed cultural problem.
) WE is but the tip of one
) of its many icebergs, and the Human race the
) Titanic. Its a footnote and an
) echo of the New Testament thunderclap:
) "Thy will NOT YET be done, in the Real world
) as it is in the Ideal
) World"......
) (Anyone hear that brisk slap to the face of
) the human race, and the
) phrase "Get Ideal")
)
)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Earlyfire's untorchlike, cool and camphory
) suggestion, or a useful point of
) departure for a creation of a solution, for getting
) rid of taking things with
) a grain of salt:
)
) Between PLANS and WE there is a gulf, (he said,
) pretending he was born
) yesterday)
)
) Perhaps we could create a dialogue which lives in
) the respect for human beings
) rather than is entrenched in the
) compulsive-obsessive energy of ideologically
) armed encampments. (The more traditional word for
) compulsive-obsessive energy
) is 'Dogma', for my 2cents, more an dangerous as an
) issue of attitude than
) contents) And, just as the New Testament, gracefully
) replaces the Old
) Testament, diaLOGUE becomes the new "Microsoft
) upgrade" to diaTRIBE. (AP's, do
) I hear "Diasoph?)
)
) Talk about getting real:
) We are roughly 2001 years downstream of the time
) when, to loosely paraphrase,
) in our not altogether unjustifiably eccentric way,
) we need to recall:
) "When Zero or less are gathered in My
) Name, I shall be AWOL!"
)
) 2001 years - seems like it was born only yesterday!
)
) The point: The coordination, the
) metaphysically-chiropractic (re)alignment of
) the real and ideal should be considered an
) aspiration, a Prime Directive, not
) as an abandoned goal in whose absence we are forced
) to tolerate and endure
) destructive cynicism and melancholy. Chiropractice
) makes perfect! We need
) embassies in PLANS AND ASWNA and toastable, not
) heavable Molotov Cocktails!
) (Those damned peacemakers, trying to interfere with
) our spicy, regularly
) scheduled recreational outrage and righteously
) ecstatic flamethrow.)
)
) Kirk out
)
) )
) ) bea
) )
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:00:39 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RS about sexual magic (was: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia)
)--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) ) )adventure?
) )
) ) What makes you think that OTO is so adventurous?
) )
) ) Tarjei
) )
)Michael C:
)
)You are are right Tarjei the OTO may not be adveturous
)in the least. It is just the idea of the taboo that
)may give it that quality that is sort of what I am
)hinting at. But then in this day and age I would have
)imagined that many people would have experimented with
)tantric sex and other once exoctic sexual practices.
)
)By the way I it think that Steiner seemed to be
)against certain approaches because unless a person is
)well centered mentally this type of thing can just
)lead to all sorts of uselss maya and delusions.
In Lecture 19 from the cycle "Foundations of Esotericism" (Berlin 17
Oct. 1905, GA 93a), RS says:
"The black magician draws his most powerful forces out of the morass
of sensuality. The purpose of sexual rites is to introduce such magic
into these circles. A battle is continually taking place on the
earth, the one side striving to purify the passions, the other side
striving to intensify sensuality. The beings who are guided by the
Christ-Principle seek to win the Earth for themselves, but there are
also the other antagonistic beings who seek to usurp the earth."
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:31:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
DAN DUGAN
) ) Yes, Anthroposophical physicians start out with a
)) regular MD degree.
)) But unfortunately that's no guarantee. Most quacks
)) are MDs.
)) Anthroposophical doctors claim that they "extend"
)) medicine with
)) special knowledge given by Rudolf Steiner. They do
)) not test their
)) therapies and remedies scientifically.
I wish you'd learn how not to uglify the formatting of text you quote.
)Michael C:
)Dan, when you say "They do not test their therapies
)and remedies scientifically" do you mean individually
)and personally test every therapy that they use
)scientifically? If that is what you mean then your
)term quack will have to apply to nearly all health
)care practioners of any kind.
That's a stupid answer, you know very well what I'm talking about.
)Now in the case of the Anthro Docs they take a lot on
)failth and a lot of what they take on faith has
)probably never been scientifically tested. On the
)other hand MD's that only use very manistream
)conventional therapies especially older ones that have
)been "grandfathered in" are almost certainly using
)some therapies that have never been scientifically
)tested. Other therapies that they use may have been
)scientifically tested but because the doctor using the
)therapy didn't do the testing he is simply taking it
)on faith that it was tested and that it was shown to
)be safe and effective. So there is still no gauratee.
Again, you're just blowing smoke around a very real and very
important issue, responsibility in medicine.
)Any way before I digress to far down this line of
)thought which is I admit a little bit, but not
)completely absurd, I simply want to state that the
)only way I see to resolve this issue is with the free
)market. Someone wishing to get medical treatment or
)send their kids to a school should just be informed.
)That's all. It seem unfortunate that in many cases
)that people were not informed about the nature of
)Waldorf Education, but they may have not bothered to
)ask questions.
Regulation of the medical professions didn't come from tradition, and
it didn't come from the desire of doctors to limit business to their
guild (though of course it has that effect). It came about because
terrible things happened to innocent people, and enough people said
-there ought to be a law-.
)Now as far as choice of treatment goes for medical
)problems I have seen people milked by all forms of
)Docs (MD, DC, DO, etc etc) when there was little or
)nothing wrong with them. In a few cases the treatments
)did make them ill. What can you do regulate ? Hogwash
)it seems to only make the problem change it's
)maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
)there be a littany of proponents and critics and at
)the end of it all let each adult decide for
)him/herself and for their children.
