return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Steiner Racist?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: who has been duped, really?
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
By takeasha excite.com
Re:RE: RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
David Icke
By peter_zegers runbox.no
OT: to Diana Winters
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Steiner Racist?
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Steiner Racist?
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
From Sune: Wrong again, Peter
By canndw netzero.net
Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
By canndw netzero.net
Sune unsubbed from the WC-list
By canndw netzero.net
Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
By canndw netzero.net
From Sune: Another half truth from Peter Zegers
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By faiman jlc.net
Re: David Icke
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
what critics know
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
By tastraum uncletaz.com
new members might want to read archives
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Italy and dialects in the classroom -- ????
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: OT: to Diana Winters
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: who has been duped?
By TTirrell1 aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:38:11 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
Takeasha,
) You gave one example of a former Waldorf teacher who was, in fact, fired
) from a waldorf school, and you say "historical revisionists" and
) Holocaust deniers have plagued the anthroposophical movement in three
) countries? That seems weak, but if there are other examples of this that
) consitute a plague, could you refer me to those instances, because I
) would be very interested in knowing more about that.
Here is a typical qualitative argument again. For all their
spirituality most anthroposophists and their defenders argue in a
very "materialist" manner. It is not just Holocaust denial, but the
whole mindset I am thinking of. It was no coincidence that Sune
Nordwall had a link to the website of David Icke (I will return to
this and Mr. Nordwall¥s assessment of him another time). Another
example besides Gennadij Bondarew, who I mentioned in a previous
post, is the German Werner Georg Haverbeck.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:40:53 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner Racist?
)I think that a lot of people in this country would disagree that
)institutional racism has been eradicated.
I certainly did not say that institutional racism had been eradicated. I
said:
"the racist beliefs and practices of some of the US founding
fathers are recognized and are rarely defended these days." That hardly
means there is no further work to be done. On the contrary, recognizing and
admitting the biases or prejudices of the founders allows that work to go
on. Unless or until the reality is faced, however, there's no starting point
for such work. Anthroposophy is in denial.
)it is surprising to see so many defend the modern-day United States )as
)past all that racist stuff.
Again, that is nothing remotely like what I said, and I would never make a
case that the modern-day United States is "past all that racist stuff." (Nor
have other critics said what you say we've said, from what I've read.)
The difference is, Steiner's devotees insist he was never racist to begin
with; they would have us think it's at best all a huge, unfortunate
misunderstanding, or (what they really think) the rest of us are too
unenlightened to get the "spiritual" meanings behind their pet theories
about race, nationality, history, karma.
It is all tied to karma. If you want to throw out race = karma, then what
are you supposed to do with gender = karma? Nationality = karma? History =
karma? Individual destiny ("biography") = karma? Going to a Waldorf school =
karma? Hair color = karma? The whole system crumbles. They daren't mess with
any little piece of it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:43:18 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: who has been duped, really?
)From: Dan Dugan Please specify where you find hate. On the PLANS web site?
)On this
)mailing list? Perhaps you're referring to Michael Kopp's defense
)hating evil.
DL: I mispoke - what I meant is a sense of judgement in people's posts here.
There seems to be a strong feeling judgement - bordering on hate - and I
identify that this is a general feeling that comes from the posts - I can't
give you specific examples. No more than can someone who walks into a room
where there's been a fight can necessarily define what about the room makes
them uncomfortable.
DL previously wrote:
))I am curious as to the backgrounds of those who post here. There
))seems to be quite a few individuals who see Anthroposophy as a
))"cult." For those who see it as a cult, can you tell me why you see
))it thusly?
)
Dan wrote:
)For me, the term aptly described the behavior of the teachers at our
)school.
Hmmmmmm....doesn't really answer the question. What about the behaviour do
you see as "cultish" and why? How do you (personally) define "cult"?
Thank you - that's all for today - off to work now.....
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:53:59 +0000
From: (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
You're right, that was kind of inconsistent. I do know a fair amount
about Steiner, but I have not made up my mind yet about him, so I wanted
to indicate that. However, I think that I am allowed to have thoughts on
an issue before I am completely sure about something, which is why I
indicated that I have not studied Steiner's work in depth, as you most
likely have
.
Mediation? If you meant meditation, I dont' meditate--did you
sarcastically mention that because it is something Steiner wrote about?
And no, not rumours.
Takeasha
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear Takeasha,
)
) Don¥t you care anything about consistency? First you start by saying you
) haven¥t read enough of Steiner¥s work to make a sound judgement and
) immediately after state that Steiner¥s views on race were in keeping
) with his time (obviously a judgement!). On what is this judgement based
) if not on reading Steiner? Mediation? Intuition? Rumours?
)
) ) I haven't read enough of his work to make a sound judegment on that, and
) )
) ) it seems the majority of critics of Waldorf education know little about
) ) waldorf schools or have only read excerpts of Steiner's writing taken
) ) out of context. (I know, some, or one, of you had children in waldorf
) ) schools and were very unhappy with the school). If anything, Steiner's
) ) views on race were in keeping with his time.
)
) Peter Zegers
)
)
)
)
) -----------------------------------------------
) Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
) Gratis epost-tjeneste
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:13:36 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:RE: RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
Dear Takeasha,
) You're right, that was kind of inconsistent. I do know a fair amount
) about Steiner, but I have not made up my mind yet about him, so I wanted
) to indicate that. However, I think that I am allowed to have thoughts on
) an issue before I am completely sure about something, which is why I
) indicated that I have not studied Steiner's work in depth, as you most
) likely have.
There are two ways of defending Steiner against charges of racism
that I have come across so far:
1) Steiner was not a racist. Whenever he used the concepts of race or
rootrace, he wasn¥t really talking and writing about race as it was
understood in those time and as we understand it now. We really can¥t
judge his use of the words from the time he lived in. He meant
something completely different like culture-epochs (Kulturepoche).
2) Steiner was a racist, but since everybody was it doesn¥t really
matter, so let¥s forget about it. It doesn¥t really affect his
teachings.
You seem to be confused about what line of defence to use. Obviously
the two exclude one another if one cares to be consistent. If you
choose one of them, I could elaborate on the problems I have with
these defences.
) Mediation? If you meant meditation, I dont' meditate--did you
) sarcastically mention that because it is something Steiner wrote about?
) And no, not rumours.
I was just wondering about other possible means of getting insights
you could have used. Ofcourse you can have ideas about all kinds of
things, the point of having this discussion-list is that other people
can challenge your ideas.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:18:13 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
I wrote:
)Probably somebody else can find a quote, but I can attest that this was the
)attitude of the faculty at our Waldorf school.
DL:
)Can you? Did you ask specifically or are you inferring that this was their
)attitude?
Yes, I can attest. I was on the faculty and I heard many such discussions,
in meetings and in private conversations. I am not "inferring," I am
referring to explicit conversations in which the school's spiritual
parenting of the child was discussed unapologetically. There is your
biological heredity, which determines which family you are born into
physically, and then there is your spiritual destiny, which is quite
different, and which leads children to their Waldorf teacher. The class is
considered a karmic group that has been together and will be together
through many lifetimes. This is straight Steiner and all teachers in
training are tutored in this stuff. And newbies are cautioned that it is not
really appropriate to go into this much with parents.
I understand that to you it sounds like it must be a smear, because they
don't have these conversations *in front* of parents, DL, so it is not
unusual that people think we are making this stuff up. You probably do not
understand that most of us here were at one time as enthusiastic for Waldorf
as you are, DL, and *liked* the "spiritual parenting" idea as much as you
do. I figured we could use all the spiritual help we could get.
DL:
)Do you agree or disagree with the idea that parents may not understand why
)their children/family have been drawn to Waldorf?
I think it is the height of arrogance for the teachers to think they know
better than the family "why" the family is there. It leads to all sorts of
abuses. No, certainly parents do not understand everything about their
children (at least I sure don't understand everything about mine), but for
the teachers to assume they know more is truly offensive. If you are aware
of this attitude up front, it ought to set off loud alarms for you, DL.
We're talking about a fundamental attitude here; a teacher may of course
make objective observations about a child, or see things about a child a
parent doesn't see. Also, not all Waldorf teachers think this way, DL, so
I'll hope for you that your own child's teacher does not. There is no doubt
in my mind this is common in Waldorf.
)And seperately, do you believe or disbelieve that children/families )ARE
)drawn to Waldorf schools?
I do not believe they are drawn for "karmic" reasons unknown to their
parents. This is extremely arrogant - if you believe Waldorf is so great,
and "some" children are drawn there, what does that say about all the rest
who apparently are "drawn" to other schools?
Unfortunately, the reasons families are actually drawn to Waldorf schools
are not the same as the reasons the teachers think they are there. The
parents usually like the "holistic" idea, the supposed emphasis on
creativity, natural materials, low-pressure academic environment, lots of
freedom, community, nature (fwiw, the reasons we signed up). They often have
no idea of the spiritual mission of the school. There are a few exceptions,
of course - the anthroposophic families.
DL:
)Again I ask - are you inferring that the teachers saw the parents as
) )obstacles and that teachers assume that the family is doing many )things
)wrong at home? Or do you KNOW this?
Again, obviously you think I am making it up to smear Waldorf, but no, I
"KNOW" this because I heard and took part in countless conversations like
this. I mean, child study is basically long lists of what the parents are
doing wrong, and how can the teacher counteract the parents' influence.
I wrote that the critics' religious backgrounds or affiliations are
irrelevant.
DL:
)Are they? If one of the complaints is that (IYO) the Waldorf school
)teachers see themselves as the "children's spiritual parent" - wouldn't
)your religious view affect how you deal with this idea?
Sigh. I did not mean that our religious beliefs are irrelevant to what we
think of Steiner, Waldorf, etc. I meant that it is not members of one
particular religious (or atheist) group that has had bad experiences in
Waldorf. Waldorf defenders warn people away from the PLANS site saying,
"It's a group of fundamentalists, the fundamentalists say Waldorf is a cult"
or "Actually they're atheists and it just bothers them if there's any
'spirituality' in school" - neither of which characterizes the majority of
people on the list (at least those contributing regularly).
Obviously if your beliefs coincide with anthroposophy or similar New Age
beliefs, you will be much happier with your children being in an
anthroposophic school than will parents to whom all this comes as an
unpleasant shock. Now, since you probably think I am a strait-laced type
frightened of spirituality, or something, I should mention that I was very
receptive to anthroposophy at the beginning of our Waldorf adventure. I
studied Steiner enthusiastically. You really have to see this "spiritual
parenting" thing in action before you can perhaps understand why it scares
some of us so much now, and why we wish we had really understood it head on.
DL:
)Please forward any relevant passages (and their sources) where Steiner is
)acting/speaking etc racism.
Sigh again. Give me till tonight or tomorrow. The archives of this list are
full of them, or you can read the PLAN website, but I don't have anymore
time this afternoon (got to go pick up my son and do some real, as opposed
to spiritual, parenting). You could always look around yourself, of course,
since you apparently think it's all a big hoax or something.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:26:35 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Re: Steiner Racist?
Takeasha wrote:
)it seems the majority of critics of Waldorf education know little about
)waldorf schools or have only read excerpts of Steiner's writing taken
)out of context. (I know, some, or one, of you had children in waldorf
)schools and were very unhappy with the school
How long have you been reading the list? You think "some or one" of the
critics had a child in Waldorf? Virtually everyone here had a child in
Waldorf. There are a few exceptions, people who had other experiences with
anthroposophy, but mostly the critics are former Waldorf parents.
I'm also not sure how you got the idea we have "only read excerpts." of
Steiner. Boy, you don't know what you're getting into. Many of the critics
have read as much if not more Steiner than ardent Waldorf supporters.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:31:52 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
Peter Zegers wrote:
Here is a typical qualitative argument again. For all their spirituality
most anthroposophists and their defenders argue in a very "materialist"
manner. It is not just Holocaust denial, but the whole mindset I am thinking
of. It was no coincidence that Sune Nordwall had a link to the website of
David Icke (I will return to this and Mr. Nordwall¥s assessment of him
another time). Another example besides Gennadij Bondarew, who I mentioned in
a previous post, is the German Werner Georg Haverbeck.
Charlie:
If any pro-Anthroposophy members on this list deny the Holocaust, or if they
are personally aquainted with any Holocaust denying Anthroposophists could
they let us know? In fact if any critics on the list are personally
aquainted with any Holocaust denying Anthroposophists could they also let us
know? If there have been Anthroposophists in the past who have denied the
Holocaust then that is a personal, individual view which has nothing to do
with Anthroposophy. In fact this shows that there are a remarkable range of
views among people who are supposed to be blind followers of the ideas of
one person. You can't have it both ways.
As for Sune's link to David Icke, is he not entitled to have links to people
with interesting ideas? I must admit that I found David Icke's comments
interesting when he first made them public. I would say that Sune's opinion
of David Icke evolved as David Icke's own views became clearer over the
years. His (Sune's) opinion has obviously changed for him to have withdrawn
the link. A mind that changes in the light of new information. Is this the
minset that is being spoken of?
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:07:16 +0000
From: (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: Waldorf Grads
Does anyone know about how waldorf-educated students have fared in
life-after waldorf?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:17:59 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: David Icke
Dear Charlie Morrison,
You wrote:
) If any pro-Anthroposophy members on this list deny the Holocaust, or if they
) are personally aquainted with any Holocaust denying Anthroposophists could
) they let us know? In fact if any critics on the list are personally
) aquainted with any Holocaust denying Anthroposophists could they also let us
) know? If there have been Anthroposophists in the past who have denied the
) Holocaust then that is a personal, individual view which has nothing to do
) with Anthroposophy. In fact this shows that there are a remarkable range of
) views among people who are supposed to be blind followers of the ideas of
) one person. You can't have it both ways.
I for one have never argued that all anthroposophist read their
Steiner in the same way. As a matter of fact, there is much
disagreement among anthro¥s about what constitutes the real meaning
of Steiner¥s writings. I think the fact that some anthro¥s drifted
off into Holocaust denial and more in general "historical
revisionism" stems from their irrational belief-system based on the
alleged clairvoyant prophecies of the Austrian occultist. Steiner was
an avid supporter of conspiracism, in fact it forms the base of many
of his lectures and articles. Germany or Mitteleuropa has a spiritual
mission according to the anthro¥s, following Steiner in this myth.
The Holocaust therefore has to be explained as something un-German. I
have read several explanations of the Holocaust written by
anthroposophist, but none of them deals with the actual political
history of Germany and Austria. Most of the time some a metaphysical
"explanation" is given, thereby deculpabilizing large segments of
German and Austrian society. I am planning to write an article about
this soon in which I will give more examples. Bondarew and Schaub are
still very much alive, by the way.
) As for Sune's link to David Icke, is he not entitled to have links to people
) with interesting ideas? I must admit that I found David Icke's comments
) interesting when he first made them public. I would say that Sune's opinion
) of David Icke evolved as David Icke's own views became clearer over the
) years. His (Sune's) opinion has obviously changed for him to have withdrawn
) the link. A mind that changes in the light of new information. Is this the
) minset that is being spoken of?
Interesting? Let us see what Icke wrote:
"In the very late 1800's, a controversial document came to light
called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". I call them the
Illuminati Protocols, and I quote many extracts from them in The
Robots' Rebellion. Some say they were a forgery made public only to
discredit Jews, and I use the term "Illuminati Protocols" to get away
from the Jewish emphasis. If they were a forgery, something that is
quite possible, what were they a forgery of, and by whom?"
David Icke, "...and the truth shall set you free" p.57
"I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for
the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First
World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War. This
Jewish/non-Jewish Elite used the First World War to secure the
Balfour Declaration and the principle of the Jewish State of Israel
(for which, given the genetic history of most Jewish people, there is
absolutely no justification on historical grounds or any other). They
then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the
circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They
financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his
rearmament."