Typical Anthroposophical anarchy. Your society would have no
compassion for the weak. Let those with strong wills rape and
pillage. Karma, I suppose.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:18:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
)Michael C:
)
)For those who want and need to believe in something
)(unfortunatly that is most of us still but some of us
)are getting closer to outgrowing this need) everything
)is going to be a problem. Take your pick, science
)history, religion, politics, philosophy. Within each
)of these disciplines there are many different and
)often contradicting stories. A little bit scary for
)some folks I am afraid.
Is that post-modern relativism rearing its ignorant head? Everything
is just stories? One opinion is just as good as another?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:39:18 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner buried in his OTO regalia.
michael C wrote:
)
) For those who want and need to believe in something
) (unfortunatly that is most of us still but some of us
) are getting closer to outgrowing this need) everything
) is going to be a problem. Take your pick, science
) history, religion, politics, philosophy. Within each
) of these disciplines there are many different and
) often contradicting stories. A little bit scary for
) some folks I am afraid.
Sharon:
Interesting, humorous, bizarre, ridiculous, ...scary? Nah...well,
er...um...I wouldn't mind becoming a gnome when I die, I just don't want
to have to be a *subordinate* gnome, that's a tad scary. (sarcasm)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:15:31 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner cremated, not buried, in the 1920s
Sune Nordwall wrote:
) )
) ) Sharon:
) ) Glad you are finally 'fessing up' that you guys are tricky.
) Sune:
) (Just as a small info: it was a teasing/ironic self-description, referring
) to your description of a very mild teaser by me and my pointing to the
) actual title of a lecture you quoted as 'occultist tricks')
Sharon:
Yes pal of mine, wink wink, nudge nudge, I was ribbing you as well.
)
) Sune:
)
) I commented on one point in your quote:
)
) 'When he died, however, he was buried in his OTO regalia."
)
) pointing out that Steiner not was buried, but cremated quite soon after he
) had died. Ask Gary about it. He brought it up on an anthroposophical list
) in June last year and got a number of answers on it. The careless uncorrect
) info on it in your quote suggests some caution maybe is in place in judging
) the value of the rest of it, that's all.
Sharon:
Your problem is with the authors, not me, I just bought their book and read it and quoted
it.Sweetie Plum, do you think for one minute that I think the OTO would get on the
loudspeaker, send out invitations and contact the newscasters before they did whatever
they did with Steiner's body? Don't you think there would be a little *secret* 'dressing
up and a sword' or other 'unmentionables' **before** the public charade? Your argument
means nothing, absolutely nothing because for all I know he was buried in his OTO regalia
and Anthroposophists pretended he was cremated....or whatever! (Perhaps the authors were
dropping an occultist clue that needs to be deciphered.) This is the problem with
occultism, secrets create all sorts of vagarities. Steiner was a member of several secret
societies, Great White Brotherhoods, he was an Initiate of great Importance.
Interesting that you say, (Steiner was)"...cremated, *quite soon* after he had died". I
hope it wasn't too soon! (Wouldn't want his memory pictures or time in Kamalco or
Devachan screwed up.) Personally, I would have thought that Steiner was a leading
Individuality of such an advanced degree and with such a special mission that he remained
with his body so that death did not occur for him at all, in fact, according to Steiner,
this is what happens to the masters whose task it is to watch over and bring about the
transition from one race to another.
Correct me if I'm wrong Sune, but didn't Colin Wilson write a biography of Steiner that
the Anthroposophists gave the thumbs up to? Here's what Colin Wilson says about Picknett
and Clive's book from which I quoted on Steiner's OTO regalia burial, "One of the most
fascinating books I have read since the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". (I gather Wilson
liked the book "The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ",
I took this quote off the front cover.)
)
) ) Sharon is grumpy to Sune:
) ) Is that the best you can do old chap? I'm going to find that chapter
) ) from Ahern and throw it in your face.
) Sune:
) Well, well.
Sharon:
Oh all right, stick a dunce cap on me and put me in the corner. I'm so sorry Sune for
getting irritated with your way of debating. Had 18 girls (locusts) in my house for 8
hours yesterday before I wrote the above. Had to rescue 2 raccoon babies, and found your
drudging up a comment from December, which had nothing to do with the OTO a bit much.
(Though I must commend you on your memory development, you should reincarnate quite
well.)
) Sune:
)
) I'm sorry if I confuse you in your intense daily efforts the last three
) years to handle your situation and experiences, Sharon. If you had done
) your studies and discussed them in private with your friends, I'd have no
) objection or argued much with you if we had met.
Sharon:
I don't mind if you argue with me Sune, go for it. (Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the
moment but things will free up again in a few weeks.) I do my studies and I discuss them
in private with interested friends as well as here on this list. I LOVE my studies and
discussions. If I had not been duped I may never have known about the OTO or the Knights
Templars or Anthroposophy, etc. My duping was bitter sweet. I bet we could still be
pals....maybe....under certain conditions..... if we met......I'm actually quite fond of
you old chap.
) Sune:
)
) I don't argue with a light heart with you. But this list is a public forum,
) and what you write here on 'talismans', 'ritual magic' 'initiation' and
) other things I think needs to be put somewhat in at least some perspective
) in relation to facts on a number of points.
Sharon:
All those things you mentioned above I learned from Steiner. I knew nothing about
initiation, ritual magic, etc. before reading some of Steiner's lectures. What I don't
understand is your reluctance to admit these facts.
) Sune:
) I hope the rest of the list can have an understanding for that.
Sharon:
Me too.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:04:43 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
Michael C., you responded to me (Dan Dugan),
)Please define evidence based medicine? what counts as
)evidence and who decides what counts as evidence.
Surely you have some idea of the procedure in a scientific
profession. Maybe not, perhaps you're a Waldorf grad...(sorry, ad
hominem)
Evidence is valid scientific studies, peer-reviewed, published,
criticized. Who decides is the world-wide community of scientists.
Yes, it's a social construction. A very good one, one we humans can
be proud of. Not handed down from the spirit world. Built by trial
and error.
Beyond that there are government regulatory agencies that license
practices and approve medicines, hopefully based on the scientific
evidence, but politics intrudes into the process.
)On
)other thing is that what you wind up getting when the
)evidence is very stringent and the cost of duplicating
)the study very expensive is essential a priesthood. If
)I cannot personally replicate the study I must take it
)on faith or trust my intuition about who is telling me
)the truth.
You don't have to take it on faith. You can read the journals and the
discussion and decide for yourself.
(snip)
)what I don't
) ) agree
)) )with is the idea that only scientifically verified
)) )ideas have nerit.
))
)) Why not? Especially when people's health is
)) involved, isn't it
) Michael C:
)Sounds alarmist to me Dan
)
)) responsible to use what has passed tests for safety
)) and efficacy?
)
)Michael C:
)
)Well I have a better question who, will decide this,
)will the goverment decide it for me or can I be
)trusted to make BAD decision all on my own without the
)help of demagogues.
Whether the government is by wise people or demogogues is your
responsibility, Mr. voter.
) A brief history of the types of healing that are
)licensed in each of the 50 United States is in order.
)Currently I am pretty certain that all of the states
)license Medical Doctors (M.D.) Doctors of Osteopathy
)(D.O.) and Doctors of Chiropratic. The direct
)ancestors of the M.D. were the practioners of herioc
)medicine that favored bleeding (large amounts) and
)highly poisoness drugs. The name of the prestigious
)medical journal "Lancet" testifies to the bleeding.
Yes, George Washington was bled to death by his physicians. Aren't
you glad medicine is based on science, and corrects its errors?
)Both the D.C. D.O. probably derived from the
)traditional art of bone setting that was practiced in
)many cultures although the founder of each these
)schools claims to have invented these arts in an
)independent intuitive flash. There were other schools
)that where either totaly eliminated or else greatly
)reduced in influence. Why did these three survive. The
)practioners organized to gain political clout.
)
)The three schools sort of became like the big three in
)Detroit. However the M.D. school became dominent and
)wisely aliied itself with science they also aligned
)them selves with the drug industry. Believe it or not
)the fruits of this alliance with science are just
)beginning to really ripen. The M.D. continued to
)practice in a very unscientific way that gradually
)changed and has not completely changed yet.
I agree with that. It's only been after World War II that medicine
has really gotten serious about being scientific.
)Another reason for the success of the M.D. school was
)they waged all out war on the D.C. school and also
)waged war on the D.O. school until the D.O. school
)decided to sythesize thier teachings with the
)teachings of the M. D. school. In their war against
)the D.C. school the M.D. as represented by the A.M.A.
)broke many laws I believe that thay were anti trust
)laws. Now why would they bother with this. The only
)answer that I can think of is a combination of
)zealotry and greed.
MDs opposed Chiropractic, and still oppose it, because they know that
Chiropractic is based on an incompetent theory at best, and at worst
is a haven for every quack practice imaginable. Fairly recently MDs
were forced by a lawsuit to accept Chiropractors, to the detriment of
the public health.
)But it is my contention that the alliance of the M.D.
)school with scientific thinking is in no way
)responsible for their dominance, that there success is
)do to politics and salemanship.
I believe it was originally due to the wisdom of the elected
officials who recognized that medicine allied with science was the
best way to go. Now that post-modern philosophy has become so
influential in universities the tide is turning back to irrationality.
)I say this because
)most of what they have done in the past and what they
)do now is not signifcantly more scientific than any
)other school of healing.
False.
)What is true is this is
)finally starting to change, that the study of cellular
)biology and so forth is leading to truly scientific
)drug therapies rather than just taking a drug like say
)kumidin (probably spelled wrong) which was used as a
)rat poison. It was observed that kumidin caused the
)rats to bleed to death. Then it was realized that a
)small dose might reduce blood clots. so it was tested
)many years ago when the standards were not so
)stringent and there was really no significant outside
)sources to assure that the data wasn't fudged and low
)and behold we have a drug. This is really no different
)than how traditional chinese herbal medicine came
)about. And kumidin is probabaly a very useful and life
)saving drug when adiministered intelegently.
)
)By the way if you think that data cannot be fudged and
)bad drugs slip through in more recent times,
I agree that drug manufacturers can and do cheat. Is that fact
supposed to justify quackery?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:44:35 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
DAN DUGAN
))This race-based theory of history was old-fashioned in Steiner's
))time, and is a ridiculous anachronism today. One doesn't have to
))harbor ill-will against other races to be called a racist; teaching
))ignorance qualifies, too.
TARJEI STRAUME
)Using the same line of logic, I am qualified to call anything of my
)choice "ignorant" or "racist" if I do not understand it.
I understand Steiner pretty well, thank you, I've read about 50
volumes. When Steiner says "Does a Goethe have the same antecedents
as any Hottentot?" I have a good idea of the social context in which
that kind of racist statment was acceptable. And I'm happy to live in
a society where it isn't acceptable.
)I don't know how many times we've been through this, but in the
)theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution, "races" means
)"epochs." Blavatsky also used the expression "rounds."