Ibid., p. 130
"The same attitude that suppressed the challenge to the manipulation
of World War Two, today sees people vilified and jailed for
questioning some of the official versions of the Holocaust in Nazi
Germany. If you do that, no one listens to the evidence because this
is lost in the tidal wave of vilification and condemnation. If people
want to believe that all those who question the official line are
Nazis and apologists for the Hitler regime, or anti-Jewish, then they
must go ahead and do so. But I'll tell them this. They are kidding
themselves, because that isn't true. It simply isn't."
Ibid., p. 127
The quotes can be found at:
http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/Ickequotes.htm#TopOfPage
(There is also an interesting article by Will Offley at the same
site, "David Icke And The Politics Of Madness. Where The New Age
Meets The Third Reich"; see also "From Green Messiah to New Age Nazi"
by Matthew Kalman and John Murray, http://www.leftgreen.org/issues/lgp35.html).
I could go on with providing more information, but what is the point?
I am a bit puzzled by the remark that the antisemitic lunacy of David
Icke would be "interesting". Ofcourse people can link to whatever
they want, but I can criticize them for it, can¥t I?
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:58:33 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: OT: to Diana Winters
Hey, are you getting my mail? I did answer your off-list mail about
Denver but I guess you never got it. Then I answered your last one
too, but haven't heard back yet.
Just checking!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:25:45 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner Racist?
)
) I haven't read enough of his work to make a sound judegment on that, and
) it seems the majority of critics of Waldorf education know little about
) waldorf schools
I am confused where you get this from, as far as I am aware just about all
the critics here have had direct experience of the waldorf schools
bea
or have only read excerpts of Steiner's writing taken
) out of context. (I know, some, or one, of you had children in waldorf
) schools and were very unhappy with the school). If anything, Steiner's
) views on race were in keeping with his time.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:26:40 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner Racist?
)
) You were in a waldorf school?
I was a parent in a waldorf school for 10 yrs
bea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:49:00 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: From Sune: Wrong again, Peter
Note: Sune asked me to post the following:
Peter Zegers wrote:
) It seems Steiner¥s racism is taken for granted here, only
) the influence of his racism on Waldorfeducation is
) denied. At least then we agree that Steiner was a racist,
) right?
Wrong again.
See http://www.info3.de/English/e-0400report.html
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:36:28 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
) Dottie, you wrote,
) )Are the teachers from the Waldorf training colleges
) )accredited according to state laws? I remember a long
) )time ago reading that they were not and that is why
) )the public school systems do not allow those teachers
) )to teach in public schools if that is their sole
) )training. I am not interested in your opinion of
) )whether they should be accredited or not but whether
) )or not they are.
and Dan answered:
) They are not. There may be an accredited Masters program in Waldorf
) at Antioch, but I'm not sure about that.
David:
Antioch is. Sunbridge College is also accredited, I'm pretty sure.
That's two for two on the East Coast!
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:32:22 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Cc: "Sune Nordwall" (sune.nordwall home.se)
Subject: Sune unsubbed from the WC-list
I just forwarded three posts to the list for Sune, who had prepared them
before finding out he had been un-subscribed.
Since I expect Sune to re-sub himself whenever his penance period is
complete, please wait for him take up any issues with these posts.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:51:26 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
Peter Zegers wrote:
I [Sune]:
)) The example you refer to is "Adler und Rose" ("Eagle and
)) rose") published 1992 by a Bernhard Schaub, at the time of
)) the publication (probably) teacher at a Waldorf school in
)) Switzerland. He is mentioned in the first propaganda article
)) by Staudenmaier, published at the site of PLANS and other
)) places but not at the site of SIMPOS.
Peter Zegers:
) Well, check again at: http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/steiner.htm
) On the bottom of the page you will find three links to articles on
) Bernhard Schaub. His book was published in October 1992,
) he was sacked from the Rudolf Steiner school in Adliswill,
) Switzerland in January 1993. He had been teaching history at this school.
I did not express myself exactly. What I meant to write was:
He is - as far as I have seen when searching - only mentioned in the first
propaganda article by Staudenmaier. The article has been published at the
site of PLANS and other places, but not at the site of PLANS.
I [Sune]:
)) What you don't tell in the article is that he had to leave
)) his work at the school because of the book, by not
)) telling it giving the opposite impression than the truth.
Peter Zegers:
) I did write *former* Waldorfteacher, didn¥t I? How does the fact
) that he was sacked by the school change anything?
I [Sune]:
It changes everyting. Your argument is that he, as a Waldorf teacher, wrote
a book denying the Holocaust, implying that the two in some way should be
related to one another in some positive way. That is also the way Peter
Staudenmaier untruthfully mentions him his anti-anthroposophical propaganda
article at the site of PLANS.
That he was sacked by the Waldorf school _because_ of his book or the views
expressed in it shows that your implied argumentation is untrue and that the
opposite is true; People who develop anti-Semitic activities tend to be
expelled from Waldorf schools, one way or another.
That you only tell _that_ he is a *former* Waldorf teacher, seemingly aware
of, but _concealing_ that he now is *former* _because_ of the things you
argue against him for, demonstrates the twisted nature of your argumentation
on the issue.
Peter Zegers;
) I don¥t want
) to give the impression that all anthro¥s are "historical revisionists"
) or Holocaust deniers, but it certainly has plagued the anthroposophical
) movement in Switzerland, Germany and Russia.
Some half sung song. The few who have argued expressly in one way in support
of anti-Semitism have been been expelled as representatives of the
anthroposophical movement, to the extent they have been representatives of
it when doing it. You probably(?) know it, yet for some reason(?) don't tell
that you do.
As to the third example mentioned in the context, except Schaub and
Bondaraew, Haverbeck:
G–ran Fant comments on him at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm
'The book by Haverbeck that Staudenmaier mentions; "Rudolf Steiner - Anwalt
f¸r Deutschland" ("Rudolf Steiner - advocate of Germany") is really
terrible. But it was not published by any anthroposophical publishing
company. (Langen M¸ller is a large, "normal" publishing company) and it was
harshly rejected by all the nine anthroposophical reviewers and regarded as
a severe attack on anthroposophy (6.)
(Note 6; telling: Already the head lines of the the reviews say most of it.
"A book too much" (Christengemeinschaft, Stuttgart nr 9 1989), "Misuse and
distortion - how Haverbeck puts Steiner quotes in the service of his Nazi
ideology" (Christoph Lindenberg in Die Drei 89:12), Whose advocate is
Haverbeck?" (Sergei Prokofieff in Die Drei, Stuttgart, 89:12). )
Staudenmaier claims that we not may regard Haverbeck as a marginal
anthroposophist, since some of his earlier books have been published by
anthroposophical publishers. This again is an example of Staudenmaier's
method. He decides what is typical and representative for the
anthroposophical movement- the total rejection by the anthroposophical
movement itself doesn't mean anything to him.
Haverbeck came to anthroposophy after the war (of course not "converted by
Hess"!!!) and became a priest in the anthroposophical Christengemeinschaft
(Christian Community). He was excluded after a few years due to his
political stupidities, but when he had reached his pension age, he on human
grounds was accepted in the pastoral fellowship, but without getting a job.
1989, at the age of 80, he published this book. I agree that it is damaging
for anthroposophy that someone so well informed of the thoughts of Steiner
wrote such a book, but it is obvious that the content is an absurd
distortion of central motives in Steiner and a misuse of his words. In that
sense he really is marginal.'
I [Sune]:
Using all three examples as arguments against the anthroposophical movement
and telling half truths about all three, while knowing(?) but not telling
how all three have been 'expelled' as representatives of the different
anthroposophical or waldorf- contexts and the reasons for it being the same
for which you criticize the anthroposophical movement of I think fully
demonstrates the propaganda nature of your and Peter Staudenmaier's
articles.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:50:22 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: From Sune: Another half truth from Peter Zegers
More from Peter Zegers:
) Another interesting case is the Russian anthroposophist
) Gennadij Bondarew. Some anthro¥s fortunately distance
) themselves from his lunacy, see:
) http file://www.info3.de/projekte/ns/ns-bond2.html (Jens
) Heisterkamp, "Schande f¸r Steiner" (disgrace for Steiner)
) in: Info3 6/1997).
It never stops surprising me to notice your and Peter Staudenmaier's
interesting uncanning ability to produce half truths:
'Some' anthro¥s fortunately distance themselves from his lunacy.
Bondaraew was not only severly critizised by the journal Info3. He was
expelled from the General Anthroposophical Society by its Executive board
for his anti-Semitism, as it stands in complete opposition to what the
Anthropsoophical Society stands for, his expulsion being an expression of
that.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:06:59 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Takeasha asked:
) Does anyone know about how waldorf-educated students have fared in
) life-after waldorf?
For what it's worth, here's a message that I posted this past January:
----------------------
I've made general assertions over the years about the quality of
education that my daughter and her classmates received in their Waldorf
school, but I've never had many details to offer. I've managed to
collect post-high-school information here on most of the students (15
out of 19) in her Waldorf eighth grade graduating class. Please note
that much of this information is second or third hand -- it is accurate
to the best of my knowledge, but I can't guarantee it.
-Neil Faiman
* Public high school; Dartmouth College
* Private high school (salutatorian); Bowdoin College (National Merit
Scholarship)
* Left high school early to have a baby
* Public high school; Boston University
* Public high school; Colby College
* Public high school; Dennison College (honors scholarship)
* Waldorf and public high schools; will graduate from high school this
year
* Public high school; SUNY Binghamton
* Public high school; Holy Cross
* Waldorf high school; Bennington College (academic scholarship)
* Public high school (football star); Amherst College
* Public high school; Skidmore College
* Public high school; University of New Hampshire
* Public high school; University of New Hampshire
* Waldorf high school; Bowdoin College
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:47:49 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: David Icke
Peter Zegers wrote (snip):
The Holocaust therefore has to be explained as something un-German. I have
read several explanations of the Holocaust written by anthroposophist, but
none of them deals with the actual political history of Germany and Austria.
Most of the time some a metaphysical "explanation" is given, thereby
deculpabilizing large segments of German and Austrian society. I am planning
to write an article about this soon in which I will give more examples.
Bondarew and Schaub are still very much alive, by the way.
charlie:
I would say that the Holocaust was perpetrated by people who treated others
as representatives of a race or distinct group and not, as Steiner
advocated, as individuals. But, it is easy for us to blame others for their
actions and harder to accept that we might have reacted similarly under
similar circumstances. I'm sure that, once it was over, very many
individuals found it extemely hard to live with the realization of what they
had been part of.
Bondarew and Schaub may still be alive but are they still Anthroposophists?
Peter wrote - re David Icke:
I could go on with providing more information, but what is the point? I am a
bit puzzled by the remark that the antisemitic lunacy of David Icke would be
"interesting". Ofcourse people can link to whatever they want, but I can
criticize them for it, can¥t I?
charlie:
You are putting words into my mouth, Peter. I did not say that I found David
Icke's comments on Jews interesting. I was referring the articles in the UK
press when they first quoted his beliefs about spirituality. I would guess
from your knowledge of the subject that you have shown far more interest in
the views of David Icke than I have.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:53:01 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: what critics know
In a message posted earlier today, new member Takeasha says:
I haven't read enough of his work to make a sound judegment on that, and
it seems the majority of critics of Waldorf education know little about
waldorf schools or have only read excerpts of Steiner's writing taken
out of context. (I know, some, or one, of you had children in waldorf
schools and were very unhappy with the school). If anything, Steiner's
views on race were in keeping with his time.
Lisa here: Takeasha, you admit that you have not read very much Steiner.
Please note that I *have* read, in entirety, about 20 of Steiner's collected
lectures, and Dan Dugan, Sharon Lombard (absent right now, as she is moving
house) and others here have read and studied even more. Diana Winters has
not only read and studied Steiner; she has also worked on the faculty at a
Waldorf school, in addition to having her son there.
That is why I must take exception to your statement that "the majority
of critics of Waldorf education know little about Waldorf schools or have
only read excerpts of Steiner's writing taken out of context."
Completely untrue. As I point out above, not only have the core group of
critics here (Dan, Debra Snell, Sharon, Gary, Diana, Michael Kopp, myself
and others) read quite a bit of Steiner, but most of us also have had years
of experience of Waldorf directly via our children's enrollment in the
schools.
To say that we "now little" about Waldorf is thus completely false. In
fact, I feel sure that many of us know more about Waldorf, Anthroposophy and
its founder than does the average Waldorf school parent.
You may not agree with our position regarding keeping Waldorf methods
out of public schools, but you cannot argue with any veracity against our
knowledge of Waldorf!
We *do* know what it is, from both philosophical and practical vantage
points.
Perhaps you can tell the list about your involvement in Waldorf,
Takeasha, and what you know about Waldorf. That way, we can debate and
discuss in a more realistic way.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 04:00:37 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
Dan Dugan wrote, quoting Dottie:
)(snip)
))Lisa, I think you think Dr. STeiner taught to fear the
))element of Ahriman?
)Here you try to back off from Steiner's clear description of Ahriman
)as a personality by referring to him as an "element"...
Steiner also suggested that ahrimanic and luciferic forces should be
regarded in a similar manner to that of negative and positive
electricity. With this is in mind, I see no "backing off" from
anything at all in Dottie's above statement.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:03:30 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: new members might want to read archives
Dear new members of this list,
I just want to say how refreshing and fun it is to "hear" so many new voices
on the critics list.
That said, I hope I will not offend anyone when I suggest that new people
consider spending a little bit of time in the list archives before posting.
(How well I remember being told this very thing by Michael Kopp when I first
came aboard!)
The list archives offers new members a chance to see what topics have been
covered (though we can always broach an old topic anew! (g)) and to become
acquainted with where some of us older members "are coming from" in terms of
our experiences with Waldorf education, etc.
I thought of making this suggestion when several new members began to post
and suggested that many or even most Waldorf critics had neither direct
experience of Waldorf schools nor any in-depth knowledge of Steiner. As I
said in an earlier post to Takeasha, this could not be further from the
truth. An hour or so spent among the archived discussions (available via the
PLANS's Web page) would give newcomers a solid basis on which to launch
future discussions.
In addition, anyone reading the archives will quickly see that most critics
not only have had direct experience of Waldorf schools via their own
children, time spent as faculty or administration, or even as students
themselves. The very negative experiences we had in those roles spurred many
of us to take up the study of Steiner as a way of trying to make sense of
what happened to us and/or our children and their education.
So go on, folks: check out the archives! You will not be sorry that you did.
And if you choose not to, well, that's OK, too. It just means that those of
us on the critics' side of the fence will need to take up everyone else's
time and the list's bandwidth rehashing our own experiences.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 04:04:29 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:RE: Zegers again twisting the truth
Peter Zegers wrote:
)Here is a typical qualitative argument again. For all their
)spirituality most anthroposophists and their defenders argue in a
)very "materialist" manner. It is not just Holocaust denial,
Most anthroposophists and their defenders are not holocaust deniers.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:15:58 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Italy and dialects in the classroom -- ????
Dottie writes:
((In Italy the teachers has such a problem due to the
fact that the parents were speaking in dialect while
they were trying to teach the children the correct
Italian. Parents would say "well this is the way we
speak" so what. If its good enough for me than it is
good enough for my child. Okay.
So it is a universal issue not just relegated to
Waldorf. ))
Lisa here: Pardon me if I just put this bluntly -- huh?
I don't understand what any of the above has to do with Waldorf schools
....
Guess I will have to wait for Dottie to come back from her one week
hiatus for an explanation .....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:17:12 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: OT: to Diana Winters
Sarina:
)Hey, are you getting my mail? I did answer your off-list mail about
)Denver but I guess you never got it. Then I answered your last one
)too, but haven't heard back yet.