You can keep denying, but it doesn't change what Steiner said and
anybody can understand. Note here he says "descended," not "later":
"The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a
small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise
present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the
science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root
races of mankind." [Steiner, 1904, CM p. 48]
)On Atlantis,
-On Atlantis-? You're talking like some kind of nut. Atlantis is a
fantasy. Not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality is
insanity.
)epochs and races were connected. This is not the case today, and
)Steiner in fact supported your point that it is anachronistic.
Ok, don't listen to me, listen to Ray McDermott, Robert's brother, a
strong supporter of Waldorf education:
" In choosing to use the accepted folk terms for race--by color:
black, red, white, yellow and brown--Steiner may have been using an
unfortunate dimension of his own culture to explicate his inquiry
into human evolution. In a later lecture, Steiner (1923) exacerbates
the difficulty with the claim that racial history is the key to
understanding the different modes of thought available to people, and
worse, he traces the various ways of thinking right down to the
propensity of members of different races to rely on different parts
of the brain. His speculations on the importance of skin color are
uninformed, racist and far behind the intellectual developments even
of his own time.
"The pernicious, unilineal version of the evolution of consciousness
suggests that through history, in some significant ways, Europe makes
progress over Asia and Africa, Christianity makes progress over
Judaism and rational science makes progress over traditional ways of
thinking. Each advance has a price--white people, for example, get
limited to rational at the expense of more spiritual ways of
knowing--but each is in its way a step that promises a cumulative
progress. Steiner's account of the mental capacities and habits of
different peoples around the world is insensitive. His speculations
are surprising in comparison to the riches evident in other inquiries
by German intellectuals interested in nonwestern ways of thinking;
easily available to Steiner, for example, were the writings of
Leibniz (1716/1994) on the mind of the Chinese, of von Humboldt
(1831/1971) on the thought and language of the Malays and of
anthropologist Franz Boas (1911) on racist accounts of primitive
people. Anthroposophists unwilling to acknowledge the oversight have
missed the point of what is essential in Steiner's educational
thought." [McDermott, Ray. "Racism and Waldorf Education." Research
Bulletin. Waldorf Education Research Institute, Sunbridge College:
Vol. 1 No. 2 June, 1996, p. 3]
Got that? "[F]ar behind the intellectual developments of even his own
time...pernicious...insensitive..." And that's from a -friend- of
Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:14:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Sorry, when I quoted McDermott I should have given the URL of the article:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Racism_McDermott.html
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:16:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
MICHAEL
) ) )If that was the case we would have
)) )to eliminate most surgery because scientific double
)) )blind studies have not been performed on most forms
)) of
) ) )surgeries for obvious reasons.
DAN
) ) Not long ago a common cardiac surgical procedure was
)) found to be
)) ineffective, and it isn't done any more.
)
)Michael C:
)
)What do you mean by not long ago. I can remember
)reading about a study I think that was done on the
)50's on surgery for angina where there was actually a
)single blind and a false surgerey was done on some of
)the patients. The patients that recieved the false
)surgery were anesthetized and and recieved an incision
)in his chest so that upon awakening they would not
)know that no surgery was performed.
That's the one I was recalling.
)But this is not
)even a double blind because the surgeons knew which
)patients recieved the surgerey and which hadn't.
If the surgeons didn't talk to the patients I think it would be double blind.
)If it was more recently tell me then how was it
)decided that the treatment wasn't effective. From
)follow up study? Also a more important question is the
)medical practice was so scientific to begin with how
)did an ineffective treatment come to be used in the
)first place. Additionally I would be very surprised if
)some if not all of the persons using the now rejected
)technique were not saying how scientific their
)approach to medicine was and all the while using an
)apparently unscientifically tested technique.
So because scientific medicine made a mistake and corrected it,
quackery is ok? A principal characteristic of quack practices like
Anthroposophical Medicine is that they -don't- correct their mistakes.
) ) Tell me
)) about an
)) "alternative" medical practice that alternative
)) people have decided
)) not to do any more because it doesn't work.
)
)Michael C:
)I think that you have a very limited idea of what
)alternative medical practice is about. These practices
)must evolve or they do die. As for an across the board
)consensus of what works and what doesn't within in any
)school of alternative medicine I doubt such a thing
)exists. For that matter I doubt that it exist in the
)M.D. school also.
You avoided answering the question.
)I have heard alterenative medical practitioners say
)that they cannot get this or that technique that they
)have learned to produce the results that they have
)been told that it is suppose to. But, and this is a
)big but, they didn't always assume that it was the
)methodolgy or the technique that was no good. Often
)they just claimed not to know why it wasn't working
)for them. It could be that they were not using it very
)well or in the wrong situations. So until they had a
)good reason thy stopped using the technique
)
))
)) )There is another
)) )problem, it cost a lot of money to perform
)) scientific
)) )studies on alternative medical treatements.
))
)) Because high standards for safety and efficacy have
)) been set. I'm
)) happy about that.
)
)) )However a
)) )lot of studies have been done with various results.
)) )These studies seem to be useless for the people on
)) )either side that have already made up thier minds.
)) )They either ignore the results or just explain them
)) )away.
))
)) An unwarranted conclusion. Real science is based on
)) evidence, not opinions.
)
)Michael C:
)
)Most of what we argue about Dan is in the realm of
)oppinion. This is a logical question. I respect your
)intellence and that you are informed. You must have
)misread what I said above. Actually after rereading
)what I wrote I will soften it a little to say that
)these studies seem to be usless for many of the people
)that have already made up their minds.
Scientific minds can change. Science demands a high level of
self-criticism and courage.
)One more thing Dan,
)
)Tell me where to find some of this "real" science that
)is free from human oppinions. Will we find it with
)Wallace Sampsom M.D. or James Randi. Yes there are
)likely to be many charlatans in this world and perhaps
)these individuals will expose a few. But I think the
)deffinition of skeptic is one that doubts that any
)knowledge is possible.
Wrong. That would be some kind of nihilistic extreme skepticism.
Skeptics are people with well-tuned bullshit detectors.
)James Randi and Wallace Sampsom
)use it to mean they doubt that any knowledge that
)doesn't agree with their oppinions of the truth is is
)possible. A "real" priesthood if ever there was one.
Slander.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 333
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By steve premofine.com
Rationality (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity€s_body_of_knowledge=
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By sarina bainbridge.net
From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
By michael_j.sieber t-online.de
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Rationality (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
RE: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By soma mwt.net
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:39:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Dan Dugan wrote:
)I understand Steiner pretty well, thank you, I've read about 50 volumes.
Just out of curiosity, Dan: When you obviously think that Steiner's
ideas are so nutty and insane and obnoxious and so on, how come you
appear to be hooked on reading his lectures?
)When Steiner says "Does a Goethe have the same antecedents as any
)Hottentot?" I have a good idea of the social context in which that
)kind of racist statment was acceptable. And I'm happy to live in a
)society where it isn't acceptable.
I wrote:
))I don't know how many times we've been through this, but in the
))theosophical-anthroposophical outline of evolution, "races" means
))"epochs." Blavatsky also used the expression "rounds."
)
)You can keep denying,
There is a vital difference between denying something that is true
and refuting something that is not.
)but it doesn't change what Steiner said and anybody can understand.
)Note here he says "descended," not "later":
)
)"The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a
)small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise
)present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the
)science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root
)races of mankind." [Steiner, 1904, CM p. 48]
This quote affirms my point. Aryans is the name originally given by
Blavatsky to the root-race, or round, that followed Lemuria and
Atlantis. In the case of each greater epoch, it is a matter of
descent from the former. A root-race is an epoch in the progressive
evolution of humanity, involving all mankind. In other words, in the
above sense, "Aryans" does not mean the Nordic people or peoples
alone, but humanity as a whole - just like the "Atlanteans" and the
"Lemurians" refer to humanity as a whole in the past. This becomes
crystal clear if we keep on reading in the chapter you quote above:
"If one imagines that two such root-races preceded the Lemurians and
that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total
of _seven_. One always arises from another in respect to the
Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans. Each root race had physical and
mental characteristics which are quite different from those of the
preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially
developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present
time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought
and all that belongs to it."
))On Atlantis,
)
)-On Atlantis-?
Yes. We are talking about the theosophical-anthroposophical outline
of evolution with which you should be quite familiar after reading
fifty of Steiner's books.
)You're talking like some kind of nut. Atlantis is a fantasy. Not
)being able to distinguish fantasy from reality is insanity.
I understand. People who disagree with you about what reality is are
insane and should perhaps be forcefully medicated or locked up.
))epochs and races were connected. This is not the case today, and
))Steiner in fact supported your point that it is anachronistic.
)
)Ok, don't listen to me, listen to Ray McDermott, Robert's brother, a
)strong supporter of Waldorf education:
)
)" In choosing to use the accepted folk terms for race--by color:
)black, red, white, yellow and brown--Steiner may have been using an
)unfortunate dimension of his own culture to explicate his inquiry
)into human evolution. In a later lecture, Steiner (1923) exacerbates
)the difficulty with the claim that racial history is the key to
)understanding the different modes of thought available to people,
)and worse, he traces the various ways of thinking right down to the
)propensity of members of different races to rely on different parts
)of the brain. His speculations on the importance of skin color are
)uninformed, racist and far behind the intellectual developments even
)of his own time.
The close connection between race, heredity, and spiritual
characteristics was a factor in Atlantean times, among our Atlantean
ancestors. As I have pointed out on repeated occasions, these
differences ar no longer relevant, and their present-day remnants are
also in the process of disappearing, of being wiped out, through
integration of culture and ethnicity alike. I believe Stewart C.
Easton may have been on to something when he indicated that Steiner
may not always have understood what he saw, which is quite
understandable when we take into account that spiritual and
biological evolution is extremely complicated.
)"The pernicious, unilineal version of the evolution of consciousness
)suggests that through history, in some significant ways, Europe
)makes progress over Asia and Africa,
This is why the fifth post-Atlantean cultural epoch is sometimes also
called the Germanic epoch, and at other times the European-American
epoch. It's the geographical region whence the global culture of the
present has originated with science, politics (the ballot box), the
world language (English) and so on. A cultural epoch is often named
after the culture or civilization that has exerted the greatest
influence.
)Christianity makes progress over Judaism and rational science makes
)progress over traditional ways of thinking.
What needs to be kept in mind is that when Steiner speaks about
progressive evolution after Christ, he always has the Christ-impulse
in mind. In this sense, his eurocentricm consists of tracking down
the evolution of the Christ-impulse, where Europe has historically
been most important. We can see some effects of this today, for
instance, when we look at the death penalty. Western Europe is the
only region in the world that has outlawed and banned it - even to
the point where extraditions to the U.S. are denied if the lawbreaker
should face the death penalty.
In other words, it is the evolution of compassion, forgiveness, and
selfless love Steiner is concerned with when he speaks about the
Christ-impulse and its evolution in Europe.