Sorry!!! If anyone's interested - not that you should be - I am not ignoring
Sarina though I have obviously been rude to her. We chat sometimes off list
and she wrote me earlier today, and though I meant to respond I got caught
up in the renewed barrage of critics posts. I am sorry, Sarina, to have
appeared to be ignoring you.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:59:32 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
) Does anyone know about how waldorf-educated students have fared in
) life-after waldorf?
yes, I am surrounded by ex-waldorf grads here in the uk, and its such a huge
subject. mostly they have very few exam passes which makes them feel
intellectually challenged, their basic knowledge is dreadful, in normal
terms like if you ask where is luxembourg? they hate gardening, they scoff
at eurythmy, it is acknowledeged that there is huge dificulty adjusting to
the 'outside world' after waldorf, I've run out of time
bea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:00:24 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: should Waldorf-trained teachers be allowed ...
--part1_120.25cf0d3.28992d38_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DL" re Steiner's/Anthroposophy's racism, hers; juts one...
I am convinced that if we get yet another set of Negro novels and give them
tto come to pregnant women to read, then Negroes do not have to come to
Europe to conceive mulatos; just by reading Negro novels, half-blood children
will be born in Europe.
Rudolf Steiner, Health and Illness, Anthroposophic Press, 1981
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:09:09 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: who has been duped?
--part1_2f.18a8d871.28992f45_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DL, does your screen name, theosopost stand for Theosophy?
If so, speaking of being duped, Peter Washington in his book "Madame
Blavatsky's Baboon" quotes the Society for Psychical Research re your founder
Blavatsky:
We think she has acheived a title to permanent remembrance as one of the most
accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters of history.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 391
-- Topica Digest --
Re: OT: to Diana Winters
By sarina bainbridge.net
for DL: Steiner's racism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re:Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: David Icke
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re:Re: David Icke
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Admin: ad hominem
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re:Re: David Icke
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By Gary GoodWinter.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
Re: Re:Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By Gary GoodWinter.com
questions to elicit discussion
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Waldorf Grads
By firefly tpg.com.au
RE: Re: David Icke
By screee hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Questionaire...
By Gary GoodWinter.com
fuzzy thinking/fuzzy prose
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Waldorf Grads
By firefly tpg.com.au
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:48:01 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: OT: to Diana Winters
) I am sorry, Sarina, to have appeared to be ignoring you.
No big. :-)
(I was just worried that you didn't get my long e-mail response to
YOU, which you didn't. Now I have to re-type it all!)
BTW, Deby and everyone - no baby yet, but you will all be the tenth to
know!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:48:06 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: for DL: Steiner's racism
DL wrote:
)Please forward any relevant passages (and their sources) where Steiner )is
)acting/speaking etc racism.
DL, I will just direct you to the PLANS website
http://www.waldorfcritics.org - look at the list of Articles.
See Dan's article titled "The Roots of Racism in Waldorf Schools" for a
compilation of Steiner quotes on the characteristics of various races, and
the intertwining of race with karmic destiny, destiny of nations etc. Also
of interest is Ray McDermott and Ida Oberman's "Racism and Waldorf
Education." These authors are optimistic that Waldorf can root out the
instances where Waldorf teachers have taken Steiner's racial stuff and
applied it literally in the classroom or actually taught it to students. I
hope this is the case; all we ever hear here is hot denials that Steiner
ever said anything racist, or that we just don't understand what we're
reading on the appropriate "spiritual" level and have taken it "out of
context," or that, even if some of it is bizarre, it has no relevance to
Waldorf (pretty hard to swallow since Steiner devotees cherish every detail
of everything *else* the man wrote, no matter how obscure the subject; the
Waldorf teachers I know are walking encyclopedias of Steiner trivia).
************************************************************************
I copied in one of my personal favorites explaining Steiner's understanding
of Africa, cited by McDermott and Oberman (this is from Steiner's 1910 "The
Mission of Folk-Souls," London, Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971):
"[There is] for example a point or center of cosmic influence situated in
the interior of Africa. At this center are active all those terrestrial
forces emanating from the soil which can influence man especially during his
childhood. Later on their influence diminishes; man is less subject to these
forces. Nevertheless their formative influence makes a powerful impression
upon him. The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence
in early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who are
completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular locality
impresses the characteristics of their early childhood permanently upon
them. This is more or less typical of all those who, in respect to their
racial character, are determined by the etheric formative forces of the
earth in the neighborhood of that local locality. The black or Negro race is
substantially determined by these childhood characteristics.
If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or center where the formative
forces of the earth impress permanently on man the particular
characteristics of later youth or adolescence and determine his racial
character. Such races are the yellow and brown races of our time.
If we continue northward and then turn in a westerly direction towards
Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon
man the characteristics of his adult life. In this way man is determined by
the etheric forces emanating from the earth. When we look more closely into
these separate points or centers we find that they follow a line which takes
an unusual direction. These centers still exist today. The center in Africa
corresponds to those terrestrial forces which imprint on man the
characteristics of early childhood; the center in Asia corresponds to those
which give man the characteristics of youth, and the corresponding center in
Europe imprints upon man the characteristics of maturity. This is a simple
universal law. Since all men in their different incarnations pass through
the various races the claim that the European is superior to the black and
yellow races has no real validity."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:09:48 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
Dear critics,
I hope I am not boring everyone to death with answering the
allegations from Mr. Nordwall. This discussion repeats alot of the
same topics as were discussed earlier by my friend Peter Staudenmaier.
Nordwall wrote:
) )) The example you refer to is "Adler und Rose" ("Eagle and
) )) rose") published 1992 by a Bernhard Schaub, at the time of
) )) the publication (probably) teacher at a Waldorf school in
) )) Switzerland. He is mentioned in the first propaganda article
) )) by Staudenmaier, published at the site of PLANS and other
) )) places but not at the site of SIMPOS.
)
) Peter Zegers:
)
) ) Well, check again at: http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/steiner.htm
) ) On the bottom of the page you will find three links to articles on
) ) Bernhard Schaub. His book was published in October 1992,
) ) he was sacked from the Rudolf Steiner school in Adliswill,
) ) Switzerland in January 1993. He had been teaching history at this school.
Nordwall:
) I did not express myself exactly. What I meant to write was:
)
) He is - as far as I have seen when searching - only mentioned in the first
) propaganda article by Staudenmaier. The article has been published at the
) site of PLANS and other places, but not at the site of PLANS.
Zegers:
Huh?? Now I don¥t understand what you are trying to say at all. "The
article has been published at the site of PLANS and other places, but
not at the site of PLANS." More in general, it strikes me that
whenever an anthro is writing something that is not true, it is a
matter of an innocent mistake. Whenever Peter Staudenmaier or another
critic makes a mistake, they are plain lying (e.g. the comments of
Mr. Nordwall on the lies of Mr. Waage).
Nordwall:
) )) What you don't tell in the article is that he had to leave
) )) his work at the school because of the book, by not
) )) telling it giving the opposite impression than the truth.
Zegers:
) ) I did write *former* Waldorfteacher, didn¥t I? How does the fact
) ) that he was sacked by the school change anything?
Nordwall:
) It changes everyting. Your argument is that he, as a Waldorf teacher, wrote
) a book denying the Holocaust, implying that the two in some way should be
) related to one another in some positive way. That is also the way Peter
) Staudenmaier untruthfully mentions him his anti-anthroposophical propaganda
) article at the site of PLANS.
)
) That he was sacked by the Waldorf school _because_ of his book or the views
) expressed in it shows that your implied argumentation is untrue and that the
) opposite is true; People who develop anti-Semitic activities tend to be
) expelled from Waldorf schools, one way or another.
)
) That you only tell _that_ he is a *former* Waldorf teacher, seemingly aware
) of, but _concealing_ that he now is *former* _because_ of the things you
) argue against him for, demonstrates the twisted nature of your argumentation
) on the issue.
Zegers:
Schaub was a teacher at the Waldorfschool when he wrote the book.
That is a fact! While he was writing on the book and teaching history
at the school nobody at the school seems to have taken any action
against him. Only when it became _public_ he was expelled from the
school, several months after the publication of the book (let alone
the writing of it). I have been told that several anthroposophical
magazines reviewed his book favorably, but so far I haven¥t found
these reviews. Since Mr. Nordwall seems to be very good informed
about the proceedings at the school in Adliswil, maybe he could tell
us a bit more about this whole affair when he gets back to the list.
My argumentation about the realtionship between anthroposophy and
revisionism/conspiracism will be more fully explored in an article I
am working on.
) Peter Zegers;
)
) ) I don¥t want
) ) to give the impression that all anthro¥s are "historical revisionists"
) ) or Holocaust deniers, but it certainly has plagued the anthroposophical
) ) movement in Switzerland, Germany and Russia.
Nordwall:
) Some half sung song. The few who have argued expressly in one way in support
) of anti-Semitism have been been expelled as representatives of the
) anthroposophical movement, to the extent they have been representatives of
) it when doing it. You probably(?) know it, yet for some reason(?) don't tell
) that you do.
Zegers:
So, if I understand you correctly you are saying that only members of
the Anthroposophical society are real anthroposophists? Who is
allowed to represent Anthroposophy truly according to you? Only
functionaries of the different anthro organizations? I know Irene
Diet was expelled as well after she had published an antisemitic
article in "Das Goetheanum" some years ago (#20, 17 May 1998). But
there are quite some anthroposophist who continue to defend her. I
think the Anthroposophical Society is a battleground for the
reactionary and the more "liberal" tendencies in Anthroposophy with
both sides claiming to be the "real" anthroposophists and denouncing
other people who don¥t agree with them as not being "real"
anthroposophists.
Nordwall:
) As to the third example mentioned in the context, except Schaub and
) Bondaraew, Haverbeck:
)
) G–ran Fant comments on him at
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm
Zegers:
Peter Staudenmaier already answered Fant on this in "Folkvett" (see
http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/Folkvett/20012stauden2.html) .
Hopefully his reply "The Art of Avoiding History" will be posted on
the net in English soon. I have to add that I was shocked when I read
Fant¥s defence of the SS-man Franz Lippert:
"Yes, Lippert was really responsible for a bio-dynamic garden in the
concentration camp at Dachau. He was also a member of the SS. (What
Staudenmaier does not describe, is that he however had left his work
at Weleda a year before becoming gardener at Dachau, that the CEO of
Weleda deeply rejected and opposed his choice, and that the Weleda
company as such had nothing to do with his work at the garden. See
here. Comment by the translator) Among the prisoners it was
considered attractive to work in the garden. And it was on advice
from the prisoners that Lippert accepted to join the SS: otherwise he
would have been forced in the armed forces, and Dachau would loose
its only humanitarian among the staff. But he got at least permission
not to wear the SS-uniform. Schoolmaster Staudenmaier (as also the
"thorough researcher" Bierl) condemns him, but not his prisoners (in
thankful letters after the war) and not the allied de-nazification
commission (5). The readers may choose sides in this controversy."
G–ran Fant, http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm
Fant is extremely ignorant of the real history of Dachau. Fortunately
he is not a history teacher at the Waldorfschool he works for. This
passage reminded me of the same kind of political immaturity Charlie
Morrison shows when he wrote:
"I would say that the Holocaust was perpetrated by people who treated others
as representatives of a race or distinct group and not, as Steiner
advocated, as individuals. But, it is easy for us to blame others for their
actions and harder to accept that we might have reacted similarly under
similar circumstances. I'm sure that, once it was over, very many
individuals found it extemely hard to live with the realization of what they
had been part of."
Charlie Morrison, Re: David Icke, July 31.
This is virtually bordering on revisionism. Just read this again: "It
is easy for us to blame others for their actions and harder to accept
that we might have reacted similarly under similar circumstances". We
are talking about the greatest crime in human history and this guy
almost makes it into a trivial affair!
Nordwall:
) Using all three examples as arguments against the anthroposophical movement
) and telling half truths about all three, while knowing(?) but not telling
) how all three have been 'expelled' as representatives of the different
) anthroposophical or waldorf- contexts and the reasons for it being the same
) for which you criticize the anthroposophical movement of I think fully
) demonstrates the propaganda nature of your and Peter Staudenmaier's
) articles.
I would like to know a bit more about this Gennadij Bondarew. Mr.
Nordwall didn¥t really spent much time on discussing this case.
Bondarew could publish his writings in "Novalis", a German
anthroposophical magazine a few years ago (February 1996). Another
interesting case is Dieter R¸ggeberg, a German author who uses the
works of Rudolf Steiner to show that the world is ruled by a secret
elite (using also the famous antisemitic forgery "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion" as proof of this). Ofcourse R¸ggeberg is not a
representative of the AS, but he does use the works of Rudolf Steiner!
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:26:32 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: David Icke
Peter Z. quoted David Icke:
)"I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for )the
)mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First )World War,
)the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War.
What's interesting is that Sune posted the same stuff as evidence that Icke
was *not* anti-Semitic!
(It wasn't exactly the same quote, but the same theme of "Only a few Jews -
not all of them - are trying to take over the world; most are actually very
nice".)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:49:15 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: David Icke
Hi Diana,
) Peter Z. quoted David Icke:
)
) )"I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for )the
) )mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First )World War,
) )the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War.
)
) What's interesting is that Sune posted the same stuff as evidence that Icke
) was *not* anti-Semitic!
)
) (It wasn't exactly the same quote, but the same theme of "Only a few Jews -
) not all of them - are trying to take over the world; most are actually very
) nice".)
What is interesting is that this line of reasoning is even present in
the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" (see Protocol #9). Some have
argued that therefore the Protocols aren¥t antisemitic at all. Sune
Nordwall falls for the oldest trick of the antisemites to conceal
their antisemitism. Unfortunately he is not the only one. In the UK
there is another anthroposophist who is defending Icke from charges
of antisemitism: Terry Boardman (see
http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/; Sune Nordwall also has a link
to the "interesting" ideas of Boardman: see
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/EU/global.htm).
A small piece from Terry Boardman:
I hope I have managed to make clear the reasons for the evil of our
times and that Ahriman's project ofÝ a supermaterialistic global
slave state is being realised predominantly through the
English-speaking peoples. Two questions remain: why was Britain (and
later, its American offspring) in particular chosen as Ahriman's
vehicle - and canthe peoples of these two countries summon up the
force, even at this late stage, to resist Ahriman and prevent him
from utterly dominating their societies and through them, the world?
The first of these is a research question which I will only touch
upon here. I feel it has to do preeminently with the peculiar
spiritual geography ofÝ the British Isles and of America - with
Britain's isolating insularity and powerfully phlegmatic, even
bovine, nature forces. These predispose the Englishman towards
rationalism and materialism. The American continent's relationship to
the earth's magnetism I have already mentioned. It is a quality which
amplifies the sclerotising activity of the ahrimanic double or
doppelg”nger which every human being bears within him. One also needs
to consider the relation of these two parts of the world with the
Atlantic, that is with the site of the ancient continent of Atlantis,
itself. Current humanity came from Atlantis, and this era of ours,
which began withÝ the Renaissance and which will last till the 4th
millennium, is the crux, the time ofÝ crisis and decision in the
whole great Post-Atlantean epoch of history. Rudolf Steiner also
spoke of Atlantis as the time when Ahriman first began to work into
humanity.
We can not think of the English-speaking world as somehow guilty
because of its relationship to Ahriman's mighty Project. On the
contrary, we need to see it rather as a heroic culture that is itself
undergoing a terrible crucifixion and then forcing this onto the rest
of the world. One does not hate a drug addict who pushes his drugs to
feed his habit. One tries to help by understanding and empathy, and
then, out of understanding, by deeds of practical love for him.
Germany underwent a somewhat similar process for a much shorter
period when, for the 12 apocalyptic years of Hitler's Third Reich,
the Antichrist Sorath overshadowed Germany.Ý The German people bore
that evil for all of us, just as now the English-speaking world is
bearing the brunt of being the prime vehicle for Ahriman's
incarnation. We in the English-speaking world, who have grown so
accustomed to thinking of ourselves as the force of light in the
world combatting the powers of evil elsewhere, need to realise that
it is primarily we who are Ahriman's chosen people and therefore we
who have the prime responsibility forÝ helping others to cope with
his all-pervading invasion into human civilisation in this age.