)Each advance has a price--white people, for example, get limited to
)rational at the expense of more spiritual ways of knowing--but each
)is in its way a step that promises a cumulative progress.
This demonstrates how complicated it is.
)Steiner's account of the mental capacities and habits of different
)peoples around the world is insensitive.
To a certain extent, I would agree with this, that Steiner's
utterances are sometimes insensitive - especially when he speaks of
peoples whose representatives or members he had never met or spoken
to face to face. He has a tendency to stereotype people in thie
regard. In this respect, it is correct to assert that Steiner had
prejudicial notions, and that some of these notions may be called
racist, but it is still an error to say that Steiner himself was
racist because his view of the world and of life was thoroughly
anti-racist.
In his article "New Myths about Rudolf Steiner,"
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/pnw/pnweng2.html), Peter N.W. writes:
"When you walk into an insane asylum, it is not always easy to see
the difference between patients and doctors. But in the house of
madness demonstrated by racist thinking, Steiner stands on the side
of the individual, not of the race. For him, 'race' often means
something close to a cultural epoch limited in its duration. But it
is most important that he, what the 'races conditioned by blood' are
concerned, not only claims that they will disappear. He regards as
extremely dangerous to take an ideological or political point of
departure from the concept of 'races': 'A man who speaks today about
a racial, national, or tribal community as an ideal, is describing
impulses leading to humanity's destruction,' he said in a lecture
from 26. October 1917. "(...) Not through anything else do human
beings get nearer to the threat of decadence than when the ideals of
race, folk, and blood are spread abroad."
)His speculations are surprising in comparison to the riches evident
)in other inquiries by German intellectuals interested in nonwestern
)ways of thinking; easily available to Steiner, for example, were the
)writings of Leibniz (1716/1994) on the mind of the Chinese, of von
)Humboldt (1831/1971) on the thought and language of the Malays and
)of anthropologist Franz Boas (1911) on racist accounts of primitive
)people.
When tracing spiritual evolution with a special eye for the
preparation for the Christ Event and the subsequent growth of the
moral impulses proceeding from this event, Steiner may have
overlooked or underestimated a lot of things.
)Anthroposophists unwilling to acknowledge the oversight have missed
)the point of what is essential in Steiner's educational thought."
It is very important for students of anthroposophy to do their own
individual research and thinking on absolutely all subjects. This
does not mean that a support of or apology for Steiner is
antithetical to critical, self-dependent judgement.
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:39:44 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Typical Anthroposophical anarchy. Your society would have no
)compassion for the weak. Let those with strong wills rape and
)pillage. Karma, I suppose.
Anthroposophy has always been strongly opposed to social Darwinism
with the survival of the fittest or the strongest and all that. Where
did you get the idea from that anthroposophists want a society where
they can rape and pillage and not care for the weak?
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:41:15 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: _Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity¥s_body_of_kn
Harvey wrote:
)I had in mind setting up an energy pattern, a mantra, a magic spell of
) )sorts,
You know, Harvey, I've noticed that simple, clear writing - do you know what
I mean? where someone just says what they mean to say? - can itself have
almost magical effects sometimes.
(snip many more words to get to where Harvey suggests that he will help us
"rev up our optimism" when we feel discouraged about the gap between the
ideal and the real in Waldorf)
Go right on revving, Harvey, go right on revving. Some of us don't feel the
need to rev up our initial optimism about Waldorf again. We found a better
alternative: we found better schools.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:41:55 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Michael C. is talking about alternative medicine, but it could apply to
Waldorf too:
)What can you do regulate ? Hogwash it seems to only make the problem
) )change it's maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
)there be a littany of proponents and critics and at the end of it all (let
)each adult decide for him/herself and for their children.
Exactly what this list is for.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:46:54 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Dogma
Michael C.:
)But this is not even a double blind because the surgeons knew which
)patients recieved the surgerey and which hadn't.
Dan:
)If the surgeons didn't talk to the patients I think it would be double
)blind.
Just a small point, but Michael C. is right - for it to be double blind,
both the investigators and the subjects have to *not know* which subjects
are in the experimental group and which are in the control group.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:51:36 -0700
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
On 6 Jun 2001, at 0:44, Dan Dugan wrote:
) TARJEI STRAUME
)
) )On Atlantis,
)
) -On Atlantis-? You're talking like some kind of nut. Atlantis is a
) fantasy. Not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality is
) insanity.
Atlantis is not a fantasy. Atlantis is a myth. Specifically, it is a
deluge myth, common in many cultures, including our own. (My guess at
this point is that it's based on the catastrophic filling of the Black
Sea, and I suspect that the flood described in Genesis is based on the
same event, but who knows?)
Atlantis is also a major motion picture, coming soon to a theater near
you. It's amusing to me to contemplate the irony of Disney, thought of as
evil personified by many Waldorf people, making a film about a place that
features so prominently in Anthroposophical origin myths. I'm looking
forward to it, myself. The previews are impressive.
In any event, while inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality
is a sign of insanity, belief in the literal existence of a mythological
place, like Atlantis, Valhalla, Heaven, or Hell, is irrational, but not
insane. That is, being irrational about everything may signify mental
illness, but many (perhaps most) otherwise sane people believe in some
irrational things.
So your implication that belief in Atlantis is a sign of mental illness is
misguided. Folks who believe in Atlantis are not more or less mentally
unstable than those who believe in any other myth, including the myths of
major religions.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:15:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Rationality (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
Steve Premo wrote:
)In any event, while inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality
)is a sign of insanity, belief in the literal existence of a mythological
)place, like Atlantis, Valhalla, Heaven, or Hell, is irrational, but not
)insane. That is, being irrational about everything may signify mental
)illness, but many (perhaps most) otherwise sane people believe in some
)irrational things.
Four many people, believing that Atlantis existed is not an
irrational notion, but a rational probability. I found a website
devoted to this subject at http://www.atlan.org/. They look at the
idea from the viewpoint of myth and religion as well as from
indications provided by science: http://www.atlan.org/sci/
My old Webster tells me that "rational" means "having reason or
understanding" and "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason."
If one person concludes that the possible existence of Atlantis is
improbable, does it automatically follow that those who hold a
different opinion based upon the same sources of information are less
rational people, or that their conclusions are less rational? I don't
think so.
Tarjei
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:_WE_mirrowing_Humanity€s_body_of_knowledge=
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Michael C., you wrote (to Clara),
)
) )On the other hand nearly all education that has
) taken
) )place in the modern industrial world is very Euro
) )Centric. A gross and obvious example of this is the
) )depiction of the Early Egytpians as white
) Mediteranean
) )people. Yes well before the time of Cleopatra
) Alexader
) )the Great conquered Egypt and set up a white
) )Mediteranean ruling class.(If you can believe
) history,
) )personally I take it with a grain of salt).
) )
) )Now when I was in school which was some time ago
) all
) )Egyptians were depicted as white Mediteranian
) peoples
) )which could in no way be mistaken for black
) Africans.
) )However one need only look at how these people
) )depicted themselves with there art to see that they
) )appear to be black Africans.
)
) I agree about the Eurocentricity, but you chose a
) bad example.
Michael C:
The reason I chose Egypt was that in most histories of
western civilization schemes, the Egytptians and
Assyrians are considered the first western
civilitations are considered our ancestors.
) The
) Egyptians depicted themselves as
) reddish-brown-skinned. I recall an
) ancient Egyptian painting
Michael C:
I wonder if the paint was the original. 2500 years or
more is a long time for a paint to last. In any event
reddish brown is a long way from white and there are
many different shades of "black" Africans.
showing Egyptians with a
) group of captured
) slaves who were clearly negroid in features
I have looked at many different Egyptian self
depictions and what I am mostly judging by the
features. The reason for this is that many of the
statues and carvings were either never painted or else
the original paint was almost entirely worn away. What
had paint, varied in color from dark brown to nearly
very light tan. As far as the, The Egytptians very
often wore wigs or cloth headresses. The art works in
which they did not wear this depicted their hair as
that of black africans.
) and
) color, the painter
) making the distinction quite clear.
Dan This is an area where the evidence is always going
to be somewhat questionable unless we can get a dna
sample of some of the mummies. I don't know what the
level of this science is and whether competant people
in the field could answer this question from dna
samples. But there is even one more piece of eveidence
to show that they people of early dynasties were black
and not semetic or mediteranian. The real beginning of
Egytian history takes place around the time of the
unification of upper and lower Egypt. The rulers and
most of the culture came from upper Egypt, which was
upstream on the nile to the south in what is now Sudan
)
) There is a dispute about this in American education.
) A group of
) Afro-centric scholars claims that ancient Egyptians
) were the
) ancestors of African-Americans,
Michael C:
I am with you on this Dan, I don't know how they can
prove this, That these were ancestors of
African-Amaricans sounds like a bit of a stretch to
me.
) and that they had
) advanced sciences
) and technology, including aircraft. Their most
) notorious product is
Michael C:
Sounds unproven and perhaps unprovable, at least to my
satifaction.
) called the "Portland Baseline Essays," race-based
) pseudo-history in
) the same class of fantasy as Anthroposophy's.
Michael C:
Most of the wilder stuff that I ever read from Steiner
was always prefaced by the explaination that he was
trying to write something spiritual but that the
language he was using was inadequate to covey this so
he had to resort to metaphors. Most of it is never
claimed to be true in the same sense that history is
claiming to be true. Unfortunately a lot of people
including Anthroposphist forget this for some reason.
)Some
) urban school
) districts adopted these texts!
) It would be better to point at the sophisticated
) African culture that
) built Great Zimbabwe.
Michael C:
Yes this is important also, however these other
cultures are not considered by most people to have
been the direct ancestors or our culture.
)
) -Dan Dugan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)
) Typical Anthroposophical anarchy. Your society would
) have no
) compassion for the weak. Let those with strong wills
) rape and
) pillage. Karma, I suppose.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
Michael C:
Spend some significant time, like a month, in a
camphill comunity Dan and then see if you still feel
that there is no compassion in Anthroposophy.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Michael C. is talking about alternative medicine,
) but it could apply to
) Waldorf too:
)
) )What can you do regulate ? Hogwash it seems to only
) make the problem
) ) )change it's maifestation or get worse. Let the
) buyer beware. Let
) )there be a littany of proponents and critics and at
) the end of it all (let
) )each adult decide for him/herself and for their
) children.
)
) Exactly what this list is for.
) Diana
)
Michael C: And there should be many more lists just
like this one that seems to be very fair without any
goverment regulation. Thank you Diana
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:05:42 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism
Steve wrote:
)Folks who believe in Atlantis are not more or less mentally
) unstable than those who believe in any other myth, including the
myths of
) major religions.
Amen!
~ Sarina "heck, I just haven't posted anything lately" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:22:06 +0200
From: michael_j.sieber t-online.de (Michael J. Sieber)
Subject: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
On 6 Jun 2001, at 13:41, Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Michael C. is talking about alternative medicine, but it could apply to
) Waldorf too:
)
) )What can you do regulate ? Hogwash it seems to only make the problem
) ) )change it's maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
) )there be a littany of proponents and critics and at the end of it all (let
) )each adult decide for him/herself and for their children.