After Germany's defeat in the First World War, RudolfÝ Steiner made
the following observation:Ý (Ideas for a New Europe p.37) (1) "the
actual victor is the being ofÝ the Anglo-American peoples, and...this
being...is destined to dominate the world in the future...It will be
easy to win external dominion, for this will be done with the help of
forces for which the winners can claim no credit. The transfer of
external dominion will take place with the relentlessness ofÝ a force
of nature...Will there be a sufficient number among those impelled to
assume external dominion...who feel a responsibility for inserting
into this entirely external materialistic dominion...an impetus for
spiritual life? What is more, there is not much time in which this
can be done. The middle of this century is a very important
moment....the dominion of materialism bears within it the seed of
destruction. To shoulder external dominion means to take on, and to
live within, the forces of destruction, the forces of sickness in the
world. Out of the new seed of the spirit will come something that can
bear mankind onwards into the future. This seed will have to be
nurtured, and those to whom dominion has fallen will be especially
responsible for this." Steiner is here saying that Anglo-American
society will be inevitably be bound up with forces of sickness and
death, with cultural poison, because the English-speaking countries,
or rather their elites, have determined to ally themselves with
Ahriman andÝ take on the rulership of the world - economic, political
and cultural; he says further that very much will depend on whether a
spiritual counterbalance to this sickness and poison can be created
precisely by people in those same countries.
In this contribution, I have tried to indicate something of what we
are up against. I trust that in the rest of the day, participants
will be able to consider effective ways of developing, from within
Anglo-American culture,Ý the spiritual counterbalance, the antidote
to the poison, of whichÝ Rudolf Steiner spoke.
NOTES
(1) Rudolf Steiner, Ideas for a New EuropeÝ - Crisis and Opportunity
for the West, Rudolf Steiner Press 1992, p 37
From: http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NWO4.htm
Terry Boardman on the Protocols:
This grandiose project of supermaterialism, which is based on
profound occult principles and knowledge, is proceeding on all
levels. Driven largely by financial manipulation and computer
technology, it aims to cast an Anglo-American net over the whole of
culture. The masterplan for this entire project can be found in that
infamous document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which first
seems to have appeared at the end of the 1890s, that decade which has
already featured so much in this talk. The Protocols were immediately
claimed to be evidence of a sinister Jewish plot to take over the
world. In fact, as David Icke has argued in his book "The Robots"
Rebellion", the document shows all the signs ofÝ an ingeniousÝ and
truly sinister effort to put the blame onto Jews for crimes against
humanity which were being planned for the 20th century by the
servants of Ahriman in the West - the architects of the New World
Order - so as to deflect the attention of humanity away from the true
perpetrators of the crimes. The Protocols are quite clearly a
systematic programme for a global slave state. Norman Cohn quotes
Protocol 12: "Literature and jounalism are the two most important
educational powers; for this reason (we)... will buy up the greater
number of periodicals. By these means we shall neutralise the bad
influence of the private press and obtain an enormous influence over
the human mind...the public must not have the slightest suspicion of
these measures, therefore all periodicals published by us will seem
to be of contradictory views and opinions, thus inspiring confidence
and presenting an attractive appearance to our unsuspecting enemies,
who will thus fall into our trap and be disarmed...These newspapers,
like the Indian God Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds ofÝ hands,
each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public
opinion...If any chatterers are going to imagine that they are
repeating the opinion of their party newspaper, they will in reality
be repeating our own opinion, or the opinion which we desire." The
evil intelligence evident in the Protocols, which seem to have
thought of everything, is astounding, but almost more astounding is
the degree to which the scenario outlined in the Protocols has
already been realised.
http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NWO4.htm
So Boardman is convinced of the authenticity of the document.
Best regards,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:41:09 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
That is unfortunate to hear, and very surprising to me. From my waldorf
graduating class every student went to college, and many of those are
honor students at the respective colleges.
In case anyone is interested, my classmates have majored in, among
others things:
sociology
environmental studies
graphic design
political science
computer science
art history
russian
africana studies
english
biology
These are at ivy league and top schools in the US.
As far as exams, when I was in highschool we were not given lessons to
take the SATs (college entrance exam), yet by and large students got
high scores. ( I think they prepare students for that test more
deliberately now).
I am sorry that (from what I have now learned) your chidren had negative
experiences in waldorf education, but this seems the exception and not
the rule. And I think if you really take a look at waldorf grads as a
whole, you will find that to be true.
Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
as I know)
One example of evolving curriculum: when I was in school we had a choice
of two langs., french or german. They no longer offer German, it has
been replaced by spanish.
mypostbox.formail wrote:
)
)
) )
) ) Does anyone know about how waldorf-educated students have fared in
) ) life-after waldorf?
)
) yes, I am surrounded by ex-waldorf grads here in the uk, and its such a
) huge
) subject. mostly they have very few exam passes which makes them feel
) intellectually challenged, their basic knowledge is dreadful, in normal
) terms like if you ask where is luxembourg? they hate gardening, they
) scoff
) at eurythmy, it is acknowledeged that there is huge dificulty adjusting
) to
) the 'outside world' after waldorf, I've run out of time
) bea
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:57:51 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
) I am sorry that (from what I have now learned) your chidren had negative
) experiences in waldorf education, but this seems the exception and not
) the rule. And I think if you really take a look at waldorf grads as a
) whole, you will find that to be true.
I live right by the largest waldorf school in the uk, oldest in the english
speaking world, also emerson college, tobias college and the eurythmy school
my kids are involved with ex waldorf and I meet waldorf students every day,
I do take a look a waldorf grads
bea
)
) Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
) as I know)
uninteresting
bea
)
) One example of evolving curriculum: when I was in school we had a choice
) of two langs., french or german. They no longer offer German, it has
) been replaced by spanish.
this is not what I call a evolving curriculum!! anyway in the uk iit is
still german and french
bea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:14:01 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem
on 7/31/01 10:40 AM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
) Sune, this is an ad hominem directed at me. I am unsubscribing you.
) You may re-subscribe yourself after one week.
Sharon:
Hello everyone! Too bad Sune's been unsubscribed for a week, I was just
thinking that by now, after weeks of my silence, he must really be missing
me on W critics and I was just popping in to say a quick hello to him.
(Sarcasm) Despite my absence from this list I have been diligently doing my
"spiritual research", reading all sorts of very peculiar books just chock
full of Steiner "wisdom".
Let's see, since I left critics a month or so ago, I have polished off the
book "Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic Gospel", translated by G.R.S. Mead, which was
a parting gift from a fellow Waldorf Survivor when I left Dornach II. I was
thrilled to receive a copy of this book as I have come across reference to
it several times in my studies. I was interested to find mention in the
foreword that Mead was a major force in the Theosophical Society from 1889
through 1908. According to Russel who wrote the foreword, Mead was
Blavatsky's personal secretary and editor-in-fact of major theosophical
organs and HPB's literary works including "The Secret Doctrine". Mead left
the Theosophical Society after the big Leadbeater homosexuality / pedophile
scandal. Mead took 700 Theosophists with him and formed the Quest Society.
The book "Pistis Sophia" definitely influenced Steiner.
I also read "The Meaning of Masonry" by Wilmhurst which was quite
informative, he drops a few clues about the mystery of Golgotha which I will
share at a later time. "The Foundations of High Magick" by Melita Denning
and Osborne Phillips will be a tremendous help to me as I research
Waldorf Education. I spent time with Roob's "Alchemy and Mysticism" which is
a fantastic source, and lastly, I was sent a funny little book called "Herbs
in Magic and Alchemy, Techniques from Ancient Herbal Lore" by C.L.
Zalewski...to my surprise and delight I found a section on Flashing
Talismans which are generally made of virgin paper, colored the color of the
planetary force to be called upon, with a sigil or seal in a complementary
color used for healing purposes. (Just like the Waldorf wet-on-wets.)
Zalewski lists several leads which I will of course follow.
So just because I'm quiet on critics please know that I'm still around and
working to get Waldorf to be forthright to parents and out of the public
system. Now...back to my boxes of books!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:15:11 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
) ) Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
) ) as I know)
)
) uninteresting
) bea
Just a friendly comment, relax.
-T
Wow, I thought that this group was really genuinely concerned about the
education the students throughout the world are receiving from Waldorf
schools, which is why I wrote that tidbit to quell some of your fears,
to let you know, that actually, many, and I think most, waldorf
graduates are suceeding in the "outside world." YOu don't seem to want
to hear anything good about waldorf.
) )
) ) One example of evolving curriculum: when I was in school we had a choice
) ) of two langs., french or german. They no longer offer German, it has
) ) been replaced by spanish.
)
) this is not what I call a evolving curriculum!! anyway in the uk iit is
) still german and french
) bea
)
)
Well, Language is part of curriculum, if the language changes, that is a
curriculum change. German was/is taught because of the german roots of
Waldorf, if schools in America remove german, and replace it with
spanish, a widely spoken language in the United States, I think that is
forward progress, i.e. evolving.
T
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 18:39:30 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
) Wow, I thought that this group was really genuinely concerned about the
) education the students throughout the world are receiving from Waldorf
) schools, which is why I wrote that tidbit to quell some of your fears,
) to let you know, that actually, many, and I think most, waldorf
) graduates are suceeding in the "outside world." YOu don't seem to want
) to hear anything good about waldorf.
its not I dont want to hear anything good about waldorf its just I live
right here and experience it every day, and I know what I experience and a
few titbits wont "quell my fears" I have many many titbits which do the
opposite
bea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:35:33 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:Re: David Icke
Terry Boardman was with us on the list in February, March, and April
of 2000. Have a look at the archives.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:44:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Takeasha, you wrote,
)And I think if you really take a look at waldorf grads as a
)whole, you will find that to be true.
You hope, but no one has the data.
)Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
)as I know)
The celebrity grads web site doesn't list him, it says his son went to Waldorf.
http://www.diewaldorfs.waldorf.net/listengl.html
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:40:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Takeasha, you wrote,
)Well, Language is part of curriculum, if the language changes, that is a
)curriculum change. German was/is taught because of the german roots of
)Waldorf, if schools in America remove german, and replace it with
)spanish, a widely spoken language in the United States, I think that is
)forward progress, i.e. evolving.
Yes, it is. In fact, teaching French was an evolution, too, I believe
Steiner hated it.
Unfortunately many Waldorf schools cling to the traditional German.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:00:38 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
on 8/1/01 12:41 PM, Takeasha at takeasha excite.com wrote:
) Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
) as I know)
I think it's absolutely hysterical when Anthros and Waldorf supporters drop
names of famous people who attended Waldorf or who placed their children in
Waldorf, or who were Anthroposophists, implying that Waldorf and/or
Anthroposophy was the key to their success. So what?
One can point to virtually ANY set of famous persons who have something in
common, and claim that this common experience influenced these people to
attain their "greatness", whatever that might be.
As long as we're on the subject of movie stars, how about Scientology's
influence on John Travolta and Tom Cruise...
Or Buddhism's influence on Richard Gere...
Or all the Born-again Christian actors/actresses/singers/etc... (too many to
list).
What about all the famous graduates of Gunn High School in Palo Alto, CA or
University of California, Berkeley (my alma maters)?
Or all the famous people "claimed" by virtually all colleges and
universities?
This is ridiculous, fallacious attribution, which is certainly not limited
to Waldorf/Steiner fans, but is wrong, nonetheless.
These famous people are/were INDIVIDUALS, driven to success perhaps by some
inner-voice, perhaps with help and inspiration from the various educational
institutions, favorite teachers, professional athletes, Mom and/or Dad,
religious affiliations, timing, a lot of luck and/or help from high places!
You name it, someone was influenced by it!
Sorry about the rant...this is really a pet peeve of mine.
And I don't mean to target Takeasha -- many Anthros / Waldorfians here and
on other sites gleefully point to "their" famous graduates. Waldorf ads are
filled with warm and fuzzy quotes from a short list of favorite anthro
professors, actors and business leaders.
Mushy thinking...sheesh...
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:23:42 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Look, I just came across this discussion list in a waldorf search, I
don't have an agenda so everyone can relax. I mentioned him lightly,
hell, I was half joking.
Apparently, there is a web-site devoted to famous waldof students (Dan
posted the link) so I see what you are saying.
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) What about all the famous graduates of Gunn High School in Palo Alto, CA
) or
) University of California, Berkeley (my alma maters)?
)
) Or all the famous people "claimed" by virtually all colleges and
) universities?
)
Exactly, see waldorf is no different from the rest of the world. I'm
sorry if it's a pet peeve, but I know people who went to Kobe Bryant's
school and it's their pride and joy, and as you said, there's countless
examples, so big deal if waldorf supporters are proud of their peops
that became famous...
Anyway, the question was, how have waldorf students fared in
life-after-waldorf other than the miniscule sample consisting of the
children of waldorf-critics)--but regardless, I wast't trying to use
Newman to argue the virtues of waldorf, and that is obvious if you read
the post. Besides, according to that website, it was Newman's son, so I
was wrong anyway.
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) on 8/1/01 12:41 PM, Takeasha at takeasha excite.com wrote:
)
) ) Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
) ) as I know)
)
) I think it's absolutely hysterical when Anthros and Waldorf supporters
) drop
) names of famous people who attended Waldorf or who placed their children
) in
) Waldorf, or who were Anthroposophists, implying that Waldorf and/or
) Anthroposophy was the key to their success. So what?
)
) One can point to virtually ANY set of famous persons who have something
) in
) common, and claim that this common experience influenced these people to
) attain their "greatness", whatever that might be.
)
) As long as we're on the subject of movie stars, how about Scientology's
) influence on John Travolta and Tom Cruise...
)
) Or Buddhism's influence on Richard Gere...
)
) Or all the Born-again Christian actors/actresses/singers/etc... (too
) many to
) list).
)
) What about all the famous graduates of Gunn High School in Palo Alto, CA
) or
) University of California, Berkeley (my alma maters)?
)
) Or all the famous people "claimed" by virtually all colleges and
) universities?
)
) This is ridiculous, fallacious attribution, which is certainly not
) limited
) to Waldorf/Steiner fans, but is wrong, nonetheless.
)
) These famous people are/were INDIVIDUALS, driven to success perhaps by
) some
) inner-voice, perhaps with help and inspiration from the various
) educational
) institutions, favorite teachers, professional athletes, Mom and/or Dad,
) religious affiliations, timing, a lot of luck and/or help from high
) places!
) You name it, someone was influenced by it!
)
) Sorry about the rant...this is really a pet peeve of mine.
)
) And I don't mean to target Takeasha -- many Anthros / Waldorfians here
) and
) on other sites gleefully point to "their" famous graduates. Waldorf ads
) are
) filled with warm and fuzzy quotes from a short list of favorite anthro
) professors, actors and business leaders.
)
) Mushy thinking...sheesh...
)
) ...Gary
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:44:05 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Re:Re:Zegers again twisting the truth (from Sune again)
Peter Zegers wrote (snip):
Fant is extremely ignorant of the real history of Dachau. Fortunately he is
not a history teacher at the Waldorfschool he works for. This passage
reminded me of the same kind of political immaturity Charlie Morrison shows
when he wrote:
"I would say that the Holocaust was perpetrated by people who treated others
as representatives of a race or distinct group and not, as Steiner
advocated, as individuals. But, it is easy for us to blame others for their
actions and harder to accept that we might have reacted similarly under
similar circumstances. I'm sure that, once it was over, very many
individuals found it extemely hard to live with the realization of what they
had been part of."
Charlie Morrison, Re: David Icke, July 31.
Peter again:
This is virtually bordering on revisionism. Just read this again: "It is
easy for us to blame others for their actions and harder to accept that we
might have reacted similarly under similar circumstances". We are talking
about the greatest crime in human history and this guy almost makes it into
a trivial affair!
Charlie:
Maybe you misunderstood me, Peter. I deliberately used the term
'perpetrated' as I was not restricting my comments to the instigators of the
Holocaust. As I see it, the vast majority of those who perpetrated the sins
at this time were the ordinary people of Germany and the occupied
territories, including soldiers who had to choose between following their
conscience and obeying orders (I am using the word 'sins' in a very broad
sense). Granted, the worst sins were those commited by the instigators. I
cannot see how trying to imagine the dilemmas of those involved is
trivialising the Holocaust. Although I can see how researching the Holocaust
in order to discredit a group of individuals is making it into a very
trivial affair! Only you know your motives for researching this subject and
I hope it has nothing to do with my last sentence.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 18:58:28 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
On the subject of famous folk who have graduated from Waldorf, am I the only
person who finds it slightly ironic that the "grads" most mentioned seem to
be people in the movie and television industry? Example: Julianna Margulies
(of "ER" fame); Paul Newman's child, etc.
In case I *do* need to point it out, this is ironic because of Waldorf's
anti-media stance.
Overall, I have to agree with Gary who points out that virtually any school
can find a graduate who was successful. Thus such claims mean little to
nothing. (To really mean something, a scientific study would have to be
conducted and factors such as socioeconomic class, IQ levels, etc. would
have to be considered.)
Until such a study is done on Waldorf graduates, the "evidence" is anecdotal
at best; people can only report on what graduates they know are doing, etc.
As I withdrew my children from their Waldorf school before they finished, I
can only speak from my own experiences/impressions. And those experiences
tell me that when fully a third of children in single class are either being
tutored outside of school or have been identified as in need of tutoring for
reading and/or math, something is not OK in the classroom.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:08:02 +0100
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
Peter Zegers wrote on Aug 01, 2001 08:50 PDT :
) What is interesting is that this line of reasoning is even present
in the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" (see Protocol #9). Some
) have argued that therefore the Protocols aren¥t antisemitic at
all. Sune Nordwall falls for the oldest trick of the antisemites to
) conceal their antisemitism. Unfortunately he is not the only one.
In the UK there is another anthroposophist who is defending Icke
) from charges of antisemitism: Terry Boardman (see
http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/;
Dear List subscribers, as Dan Dugan said in a recent post, I was mailing
to the list last year, but have
since stopped due to lack of time. However, I have continued to look in
on it occasionally. I'm writing today because I want to contradict in
the strongest possible terms the insinuation of antisemitic sympathies
affixed to my name by Peter Zegers. Clearly, Zegers has not even
carefully read the piece from my article which he quotes. Anyone who
does with an impartial mind will NOT conclude from what I have written
there that I am "defending Icke" in general, or "defending Icke from
charges of antisemitism" - unless s/he is the kind of person who sees
the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and immediately jumps to the
conclusion that the person using those words must be a
Nazi/Fascist/anti-Semite or a sympathiser or fellow traveller of such,
as if one were to use the word "cabbage" and immediately be judged a
vegan.
Let me make quite clear to Peter Zegers and to all who read this where I
stand on Icke and the Protocols.
Re. ICKE: I have informed myself about Icke; I have read most of his
books, been to one of his lectures, and seen a documentary about him
(part of the "Secret Rulers of the World" series investigation into
conspiracy theory) on British TV (Channel 4) this year made by the
satirist Jon Ronson, who is himself Jewish. I am not a follower of Icke
and I do not accept his current nonsense about aliens and lizards. I do
not think he is anti-Jewish, and neither am I anti-Jewish. If you see
the documentary by Ronson, you will find that Ronson himself does not
consider Icke to be anti-Jewish, even though *some* of those who profess
to like Icke may be, but then doubtless, so are some of those who
profess to like George W.Bush, or Mickey Mouse. You will see that Icke
is treated fairly and sympathetically by Ronson, and that the paranoia,
fanaticism, and intolerance of some of those who set themselves up to be
the defenders of the Jewish people comes out badly in Ronson's
documentary. As far as I'm concerned, to be "anti" any ethnic group and
consider them intrinsically and inherently "evil" or bad is to my mind,
a symptom of the ignorance that can so easily result from a
materialistic worldview.
Re. PROTOCOLS: I reject the argument that says that the protocols should
not be discussed. They should be discussed because they were a
diabolical effort on the part of those that produced them to twist
people's minds and fill them with hate and fear. In the first instance,
I consider those protocols to be no joke, but a serious blueprint for a
global slave state of "supermaterialism" - a condition towards which
year by year we are advancing like sleepwalkers. Second, the creation of
the Protocols around 1900 I consider to have nothing to do with the
Jewish people. Third, I consider that, despite his later absurdities
(reptiles etc), Icke was right in saying that the Protocols were
calculated by those who fabricated them (written in all likelihood in
France, but passed to Russia, and later throughout Europe) to promote
hatred of the Jewish people by blaming them for the evil agenda. There
were also plenty of people on the Right in Europe and the US who wished
to gain by blaming the Jews for Soviet communism and its drive for world
dominion. The Protocols served as a useful tool in their hands. A useful
history of the Protocols is Norman Cohn, "Warrant for Genocide - The
Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion"
) Boardman is convinced of the authenticity of the document.
After quoting a large slice from my article, which I won't repeat here
because it's
too long, Zegers then makes the above totally unclear assertion.
"Authenticity" of what ? Is Zegers implying
that I believe - along with countless rightists - that Jews wrote the
Protocols ? No way !
I certainly don't believe that the documents were a figment of someone's
imagination; those ideas
existed; they were written down and spread around to calumniate the
Jews. What I think they ARE
an authentic reflection of is the evil intention to establish a global
slave state. *IF* Zegers thinks
we are nowhere near this materialistic nightmare, and that the Protocols
have nothing to do with what's happening, then he has not been paying
attention to the very many films, books, plays, songs, poems
etc etc produced since the 1930s (and especially since, say, 1990)that
have been pointing to just this danger.
Terry Boardman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:24:41 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
) Anyway, the question was, how have waldorf students fared in
) life-after-waldorf other than the miniscule sample consisting of the
) children of waldorf-critics)--but regardless, I wast't trying to use
) Newman to argue the virtues of waldorf, and that is obvious if you read
) the post. Besides, according to that website, it was Newman's son, so I
) was wrong anyway.
what kind of name is takeasha? does it have a special meaning? I was
wondering how long you were in a waldorf school for? did you do class 1 to
class 12?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:40:55 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
on 8/1/01 5:00 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
) on 8/1/01 12:41 PM, Takeasha at takeasha excite.com wrote:
)
)) Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
)) as I know)
)
) I think it's absolutely hysterical when Anthros and Waldorf supporters drop
) names of famous people who attended Waldorf or who placed their children in
) Waldorf, or who were Anthroposophists, implying that Waldorf and/or
) Anthroposophy was the key to their success. So what?
)
) One can point to virtually ANY set of famous persons who have something in
) common, and claim that this common experience influenced these people to
) attain their "greatness", whatever that might be.
)
) As long as we're on the subject of movie stars, how about Scientology's
) influence on John Travolta and Tom Cruise...
)
) Or Buddhism's influence on Richard Gere...
)
) Or all the Born-again Christian actors/actresses/singers/etc... (too many to
) list).
)
) What about all the famous graduates of Gunn High School in Palo Alto, CA or
) University of California, Berkeley (my alma maters)?
)
) Or all the famous people "claimed" by virtually all colleges and
) universities?
)
) This is ridiculous, fallacious attribution, which is certainly not limited
) to Waldorf/Steiner fans, but is wrong, nonetheless.
)
) These famous people are/were INDIVIDUALS, driven to success perhaps by some
) inner-voice, perhaps with help and inspiration from the various educational
) institutions, favorite teachers, professional athletes, Mom and/or Dad,
) religious affiliations, timing, a lot of luck and/or help from high places!
) You name it, someone was influenced by it!
)
) Sorry about the rant...this is really a pet peeve of mine.
)
) And I don't mean to target Takeasha -- many Anthros / Waldorfians here and
) on other sites gleefully point to "their" famous graduates. Waldorf ads are
) filled with warm and fuzzy quotes from a short list of favorite anthro
) professors, actors and business leaders.
)
) Mushy thinking...sheesh...
)
) ...Gary
Conversely, using the same fuzzy "logic", one could surmise that these
graduates owe their success to their *survival* of the mind-numbing, rigid
Waldorf curriculum. Their coping skills developed out of necessity to
survive Waldorf resulted in building their strong character and drive to get
out and overcome their weaknesses.
Or, they succeeded IN SPITE if their Waldorf "education"...
Have a nice day.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 21:01:08 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: questions to elicit discussion
Hi, everyone!
I just had an idea that would help members of this list get to know each
other better.
Following is a list of basic questions. If people on this list would take
the time to copy the questions into a new message in their queue, type in
answers and then post them, well, it would give us all a basic template of
information about each other to work from when discussing Waldorf.
How about it, folks?
1. What is your name (optional but nice!), gender and age?
2. What area of the country do you live in? (Specific cities are nice but
not necessary.)
3. Do you currently have children who are enrolled in a Waldorf school? (The
following questions under this number apply only if you have children at
WS.)
a.) What are your children's ages?
b.) What school do they attend? Is that a private Waldorf school, or a
public Waldorf charter school?
c.) How long have your children attended a WS?
d.) Briefly, what do you like most/least about Waldorf for your
children?
e.) How did you first learn about Waldorf education?
f.) Before you enrolled your child/ren, were you told that Waldorf
education was "based upon the works of R. Steiner?" Were you aware/told that
Waldorf pedagogy bases everything from the color of the classroom walls to
what snacks are served in preschool on what day to how teachers speak and
sing are dictated by the teachings of Steiner?
4. Would you call yourself an "Anthroposophist?" How much did you know about
Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner when you enrolled your child? Do you belong
to an Anthroposophical or Waldorf education methods study group?
5. Did you attend a Waldorf school as a child or teenager? If so, what
school did you attend and for how long?
a.) How would you describe the experience you had as a Waldorf student?
b.) Do you believe that Waldorf prepared you for the rigors of higher
education (please note if you have had any higher education!)? If the answer
is "yes," how? If the answer is "no," please explain.
c.) If you have children, would you send them to a Waldorf school? Why
or why not?
5. Briefly explain why you subscribed to the Waldorf critics list.
6. Do you think public Waldorf schools are a good idea? If so, why? If not,
please explain your position.
7. Have you read or studied any of the works of Rudolf Steiner? Which ones?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:24:55 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Gary Bonhiver on "takeasha", allegedly a Waldorf grad, who thinks Waldorf
turns out graduates who are "allll riiiggghtt":
)Conversely, using the same fuzzy "logic", one could surmise that these
)graduates owe their success to their *survival* of the mind-numbing, rigid
)Waldorf curriculum. Their coping skills developed out of necessity to
)survive Waldorf resulted in building their strong character and drive to get
)out and overcome their weaknesses.
)
)Or, they succeeded IN SPITE if their Waldorf "education"...
Michael Kopp adds something that probably doesn't get much attention in
Waldorf school English classes, where kids are allowed -- no, they are
brainwashed -- to write (think) anything, irrationally, without having to
defend it, and anything anyone says has as much merit as anything anyone
else says: the true disease of our times, irrational relativism, which is
the sum total of a Waldorf education.
In a turnaround of the central idea below, I have here said it before about
Waldorf grads who have posted here (as well as the Anthroposophists who go
on ad nauseam, like Sune Nordwall): he who writes loosely thinks loosely.
takeasha is just the latest example, yet another sad result of a Waldorf
education.
Pay particular attention, takeasha, to the last sentence of this quote.
It's what happened to you in a Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical education.
Of course, the 80,000 pages of Saint Rudolf Steiner's writings are a prime
example of "Coleridge's Law", as I call it, so it's understandable that
since you went to one of Steiner's mystery schools, you've been in bad
company right from the start, as are all the other clueless dupes of the
Steiner-Anthroposophy brainwashing cult and Waldorf mis-education.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
"Style is, of course nothing else but the art of conveying the meaning
appropriately and with perspicuity, whatever that meaning may be, and one
criterion of style is that is shall not be translatable [into other words of
the same language] without injury to the meaning. Johnson's style has
pleased many from the very fault of being perpetually translatable; he
creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a common
way. ...
... The source of bad writing is the desire to be something more than a man
of sense,--the straining to be thought a genius; and it is just the same in
speech-making. If men would only say what they have to say in plain terms,
how much more eloquent they would be! ... And I can not conclude this
Lecture without insisting on the importance of accuracy of style as being
near akin to veracity and truthful habits of mind; he who thinks loosely
will write loosely, ... Let me also exhort you to careful examination of
what you read, if it be worthy any perusal at all; such an examination will
be a safeguard from fanaticism, the universal origin of which is in the
contemplation of phenomena without investigation into their causes."
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
PS: I never knew Coleridge was a follower of the scientific method of
thought, but there it is, folks. Materialist epistemology wins every time.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/literar_theory/Prose_Style.html#BadWriting
If the above URL breaks across two lines of your email window, just copy
and paste it to your browser address window, and take out any blank spaces.
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:19:47 -0700
From: "Deb" (firefly tpg.com.au)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
"Style is.....................(Johnson).....he
creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a common
way. ...
Well Michael, pity the same couldn't be said about your style. Maybe you
should pay more heed, rather than make offensive remarks about a relative
new member of this list (Takeasha).
I joined this list to learn. I have read some intelligent critiques from
both sides of the fence. I also read a lot of drivel.
I enrolled my son at a Steiner School 3 year ago (high school) & had some
reservations at the time. I have got to know both Steiner & non-Steiner kids
( & families) from the school and seen HSC (final year) results which have
been of an exceptionally high & consistent standard. Some students are
extremely articulate and motivated..........some are a bit dreamy, others
are average students, but they are all normal teenagers living in the real
world.
Credit where credit's due.
Deb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:35:18 +0000
From: (screee hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Re: David Icke
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Terry Boardman on the Protocols:
)
)(snip) The Protocols were immediately claimed to be evidence of a
)sinister Jewish plot to take over the world. In fact, as David Icke has
)argued in his book "The Robots" Rebellion", the document shows all the
)signs ofÝ an ingeniousÝ and truly sinister effort to put the blame onto
)Jews for crimes against humanity which were being planned for the 20th
)century by the servants of Ahriman in the West - the architects of the
)New World Order - so as to deflect the attention of humanity away from
)the true perpetrators of the crimes. The Protocols are quite clearly a
)systematic programme for a global slave state.... So Boardman is
)convinced of the authenticity of the document.
)
WenG: Peter, can you please clarify your argument a bit?
I think most of us accept the fact that the Protocols are an
anti-Semitic, as well as anti-Masonic fraud.
(The following links gives a history of their authorship:
http://www.srmason-sj.org/council/journal/jun99/zeldis.html)
While I find Icke's tales of reptilians taking over the world a great
work of fiction masquerading as fact (i.e. Hillary Clinton is reptilian,
but Bill isn't) you're quoting him as saying the Protocols were used
against the Jews. My reading would agree with him, that the Protocols
were created to discredit the Jews around the time Zionism was born.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:23:23 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)(x-charset iso-8859-1)"Style is.....................(Johnson).....he
)creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a common
)way. ...
)
)Well Michael, pity the same couldn't be said about your style. Maybe you
)should pay more heed, rather than make offensive remarks about a relative
)new member of this list (Takeasha).
)
)I joined this list to learn. I have read some intelligent critiques from
)both sides of the fence. I also read a lot of drivel.
)
)I enrolled my son at a Steiner School 3 year ago (high school) & had some
)reservations at the time. I have got to know both Steiner & non-Steiner kids
)( & families) from the school and seen HSC (final year) results which have
)been of an exceptionally high & consistent standard. Some students are
)extremely articulate and motivated..........some are a bit dreamy, others
)are average students, but they are all normal teenagers living in the real
)world.
)
)Credit where credit's due.
)
)Deb
Did you say something?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington?
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:24:40 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Questionaire...
1. What is your name (optional but nice!), gender and age?
GB: Gary Bonhiver, male, 45
2. What area of the country do you live in? (Specific cities are nice but
not necessary.)
GB: Fairfield county, Connecticut
3. Do you currently have children who are enrolled in a Waldorf school? (The
following questions under this number apply only if you have children at
WS.)