)
) Exactly what this list is for.
) Diana
)
Michael S.:
Hm, maybe there is one rather grave distinction at least between
PLANS and a free school system:
PLANS is opting - as far as I understand - for an extraction of
Waldorf from the state school system.
Following the logic of this list as proclaimed above the intention
should more adequatly (and much braver) read instead: "Keep the
state out of the schools!"
Ah, wonderful new world, creating an incredibly big variety of different
school types. And Waldorf (as one between many) will grow and
survive (or not) in the competition of an all free schoolsystem whose
only regulation will be the also and necessarily growing responsibility
of the parents (and may be the older pupils).
So, Debra, Dan, Lisa, what do you think about the transformation of
good old PLANS to
PEOPLES ACTION FOR FREE SCHOOLS (PAFFS)
Yours
Michael S.
P.S.
As t h i s Peoples Action will certainly do the miracle of unifying
Critics and Apops I opt for the following leadership:
Co-Presidents: Debra & Tarjei
Vize-Presidents: Lisa & Dottie
Secretaries: Dan & Sune
Maniacs from down under: Michael K. & Mark S.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:33:44 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Michael C. was talking about alternative medicine, and I said it could apply
to Waldorf too:
)What can you do regulate ? Hogwash it seems to only make the problem
)change it's maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
)there be a littany of proponents and critics and at the end of it all )lt
)each adult decide for him/herself and for their children.
I wrote:
Exactly what this list is for.
Michael C:
)And there should be many more lists just like this one that seems to )be
)very fair without any goverment regulation. Thank you Diana
I was not making a case for no government regulation of alternative
medicine. I was pointing out a function of this list.
Diana
)__________________________________________________
)Do You Yahoo!?
)Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
)a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:52:14 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: From PLANS to PAFFS ?!
Michael C. (talking about alternative medicine)
)What can you do regulate ? Hogwash it seems to only make the problem
)change it's maifestation or get worse. Let the buyer beware. Let
)there be a littany of proponents and critics and at the end of it all )let
)each adult decide for him/herself and for their children.
I wrote (applying it to Waldorf):
)Exactly what this list is for.
Michael S.:
)Following the logic of this list as proclaimed above the intention
)should more adequatly (and much braver) read instead: "Keep the
)state out of the schools!"
This is what I get making one-sentence posts (instead of rambling on for
half an hour) - people misconstruing and extrapolating, first Michael C. now
Michael S. (Since you both responded on this one, surely I won't be mixing
you up.) :)
My one-sentence post was not a proclamation of the logic of this list. It
was not a "hear hear" to Michael C.'s argument for de-regulating alternative
medicine, and it was most certainly not an argument for getting the state
out of education! I was merely noting that at the present, this list serves
the function (among others) of providing critical information on Waldorf for
parents who are school-shopping. "Let the buyer beware" is always good
advice, it isn't the same thing as saying "get rid of state regulation of
medicine and education"!
(Liked your
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:57:26 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
I wrote Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:25:44 GMT:
) Dan, you wrote:
) ) At 1:11 AM +0200 6/5/01, Sune Nordwall wrote:
) ) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) )) [I believe this law
(a new French anti-cult law)
) names Anthroposophy--Dan Dugan]
)
) Me [Sune:]
) ) )What makes you believe it does?
)
) You [Dan:]
) ) The friend who sent it to me said it did, that's all. Do
) ) you have any further information about it?
Me [Sune:]
) Not any primary sources or texts. Can you ask your friend
) to substantiate his and your claim
; that the law should name anthroposophy
) more in detail; sources,
) quotes or some other way?
Have you asked your friend?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Rationality (was: Reincarnation and Steiner's anti-racism)
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) Steve Premo wrote:
)
) )In any event, while inability to distinguish
) between fantasy and reality
) )is a sign of insanity, belief in the literal
) existence of a mythological
) )place, like Atlantis, Valhalla, Heaven, or Hell, is
) irrational, but not
) )insane. That is, being irrational about everything
) may signify mental
) )illness, but many (perhaps most) otherwise sane
) people believe in some
) )irrational things.
)
) Four many people, believing that Atlantis existed is
) not an
) irrational notion, but a rational probability. I
) found a website
) devoted to this subject at http://www.atlan.org/.
) They look at the
) idea from the viewpoint of myth and religion as well
) as from
) indications provided by science:
) http://www.atlan.org/sci/
)
) My old Webster tells me that "rational" means
) "having reason or
) understanding" and "relating to, based on, or
) agreeable to reason."
) If one person concludes that the possible existence
) of Atlantis is
) improbable, does it automatically follow that those
) who hold a
) different opinion based upon the same sources of
) information are less
) rational people, or that their conclusions are less
) rational? I don't
) think so.
)
) Tarjei
)
)
Michael C:
OK time for my 2 cents.
If any one bothered to read a bit on that OTO site
that web site that Tarjie included for in one of the
letters then they might have noticed that the the OTO
was Masonic on the outside but Gnostic/Sex magic on
the inside. I feel that Anthroposophy has a similar
sort dichotomy. On the out side Anthroposophy is very
much about all of the theosophical
truths/myths/delusions. On the inside it is about
phenomonolgy, ethical individualism and Goethean
Science.
Steiner found a ready made audience in the
theosophists so he did his thing in the guise of
Theosophy. Take a book of his for example "Theosophy"
and what do you find. It is writting in various
layers. It seems that the most impo