GB: No
4. Would you call yourself an "Anthroposophist?"
GB: No
How much did you know about Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner when you
enrolled your child?
GB: We (thankfully) did not enroll our daughter. We heard only his name,
with no explanation of who/what he was.
Do you belong to an Anthroposophical or Waldorf education methods study
group?
GB: No
5. Did you attend a Waldorf school as a child or teenager?
GB: No
5. Briefly explain why you subscribed to the Waldorf critics list.
GB: We periodically looked into Waldorf over many years, starting before our
daughter was born, reading brochures that were given to us at open houses,
but never lived close enough to a school to enroll our daughter. Our best
friends were a fully-committed Waldorf family in Marin County, CA. We
visited around 7 different Waldorf schools over a 15 year period. We loved
the toys at Hearthsong in Petaluma, CA, and Barbara read Rahima Baldwin's
classic book "You are your child's first teacher," along with another
classic, "Lifeways; working with family questions."
When a new Waldorf private school recently renovated a historic school
building and opened up in our Connecticut town, my wife worked for them as a
first grade teacher's aide, and when the school administrator quit, my wife
was offered the job, which she accepted. This was a new Waldorf school,
with only nursery, kindergarten and first grade. During this time, she
became interested in Waldorf teacher training, and traveled to Sunbridge
several times to inquire about the program, getting the enrollment package
and other materials. While browsing the Sunbridge bookstore and walking the
campus, we both started to feel strange about Waldorf and Steiner, but
couldn't put a finger on why. We also noticed strange behavior from the
first grade teacher that Barbara assisted, particularly regarding
non-existent control over class bullies.
As she assembled packages of Waldorf information for prospective parents,
she went to the internet to search for more stories about Waldorf, and
discovered Waldorf Critics. At exactly the same time, the first grade
teacher called all parents to an evening meeting to listen to an audio tape
of Eugene Schwartz replying to Dan's talk at Sunbridge (she did not provide
Dan's talk...I wonder why?). Barbara attended this, and was shocked at
Eugene's message and the support it received from most of the people
present. We discovered that Dan had video tapes of both his and Eugene's
lectures, and we immediately ordered them to get the whole story. She also
did some intensive internet study, and submitted her resignation within a
few days of hearing the tape, citing irreconcilable differences.
We have since been strong supporters of PLANS, and I have volunteered my
services as webmaster.
6. Do you think public Waldorf schools are a good idea? If so, why? If not,
please explain your position.
GB: Absolutely not. You cannot separate Anthroposophy from the Waldorf
curriculum. I believe that Anthroposophy is an esoteric (occult)
*religion*, and does not belong in state-funded schools. Even if you start
a charter school taking the "best of" Waldorf practices, those that
attracted us to Waldorf in the first place, as long as you use the name
"Waldorf" in the literature, and you hire Waldorf-trained teachers, it will
be a magnet for Anthroposophists and hard-core Waldorf leaders, who will
eventually take over the school.
7. Have you read or studied any of the works of Rudolf Steiner? Which ones?
GB: I've read many lectures and chapters on the internet at Rudolf Steiner
Archive elib, through participation in several Anthroposophical and Waldorf
discussion groups, through reading Anthroposophy Worldwide newsletter, and
through reading many articles, book-reviews and anthroposophical web sites
pulled up via search engines and cross-links. My wife also read a number of
Steiner's works during her intensive investigation just before she quit her
Waldorf Administrator job, including Steiner's eye-opening "The Universal
Human" and "Occult Science." Another illuminating favorite is "The Seven
Year Wonder Book" by Isabel Wyatt. Oh yes, I've read all PLANS articles and
participated in PLANS discussion forums (both critics and survivors), and
read the archives back to 1995. We also have a number of the critical
books, including Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, Feet of Clay.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:36:38 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: fuzzy thinking/fuzzy prose
In a recent post, usually quiet Deb says:
Well Michael, pity the same couldn't be said about your style. Maybe you
should pay more heed, rather than make offensive remarks about a relative
new member of this list (Takeasha).
Lisa here: Deb, I could not disagree with you more strongly. You may not
always like what Michael Kopp is saying in his posts, but anyone who knows
good writing would have to admit that his prose is clean and his style
extremely sound.
I read Michael's post and it made good sense. Clear thinking produces
clear writing, which facilitates clear and direct communication. That's
precisely why writing clearly is so difficult.
In addition, I am not sure why you think Michael was making an
"offensive" remark about Takeasha personally. I wonder if Takeasha (I am
unclear whether Takeasha is a female or male, so I cannot say "she" or "he")
interpreted Michael's post that way???
Takeasha?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:35:17 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)(x-charset iso-8859-1)"Style is.....................(Johnson).....he
)creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a common
)way. ...
)
)Well Michael, pity the same couldn't be said about your style. Maybe you
)should pay more heed, rather than make offensive remarks about a relative
)new member of this list (Takeasha).
)
)I joined this list to learn. I have read some intelligent critiques from
)both sides of the fence. I also read a lot of drivel.
)
)I enrolled my son at a Steiner School 3 year ago (high school) & had some
)reservations at the time. I have got to know both Steiner & non-Steiner kids
)( & families) from the school and seen HSC (final year) results which have
)been of an exceptionally high & consistent standard. Some students are
)extremely articulate and motivated..........some are a bit dreamy, others
)are average students, but they are all normal teenagers living in the real
)world.
)
)Credit where credit's due.
)
)Deb
And criticism where criticism's due. My kids went to a Steiner school, and
they suffered all the ills I mentioned in my post, and have catalogued here
over six years.
Try reading the archives, "Deb".
We weren't "clueless dupes" -- I researched Steiner, Waldorf and
Anthroposophy as far as available without reading Steiner directly -- and I
was specifically told Anthroposophy was not in the classroom. We were lied
to, we were subject to false advertising and propaganda, we were, in short,
defrauded as consumers (the school is a state-integrated public school
allowed to have a Waldorf special character).
Don't use snide, knee-jerk reactionary thinking and rhetoric on me, "Deb".
I've been there and seen the depths of Steiner's depravity as it's enforced
on kids.
The fact that you don't see it, and that you think it's about the same as
the rest of "the real world", just shows that you are subject to the same
irrational relativistic thinking that Steiner immortalised, and which
Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophical people today use for their own ends,
principally the stealthy stealing of people's children for their guru's
Nirvana.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:52:40 -0700
From: "Deb" (firefly tpg.com.au)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Michael,
I have read some of the archives, and as I said I have been interested in
both points of view. Some folk have had good experiences and others not so.
By the way, why do you always 'sign off' with 'Cheers from Godzone?
Deb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kopp" (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
) )(x-charset iso-8859-1)"Style is.....................(Johnson).....he
) )creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a common
) )way. ...
) )
) )Well Michael, pity the same couldn't be said about your style. Maybe you
) )should pay more heed, rather than make offensive remarks about a relative
) )new member of this list (Takeasha).
) )
) )I joined this list to learn. I have read some intelligent critiques from
) )both sides of the fence. I also read a lot of drivel.
) )
) )I enrolled my son at a Steiner School 3 year ago (high school) & had some
) )reservations at the time. I have got to know both Steiner & non-Steiner
kids
) )( & families) from the school and seen HSC (final year) results which
have
) )been of an exceptionally high & consistent standard. Some students are
) )extremely articulate and motivated..........some are a bit dreamy, others
) )are average students, but they are all normal teenagers living in the
real
) )world.
) )
) )Credit where credit's due.
) )
) )Deb
)
) And criticism where criticism's due. My kids went to a Steiner school, and
) they suffered all the ills I mentioned in my post, and have catalogued
here
) over six years.
)
) Try reading the archives, "Deb".
)
) We weren't "clueless dupes" -- I researched Steiner, Waldorf and
) Anthroposophy as far as available without reading Steiner directly -- and
I
) was specifically told Anthroposophy was not in the classroom. We were lied
) to, we were subject to false advertising and propaganda, we were, in
short,
) defrauded as consumers (the school is a state-integrated public school
) allowed to have a Waldorf special character).
)
) Don't use snide, knee-jerk reactionary thinking and rhetoric on me, "Deb".
) I've been there and seen the depths of Steiner's depravity as it's
enforced
) on kids.
)
) The fact that you don't see it, and that you think it's about the same as
) the rest of "the real world", just shows that you are subject to the same
) irrational relativistic thinking that Steiner immortalised, and which
) Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophical people today use for their own ends,
) principally the stealthy stealing of people's children for their guru's
) Nirvana.
)
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
) --
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:56:56 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)(x-charset iso-8859-1) Michael,
)
)I have read some of the archives, and as I said I have been interested in
)both points of view. Some folk have had good experiences and others not so.
)
)By the way, why do you always 'sign off' with 'Cheers from Godzone?
)Deb
)
87.
It's in the archives.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 392
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf curriculum - languages (was: Waldorf Grads)
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Waldorf curriculum - languages (was: Waldorf Grads)
By dan dandugan.com
Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re:RE: Re: David Icke
By peter_zegers runbox.no
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 01:34:40 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Waldorf curriculum - languages (was: Waldorf Grads)
Dan Dugan writes:
) Takeasha, you wrote,
)
)) Well, Language is part of curriculum, if the language changes, that is a
)) curriculum change. German was/is taught because of the german roots of
)) Waldorf, if schools in America remove german, and replace it with
)) spanish, a widely spoken language in the United States, I think that is
)) forward progress, i.e. evolving.
)
) Yes, it is. In fact, teaching French was an evolution, too, I believe
) Steiner hated it.
)
) Unfortunately many Waldorf schools cling to the traditional German.
)
) -Dan Dugan
"The child comes to school and begins with Main Lesson in periods ... and
then directly after that the little ones have a lesson which for German
children is either English or French." _Kingdom of Childhood_, Lecture 6,
p. 118.
"We must keep strictly to the principle of taking a certain amount of
English and French with the children from the very beginning, not according
to old-fashioned methods, but so that they learn to appreciate both
languages and get a feeling for the right expression in each." _Discussions
with Teachers_, Discussion 15, p. 161.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:32:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf curriculum - languages (was: Waldorf Grads)
Neil Faiman, you quoted Steiner on teaching French:
)"The child comes to school and begins with Main Lesson in periods ... and
)then directly after that the little ones have a lesson which for German
)children is either English or French." _Kingdom of Childhood_, Lecture 6,
)p. 118.
)
)"We must keep strictly to the principle of taking a certain amount of
)English and French with the children from the very beginning, not according
)to old-fashioned methods, but so that they learn to appreciate both
)languages and get a feeling for the right expression in each." _Discussions
)with Teachers_, Discussion 15, p. 161.
I stand corrected. I guess I was remembering what he said about French:
"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the
French language...It is also possible at the present time that the
French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has
kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the
French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural
brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France
itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the
blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The
French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, 1923, CT-3 pp.
87-88]
These expressions "...the soul becomes corrupted through using the
French language..." and "...add to French decadence..." left me with
the impression that he was against the French language. I wonder if
they taught it because the state required it.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:39:18 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
Dear Mr. Boardman,
Your post hasn¥t really changed my views. Let me explain why:
I wrote earlier:
In the UK there is another anthroposophist who is defending Icke from
charges of antisemitism: Terry Boardman (see
http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/;
Mr. Boardman wrote:
) I'm writing today because I want to contradict in
) the strongest possible terms the insinuation of antisemitic sympathies
) affixed to my name by Peter Zegers. Clearly, Zegers has not even
) carefully read the piece from my article which he quotes. Anyone who
) does with an impartial mind will NOT conclude from what I have written
) there that I am "defending Icke" in general, or "defending Icke from
) charges of antisemitism" - unless s/he is the kind of person who sees
) the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and immediately jumps to the
) conclusion that the person using those words must be a
) Nazi/Fascist/anti-Semite or a sympathiser or fellow traveller of such,
) as if one were to use the word "cabbage" and immediately be judged a
) vegan.
Zegers:
I haven¥t said that Mr. Boardman had antisemitic sympathies, I merely
pointed out that he is duped by a cheap trick used by antisemites
like David Icke. I think the quotes from David Icke I send earlier to
the list speak for themselves. Icke also defends Holocaust deniers
like David Irving.
Boardman:
) Let me make quite clear to Peter Zegers and to all who read this where I
) stand on Icke and the Protocols.
) Re. ICKE: I have informed myself about Icke; I have read most of his
) books, been to one of his lectures, and seen a documentary about him
) (part of the "Secret Rulers of the World" series investigation into
) conspiracy theory) on British TV (Channel 4) this year made by the
) satirist Jon Ronson, who is himself Jewish. I am not a follower of Icke
) and I do not accept his current nonsense about aliens and lizards. I do
) not think he is anti-Jewish, and neither am I anti-Jewish. If you see
) the documentary by Ronson, you will find that Ronson himself does not
) consider Icke to be anti-Jewish, even though *some* of those who profess
) to like Icke may be, but then doubtless, so are some of those who
) profess to like George W.Bush, or Mickey Mouse. You will see that Icke
) is treated fairly and sympathetically by Ronson, and that the paranoia,
) fanaticism, and intolerance of some of those who set themselves up to be
) the defenders of the Jewish people comes out badly in Ronson's
) documentary. As far as I'm concerned, to be "anti" any ethnic group and
) consider them intrinsically and inherently "evil" or bad is to my mind,
) a symptom of the ignorance that can so easily result from a
) materialistic worldview.
Zegers:
Ergo: you *are* defending David Icke against charges of antisemitism
("I do not think he is anti-Jewish"). Unfortunately I couldn¥t see
Jon Ronson¥s program, so I can¥t really judge the truthfulness of
what you are saying about it. But the fact that one single Jewish
person can be duped by Icke doesn¥t mean very much. Fortunately the
Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish watchdog groups are a bit
more experienced in dealing with antisemites or fools who can¥t see
through their rhetoric. But maybe that is one example of the kind of
groups you consider to be paranoid, fanatical and intolerant. Racism
is not limited to people with a "materialistic worldview", there are
plenty examples of people with a spiritual worldview who are racist.
Boardman:
) Re. PROTOCOLS: I reject the argument that says that the protocols should
) not be discussed. They should be discussed because they were a
) diabolical effort on the part of those that produced them to twist
) people's minds and fill them with hate and fear. In the first instance,
) I consider those protocols to be no joke, but a serious blueprint for a
) global slave state of "supermaterialism" - a condition towards which
) year by year we are advancing like sleepwalkers. Second, the creation of
) the Protocols around 1900 I consider to have nothing to do with the
) Jewish people. Third, I consider that, despite his later absurdities
) (reptiles etc), Icke was right in saying that the Protocols were
) calculated by those who fabricated them (written in all likelihood in
) France, but passed to Russia, and later throughout Europe) to promote
) hatred of the Jewish people by blaming them for the evil agenda. There
) were also plenty of people on the Right in Europe and the US who wished
) to gain by blaming the Jews for Soviet communism and its drive for world
) dominion. The Protocols served as a useful tool in their hands. A useful
) history of the Protocols is Norman Cohn, "Warrant for Genocide - The
) Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of
) Zion"
Zegers:
Well, I don¥t mind discussing the authenticity of the Protocols.
Although I think this list is maybe not the proper place for it.
Norman Cohn is quite clear about the fact that the document was a
hoax. This is the opinion of every expert I consulted on the subject.
Here is a small list of the people whose work I consulted: Norman
Cohn, Cesare G. De Michelis, Michael Hagemeister, Stephen Bronner,
Binjamin Siegel, Hadassa Ben-Itto. None of this people upholds the
authenticity of document. So I don¥t know on which basis you found
your assertion. Where is the proof that some kind of sinister group
plans the scenario you are so afraid of and tries to blame the Jews
for it?
Zegers in an earlier post:
) ) Boardman is convinced of the authenticity of the document.
Boardman:
) After quoting a large slice from my article, which I won't repeat here
) because it's
) too long, Zegers then makes the above totally unclear assertion.
) "Authenticity" of what ? Is Zegers implying
) that I believe - along with countless rightists - that Jews wrote the
) Protocols ? No way !
Zegers:
That is not what I said or implied.
Boardman:
) I certainly don't believe that the documents were a figment of someone's
) imagination; those ideas
) existed; they were written down and spread around to calumniate the
) Jews. What I think they ARE
) an authentic reflection of is the evil intention to establish a global
) slave state. *IF* Zegers thinks
) we are nowhere near this materialistic nightmare, and that the Protocols
) have nothing to do with what's happening, then he has not been paying
) attention to the very many films, books, plays, songs, poems
) etc etc produced since the 1930s (and especially since, say, 1990)that
) have been pointing to just this danger.
Zegers:
Ergo: you believe in the authenticity (meanig it was not a hoax or
fraud). It would be interesting to know which kind of non fiction
books (I have to admit I have very little interest in novels, plays
and poetry and even less in films and songs) you are referring to. I
guess you know that Henry Ford has been using the same line of
reasoning before in the defence of the Protocols (although he later
had to admit that it was a fraud). As I already said, all serious
experts on the question are in agreement that the document is a hoax.
And no, I happen not to share the delusion of a sinister secret cabal
wanting to rule the world. I think we can spent our time better than
engaging in paranoid fantasies.
Rereading the post, I don¥t quite understand what upset you so much.
1) I wrote that you are defending David Icke against charges of
antisemitism and you are. This transpires clearly from your mail. 2)
I wrote that you believe in the authenticity of the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion". Although you are of the opinion that it was not the
Jews (or better a Jewish elite as is stated in the Protocols) that
produced these, you still think it reflects a genuine plan to
dominate the world by some sinister group of people.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:29:51 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:RE: Re: David Icke
Dear WenG,
The problem I have with both David Icke and Terry Boardman is that
they believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are describing
the plans of an actual conspiracy. Somehow this conspiracy managed to
divert the rage against their evil plans towards the Jews. How
exactly this happened is never fully explained. Every expert on the
Protocols I have read agrees on the fact that the Protocols are a
complete fraud, a fabrication, not based on any fact. Even David Icke
can't ignore the long history of justification for all kinds of
antisemitic violence and abuse, therefore he conveniently renames the
evil conspiracy as "illuminati". Part of this cabal are nevertheless
the most influential Jewish families (especially the Rotschilds, Icke
even goes as far as saying that Adolf Hitler was a Rotschild; see
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html).
) WenG: Peter, can you please clarify your argument a bit?
)
) I think most of us accept the fact that the Protocols are an
) anti-Semitic, as well as anti-Masonic fraud.
) (The following links gives a history of their authorship:
) http://www.srmason-sj.org/council/journal/jun99/zeldis.html)
I have read Zeldis' page a while ago. Here is another website on
Icke's anti-masonic ranting: http://www.masonicinfo.com/icke.htm
) While I find Icke's tales of reptilians taking over the world a great
) work of fiction masquerading as fact (i.e. Hillary Clinton is reptilian,
) but Bill isn't) you're quoting him as saying the Protocols were used
) against the Jews. My reading would agree with him, that the Protocols
) were created to discredit the Jews around the time Zionism was born.
Best regards,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 393
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Grads
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: fuzzy thinking/fuzzy prose
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk
Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By dan dandugan.com
which Sharon
By dan dandugan.com
Re: about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By hermit tiac.net
factors in success
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Takeasha a prophet????
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Takeasha a prophet????
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By firefly tpg.com.au
Re: Takeasha a prophet????
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Love, light, holding and carrying
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Waldorf Grads
By canndw netzero.net
Re: questions to elicit discussion
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Love, light, holding and carrying
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: factors in success
By canndw netzero.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: factors in success
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: factors in success
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:22:24 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
--part1_e3.1869bc75.289a91f0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Terry here: re the college placements of Waldorf Grads, given Waldrof's
failure to do a study any time in the last 75 years of the effectivenes of
their pedagogy, I would suggest that the placement of Waldorf grads in
colleges is much more likely a factor of their socio-economic status that
anything else. Kids who come from upper-middle class households have a
higher college placement than other kids... period.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:27:36 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: fuzzy thinking/fuzzy prose
Lisa said, re a posting from Deb:
'... In addition, I am not sure why you think Michael
was making an "offensive" remark about Takeasha
personally....'
Raymon replies:
Lisa, I am guessing the passages in question are
Michael's stating
' takeasha is just the latest example, yet another sad
result of a Waldorf education'.
and
'...you've been in bad company right from the start,
as are all the other clueless dupes...'
To me, to be told one is a sad result of whatever, or
that one is one of many clueless dupes - these are not
nice things to say. To quote Dan, in his recent
unsubscribing of Sune:
'Arguments on the list are to be directed at the
topics of the list, not at the persons of the
discussants.'
Were not these comments of Michael's directed at
Takeasha's person, not the topic? Why do you not
consider them offensive?
While we are on the topic of people being thrown off,
could someone please explain to me why 'holy roller'
is so offensive - this was Dottie's downfall -
presumably this has particular connotations in the US.
Finally someone asked re 'Godzone' - this is kind of a
pun on 'God's Own'. The scenic beauty in parts of New
Zealand prompted someone - Michael probably can tell
us who - to label the place 'God's Own Country'.
There are other places too in the world so called -
New Zealand is not the only one - but they alone in my
experience use the 'Godzone' word.
Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:51:57 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
on 8/2/01 2:39 AM, Peter Zegers at peter_zegers runbox.no wrote:
)
) Zegers:
)
) Well, I don¥t mind discussing the authenticity of the Protocols. Although I
) think this list is maybe not the proper place for it. Norman Cohn is quite
) clear about the fact that the document was a hoax.
Sharon:
I would really like you to discuss the authenticity of the protocols because
I don't know much about them but I'm interested because it seems to me that
occultists put a lot of weight on documents that are hoaxes. For example,
Steiner believed that Rosenkreutz actually existed, but most scholars of the
"real" world would say that the pamphlets distributed during the
early-seventeenth-century by a group of Lutheran mystics led by Johann
Valentin Andreae about Christian Rosenkreutz were a hoax. (According to the
pamphlets, Rosenkreutz had studied with Paracelsus and sages in Damascus and
the Rosicrucian brotherhood was to unify the knowledge of wise men in
preparation for the Last Judgement.) The man responsible for the pamphlets,
J V Andreae who also wrote a fourth pamphlet entitled The Chemical Wedding,
admitted that Rosenkreutz was an invention. Despite the fact that the person
Rosenkreutz never existed, these pamphlets had an enormous impact on people
in Europe, and still do even today as Rosicrucianism is considered the main
Western source of Hidden Master Mythology.
On a personal note, my family experienced a similar occult hoax when we
looked into Waldorf education and enrolled our child in Waldorf. I put a lot
of weight on the authenticity of the brochure I was sent. Neither in the
brochure that we received, nor in the interviews with teachers or registrar
was it ever disclosed that Waldorf is a religious school, an initiation
center based on the mystagogue Rudolf Steiner's occultism called
Anthroposophy. In fact we were led to believe that Waldorf is art based and
nonsectarian. In reality, Waldorf is a Chamber of Art where the magical arts
are practiced. The school is actually entirely sectarian because it is an
immersion in Anthroposophy and nothing but it. All Waldorf classroom
activity is informed by Anthroposophy yet there was no mention of this in
the brochure we were sent or clarification of this by the teachers during
enrollment. My family was deeply affected by this deception and the use of
us as a veil for Anthroposophy. We were used without our understanding or
knowledge to usher in the prophesies of Rudolf Steiner. Waldorf is the
parochial school for Anthroposophists and the schools need to clarify this
to parents since Anthroposophy is the most important aspect of Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:27:44 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Should I respond with a long drawn out intellectual rambling in an
attempt to prove my intelligence and schooling, and maybe throw in a
phrase like "the true disease of our times," so my post will sound more
prophetic? Would it matter because you, and others I'm sure, likely
assume anything I say in defense of Waldorf is a product of having been
brainwashed, thus my presence in the forum seems futile.
You have judged my intelligence and education based on two days worth of
internet chat postings. Your assertions are absurd considering what you
know about me, and in fact, they speak more about your own willingness
to judge on a trivial basis, in this case simply because I have
indicated a connection to waldorf and posted a couple of comments not up
to your intellectual and academic standards.
You may think you know everything about WE because your child went there
(for how long?)and I'm telling you that you're wrong, I was in a waldorf
school, you were not--oh yeah, nevermind, I forgot that I'm brainwashed.
Michael, YOU are a SAD representative of the waldorf-critics movement
(or whatever you call yourselves) because your own ignorance of waldorf
education is obvious, and you fail to show respect to someone who is
interested in what waldorf-critics have to say, alienating me, and
others I'm sure, from your cause and concerns about WE. I have concerns
about WE and certainly Steiner (though I know less about him), but I
feel I have been forced to defend myself instead of discussing real
concerns. If you want more support this is not the way.
T
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Gary Bonhiver on "takeasha", allegedly a Waldorf grad, who thinks
) Waldorf
) turns out graduates who are "allll riiiggghtt":
)
) )Conversely, using the same fuzzy "logic", one could surmise that these
) )graduates owe their success to their *survival* of the mind-numbing,
) )rigid
) )Waldorf curriculum. Their coping skills developed out of necessity to
) )survive Waldorf resulted in building their strong character and drive to
) )get
) )out and overcome their weaknesses.
) )
) )Or, they succeeded IN SPITE if their Waldorf "education"...
)
) Michael Kopp adds something that probably doesn't get much attention in
) Waldorf school English classes, where kids are allowed -- no, they are
) brainwashed -- to write (think) anything, irrationally, without having
) to
) defend it, and anything anyone says has as much merit as anything anyone
) else says: the true disease of our times, irrational relativism, which
) is
) the sum total of a Waldorf education.
)
) In a turnaround of the central idea below, I have here said it before
) about
) Waldorf grads who have posted here (as well as the Anthroposophists who
) go
) on ad nauseam, like Sune Nordwall): he who writes loosely thinks
) loosely.
) takeasha is just the latest example, yet another sad result of a Waldorf
) education.
)
) Pay particular attention, takeasha, to the last sentence of this quote.
) It's what happened to you in a Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical
) education.
)
) Of course, the 80,000 pages of Saint Rudolf Steiner's writings are a
) prime
) example of "Coleridge's Law", as I call it, so it's understandable that
) since you went to one of Steiner's mystery schools, you've been in bad
) company right from the start, as are all the other clueless dupes of the
) Steiner-Anthroposophy brainwashing cult and Waldorf mis-education.
)
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
) "Style is, of course nothing else but the art of conveying the meaning
) appropriately and with perspicuity, whatever that meaning may be, and
) one
) criterion of style is that is shall not be translatable [into other
) words of
) the same language] without injury to the meaning. Johnson's style has
) pleased many from the very fault of being perpetually translatable; he
) creates an impression of cleverness by never saying any thing in a
) common
) way. ...
)
) ... The source of bad writing is the desire to be something more than a
) man
) of sense,--the straining to be thought a genius; and it is just the same
) in
) speech-making. If men would only say what they have to say in plain
) terms,
) how much more eloquent they would be! ... And I can not conclude this
) Lecture without insisting on the importance of accuracy of style as
) being
) near akin to veracity and truthful habits of mind; he who thinks loosely
) will write loosely, ... Let me also exhort you to careful examination of
) what you read, if it be worthy any perusal at all; such an examination
) will
) be a safeguard from fanaticism, the universal origin of which is in the
) contemplation of phenomena without investigation into their causes."
)
) Samuel Taylor Coleridge
)
) PS: I never knew Coleridge was a follower of the scientific method of
) thought, but there it is, folks. Materialist epistemology wins every
) time.
)
)
)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/literar_theory/Prose_Style.html#BadWriting
)
)
) If the above URL breaks across two lines of your email window, just copy
) and paste it to your browser address window, and take out any blank
) spaces.
)
) --
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:34:41 +0100
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
Peter Zegers wrote:
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:39:18 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
)Dear Mr. Boardman,
)Your post hasn¥t really changed my views.
)Let me explain why:
)I wrote earlier:
)))In the UK there is another anthroposophist who is defending Icke
from )))charges of antisemitism: Terry Boardman (see
)))http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/;
)Mr. Boardman wrote:
)) I'm writing today because I want to contradict in
)) the strongest possible terms the insinuation of antisemitic sympathies
)) affixed to my name by Peter Zegers. Clearly, Zegers has not even
)) carefully read the piece from my article which he quotes. Anyone who
)) does with an impartial mind will NOT conclude from what I have
))written there that I am "defending Icke" in general, or "defending
))Icke from charges of antisemitism" - unless s/he is the kind of
person ))who sees the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and
immediately ))jumps to the conclusion that the person using those
words must be a
)) Nazi/Fascist/anti-Semite or a sympathiser or fellow traveller of such,
))as if one were to use the word "cabbage" and immediately be judged a
)) vegan.
)Zegers:
)I haven¥t said that Mr. Boardman had antisemitic sympathies, I
merely )pointed out that he is duped by a cheap trick used by
antisemites like )David Icke.
Terry: You really need to be more careful with your statements. You did
NOT point out in your original post that I had been "duped by a cheap
trick used by antisemites". Rather, you said:
) there is another anthroposophist who is defending Icke from charges
of antisemitism: Terry Boardman.
That is how you introduced my name, and that is not the same thing.
What you imply (to people on this list who may not know me and who have
not read my articles) is that I defend David Icke *in general* in my
article in question. You know very well that I do not do that in that
article, because (I trust) you have read it. It is quite another thing
to claim that someone has been "duped by a cheap trick used by
antisemites". Such a statement refers to a *particular* event, not a
*general* condition.
Now you may say this is hairsplitting, but I know from experience in
reading mails on this list, with all the claims and counterclaims that
fly around, that the devil is in the detail. Your generalised statement
is a misrepresentation and an attempt to cast aspersions. I refer you
again to the words I used in my original post:
)) Clearly, Zegers has not even carefully read the piece from my
article which he quotes.Anyone who does with an impartial mind will
NOT conclude from what I have written there that I am "defending
Icke" in general, or "defending Icke from charges of antisemitism".
)Boardman:
) Let me make quite clear to Peter Zegers and to all who read this
where I stand on Icke and the Protocols.
) Re. ICKE: I have informed myself about Icke; I have read most of his
) books, been to one of his lectures, and seen a documentary about him
) (part of the "Secret Rulers of the World" series investigation into
) conspiracy theory) on British TV (Channel 4) this year made by the
) satirist Jon Ronson, who is himself Jewish. I am not a follower of Icke
) and I do not accept his current nonsense about aliens and lizards. I do
) not think he is anti-Jewish, and neither am I anti-Jewish. If you see
) the documentary by Ronson, you will find that Ronson himself does not
) consider Icke to be anti-Jewish, even though *some* of those who
profess to like Icke may be, but then doubtless, so are some of
those who
) profess to like George W.Bush, or Mickey Mouse. You will see that Icke
) is treated fairly and sympathetically by Ronson, and that the paranoia,
) fanaticism, and intolerance of some of those who set themselves up to be
) the defenders of the Jewish people comes out badly in Ronson's
) documentary. As far as I'm concerned, to be "anti" any ethnic group and
) consider them intrinsically and inherently "evil" or bad is to my mind,
) a symptom of the ignorance that can so easily result from a
) materialistic worldview.
)Zegers:
)Ergo: you *are* defending David Icke against charges of antisemitism
("I )do not think he is anti-Jewish").
Terry: In my mail to this list (NOT in my article which you quoted - get
it right, please) I stated that I had read his books, heard him lecture
once and seen a documentary made by a Jewish writer about Icke on TV
this year, and that as a result of all these, I judge that he is no
antisemite.
)Zegers: Unfortunately I couldn¥t see Jon Ronson¥s program, so I
can¥t )really judge the truthfulness of what you are saying about it.
But the )fact that one single Jewish person can be duped by Icke
doesn¥t mean )very much.
Terry: That may be true, but before you assume that Ronson WAS duped, I
suggest you watch the programme that you admit you haven't watched.
)Fortunately the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish watchdog
groups )are a bit more experienced in dealing with antisemites or
fools who )can¥t see through their rhetoric. But maybe that is one
example of the )kind of groups you consider to be paranoid, fanatical
and intolerant.
Terry: That was in fact the conclusion that Ronson himself came to -
that the ADL, or to be fair, the lady from the ADL who he spoke to, was
indeed intolerant and oversuspicious, not to mention the Canadian
watchdog group members who physically assaulted Icke at a book-signing.
Do you mean to tell us that you believe everything the ADL says, just
*because* it is the ADL ?
)Racism is not limited to people with a "materialistic worldview",
there )are plenty examples of people with a spiritual worldview who
are racist.
Terry: No, I disagree. Those people whom you claim have a spiritual
worldview and are racists (perhaps you have in mind e.g. many Nazis or
imperialist-minded WASP 'christians') do NOT in fact have such a
spiritual worldview. Nobody with a spiritual worldview can be a racist,
because s/he knows that the human spirit is beyond physical
characteristics such as race, body, blood etc.
Materialism ("matter is realism", mater realism) is the MOTHER of all
the pernicious -isms (sexism, ageism, chauvinism, nationalism, racism
and many more)
)Zegers:
)Well, I don¥t mind discussing the authenticity of the Protocols.
)Although I think this list is maybe not the proper place for it.
Terry: Quite right, it isn't. This list is about waldorf education, but
people like you keep dragging it back into the slime of racism in a
futile effort to make some racist mud stick against Waldorf,
Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, and others like myself who consider that
he has made a great contribution to humanity.
)Zegers:
)Norman Cohn is quite clear about the fact that the document was a
hoax. )This is the opinion of every expert I consulted on the
subject. Here is )a small list of the people whose work I consulted:
Norman Cohn, Cesare )G. De Michelis Michael Hagemeister, Stephen
Bronner, Binjamin Siegel, )Hadassa Ben-Itto. None of this people
upholds the authenticity of )document. So I don¥t know on which basis
you found your assertion.
Terry: As I do not propose to get into a slanging match with you on this
issue and this mail will be my last comment on it, I'll leave you with a
quote from Cohn's book and then I'll be able to show how devious your
methodology is, Mr Zegers.
)From p.255 of "Warrant For Genocide":
"The Berne trial [1937] then achieved all it could have reasonably have
been expected to achieve: the proceedings had revealed the Protocols as
a fabrication designed to cause persecution and massacre....It is hardly
necessary to add that this made not the slightest difference to the
Nazis and their accomplices. The [Nazi] Weldienst conference of
1937...passed a solemn resolution reaffirming the authenticity of the
Protocols."
This means that the Protocols were an *authentic* forgery designed to
implicate Jews, and NOT an *authentic* statement of Jewish plans for
world domination, as the Nazis claimed. The Berne Court of Appeal
"described the protocols as trash, whose only purpose was the political
one of bringing the Jews into hatred and contempt." (p.255 again) The
Court evidently considered that there WAS a political purpose. I would
disagree merely with the word "only" in Cohn's sentence. Clearly, the
Berne court considered the Protocols to have had malicious intent. I
would go further and say it had *evil* intent and that intent was
*authentic* - it was no fantasy or imagination. So, the hoax was to
blame it on the Jews; in this sense and in this sense only was the
document *inauthentic*. In fact this *hoax* was deadly serious, as
subsequent events in the 20th century have borne out. Or are you going
to claim, Mr Zegers, that many of the predictions made in the Protocols
(I refer to the *methods* of socio-economic-political control described
in them) have NOT actually been applied ?
)Zegers:
)Where is the proof that some kind of sinister group plans the
scenario )you are so afraid of and tries to blame the Jews for it?
Terry: To get into this discussion would take a lot of time and space,
and would go way off topic. For my thoughts around this issue, you and
anyone else interested might like to read some of the articles at my
website: http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk. There are of coure
plenty of other websites on the Net which also discuss the theme of a
global conspiracy, some of which I freely recognise are extremely kooky.
)Zegers in an earlier post:
))) Boardman is convinced of the authenticity of the document.
))Boardman:
))After quoting a large slice from my article, which I won't repeat here
))because it's too long, Zegers then makes the above totally unclear
))assertion. "Authenticity" of what ? Is Zegers implying
))that I believe - along with countless rightists - that Jews wrote the
))Protocols ? No way !
)Zegers:
)That is not what I said or implied.
Terry: I'm afraid it is, because that's what is usually meant when
people talk about the Protocols being *authentic* or a *hoax* - they
mean whether or not the Protocols were written by Jews as a plan for
world domination by Jews.
))Boardman:
)) I certainly don't believe that the documents were a figment of
))someone's imagination; those ideas existed; they were written down
and ))spread around to calumniate the Jews. What I think they ARE
))an authentic reflection of is the evil intention to establish a global
))slave state. *IF* Zegers thinks we are nowhere near this
))materialistic nightmare, and that the Protocols have nothing to do
))with what's happening, then he has not been paying attention to
the ))very many films, books, plays, songs, poems etc etc produced
since the ))1930s (and especially since, say, 1990)that have been
pointing to just ))this danger.
)Zegers:
)Ergo: you believe in the authenticity (meaning it was not a hoax or
)fraud). It would be interesting to know which kind of non fiction
books )(I have to admit I have very little interest in novels, plays
and poetry )and even less in films and songs) you are referring to. I
guess you know )that Henry Ford has been using the same line of
reasoning before in the )defence of the Protocols (although he later
had to admit that it was a )fraud).
Terry: There you go again, associating me this time with the likes of
Henry Ford, who in the 1920s was known to have antiJewish views. The
fraud which Ford had to admit was the notion of the Prots. as signifying
a *Jewish* conspiracy. The *authenticity* he believed in (=the Prots.
signified a Jewish world conspiracy) is NOT the same as the
*authenticity* I claim viz. the Prots. do in fact signify a conspiracy
by occult forces working to create a supermaterialistic global slave
state - a gigantic Earth machine ruled by an oligarchical elite.
So, you say you have "very little interest in novels, plays and poetry
and even less in films and songs" ? I can only reply: "get a life!".
You must be one S-E-R-I-O-U-S person.
)Zegers:
)As I already said, all serious experts on the question are in
agreement )that the document is a hoax. And no, I happen not to share
the delusion )of a sinister secret cabal wanting to rule the world. I
think
)we can spend our time better than engaging in paranoid fantasies.
Terry: I happen to think a) that the kind of thing you and your friend
Peter Staudenmaier and others go in for ad nauseam on this list -
mudslinging and charging Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf with racism,
facism, nazism etc in itself bears no small resemblance to a "paranoid
fantasy".
b) it is of far greater significance for us to spend time trying to find
out what those who consider themselves our "superiors" (the Bushes,
Rockefellers, Perles, Brzezinskis, Chiracs, Prodis, Kissingers etc of
this world) have in store for us than it is to waste time doing what you
and Staudenmaier are doing - castigating with false accusations those
who are doing their bit to make this a better world. In 1914 the world
was led into an abyss and the 20th century turned upside down by the
decisions of no more than 50 politicians and diplomats in the
chancellories of Europe. That happened because the peoples of Europe
were asleep to what their "superiors" were planning and had been
planning for many years. May I suggest you and your friends apply your
intellectual talents to some more elevated cause than that of seeking to
be very big frogs mudslinging in the very little pond of Waldorf
education ?
As I said, I will not be making any more replies to you in this list - I
have better things to do with my time - so if you want to go on, you're
free to sound off at me as much as you like. I felt, however, that when
someone makes false and unwarranted misrepresentations of my statements
that I should at least once point those out.
I would ask that list subscribers who wish to judge for themselves
whether I am some kind of antisemite or antisemite fellow traveller as
Mr Zegers has falsely insinuated, should visit my website, read what's
there and come to their own conclusions.
Terry Boardman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:53:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
Terry Boardman, you wrote,
)Nobody with a spiritual worldview can be a racist,
)because s/he knows that the human spirit is beyond physical
)characteristics such as race, body, blood etc.
)Materialism ("matter is realism", mater realism) is the MOTHER of all
)the pernicious -isms (sexism, ageism, chauvinism, nationalism, racism
)and many more)
How very convenient. By this reasoning Anthroposophists make it
impossible for Steiner to be a racist, despite his thoroughly
indicting statements.
)The *authenticity* he believed in (=the Prots.
)signified a Jewish world conspiracy) is NOT the same as the
)*authenticity* I claim viz. the Prots. do in fact signify a conspiracy
)by occult forces working to create a supermaterialistic global slave
)state - a gigantic Earth machine ruled by an oligarchical elite.
Occult forces working for Ahriman, I presume?
)So, you say you have "very little interest in novels, plays and poetry
)and even less in films and songs" ? I can only reply: "get a life!".
)You must be one S-E-R-I-O-U-S person.
I don't think Peter is talking about appreciation of literature and
artistic media. Occultists are in the habit of taking fiction as
historical fact. Almost all of the ancient Egyptian religion stuff
that shows up in Masonry and Anthroposophy, and even in Waldorf
classrooms, is fantasy taken from plays and novels.
Please, Peter and Terry, don't use up our bandwith with a long "you
said" "no I didn't" pissing match. Back to topic.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:59:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: which Sharon
I'm confused. Is Sharon at mysplum earthlink.net Sharon Lombard
Miller? I know she was moving and perhaps that's her new email.
If there's more than one Sharon here, please use two names so we can
tell you apart!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:05:09 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
Lisa wrote:
)On the subject of famous folk who have graduated from Waldorf, am I the only
)person who finds it slightly ironic that the "grads" most mentioned seem to
)be people in the movie and television industry? Example: Julianna Margulies
)(of "ER" fame); Paul Newman's child, etc.
I believe I once mentioned Jens Stoltenberg, the current Norwegian
prime minister.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:25:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: about dem Waldorf grads! (g)
Lisa wrote:
)Overall, I have to agree with Gary who points out that virtually any school
)can find a graduate who was successful. Thus such claims mean little to
)nothing. (To really mean something, a scientific study would have to be
)conducted and factors such as socioeconomic class, IQ levels, etc. would
)have to be considered.)
)
)Until such a study is done on Waldorf graduates, the "evidence" is anecdotal
)at best; people can only report on what graduates they know are doing, etc.
)
)As I withdrew my children from their Waldorf school before they finished, I
)can only speak from my own experiences/impressions. And those experiences
)tell me that when fully a third of children in single class are either being
)tutored outside of school or have been identified as in need of tutoring for
)reading and/or math, something is not OK in the classroom.
As Lisa points out in relation to claims about the qualities
of children in - or those having graduated from - Waldorf
schools, to be meaningful it must include a study of _all_
factors involved.
While she points this out for famous graduates, she however
is blind to the same problem holding also for the students
she mentions having reading and/or math problems.
While the number in the same class points to problems in
that _specific_ class, it actually says as such says
_nothing_ in any conclusive sense, except that many pupils
in the class had reading and/or maths problems.
To come to any well founded conclusion, both the children
(background, talents and problems) as well as the teaching
in the class need to be examined.
If the teaching did not have as its aim to teach the
children to read and write in full until the beginning of
the third grade, if of course cannot be accused of not
not having taught the children to do it in class one or
the beginning of the second grade.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:12:21 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
) PS: I never knew Coleridge was a follower of the scientific method of
) thought, but there it is, folks. Materialist epistemology wins every time.
Dear Michael,
Well you really stepped in it this time. If you have the time, read
Owen Barfield's "What Coleridge Thought" and you will find that the
sometimes opiated poet was an anthroposophist before anthroposophy (as
were many of the romantics and transcendentalists).
are we having fun yet?
joel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:51:38 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: factors in success
Tarjei says (in a post commenting on factors that must be considered when
evaluating the success of a classroom and its students):
((If the teaching did not have as its aim to teach the
children to read and write in full until the beginning of
the third grade, if of course cannot be accused of not
not having taught the children to do it in class one or
the beginning of the second grade.))
Lisa says: As my British friends might say, "absolutely spot on, Tarjei."
However, I would have to seriously question the quality of *any* school
program that did NOT have as one of its aims teaching children to read and
write as soon as they enter first grade. The more I read about factors the
influence academic success and/or failure, the more I am convinced of the
importance of early literacy. (No, I do not mean children must read at age 4
or suffer failure. I do mean, however, that children entering first grade
should be ready, both emotionally and intellectually, to begin learning to
read.)
I also want to point out that the classroom that I mentioned in my
previous post (the one in which fully a third of the children were either
already receiving tutoring in reading and/or math or were being identified
as in need of it) was NOT a first or second grade classroom.
It was a fourth grade classroom.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:53:23 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Gosh, an opiated anthroposophist! Betcha the fairies, gnomes, sylphs and
undines were *really* clear to him .... (g)
-- Lisa
) Michael Kopp wrote:
))
)) PS: I never knew Coleridge was a follower of the scientific method of
)) thought, but there it is, folks. Materialist epistemology wins every time.
)
) Dear Michael,
)
) Well you really stepped in it this time. If you have the time, read
) Owen Barfield's "What Coleridge Thought" and you will find that the
) sometimes opiated poet was an anthroposophist before anthroposophy (as
) were many of the romantics and transcendentalists).
)
) are we having fun yet?
) joel
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:57:25 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Takeasha a prophet????
Waldorf graduate and supporter Takeasha writes:
Should I respond with a long drawn out intellectual rambling in an
attempt to prove my intelligence and schooling, and maybe throw in a
phrase like "the true disease of our times," so my post will sound more
prophetic?
Lisa here: Takeasha, what do you mean "prophetic?"
"Prophetic" means something such as "having the ability to foretell
events."
Why would anyone expect what you say to give indications of future
events?
This is confusing to me. I thought you and Michael and others on the
list were discussing the success of Waldorf graduates ....
(By the way: use of a phrase such as "the true disease of our times"
would not convince anyone of anything but the author's affection for
cliches.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:09:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Takeasha a prophet????
Lisa:
) (By the way: use of a phrase such as "the true disease of our )times"
)would not convince anyone of anything but the author's )affection for
)cliches.)
If you want to impress the anthroposophists, use the word "soul," or
preferably "ensouled" or "ensoulment" at least four times per paragraph. If
things are ensouled, they are cool in anthroposophy. The Waldorf curriculum
is often described as "ensouled." Things must also be "rich" and "deep." And
I will have shown myself to be *not* ensouled by writing this post. :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:30:56 -0700
From: "Deb" (firefly tpg.com.au)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Well Michael, I don't have to wade through the archives coz some kind soul
and I'm not speaking anthroposophically) explained 'Godzone' .........so
now I know!
As we are practically neighbours I'll excuse your recent post as an
antipodean aberration! :)
cheers Deb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:38:44 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Takeasha a prophet????
on 8/2/01 8:09 PM, Diana Winters at winters_diana hotmail.com wrote:
) Lisa:
)
)) (By the way: use of a phrase such as "the true disease of our )times"
)) would not convince anyone of anything but the author's )affection for
)) cliches.)
)
) If you want to impress the anthroposophists, use the word "soul," or
) preferably "ensouled" or "ensoulment" at least four times per paragraph. If
) things are ensouled, they are cool in anthroposophy. The Waldorf curriculum
) is often described as "ensouled." Things must also be "rich" and "deep." And
) I will have shown myself to be *not* ensouled by writing this post. :)
) Diana
Don't forget reverence!
in love and light,
warm regards,
...Gary
;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 01:47:13 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Love, light, holding and carrying
Gary wrote:
)Don't forget reverence!
)in love and light,
)warm regards,
)...Gary
And why are anthroposophists always "carrying" and "holding" things? I
discovered that when they tell you they are "holding someone in the light,"
this translates to, they are very angry with this person.
Diana
P.S. I also hate to hear "reverence" used as a verb. Didn't it used to be
"revere"? :)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:22:01 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Michael Kopp wrote:
))
)) PS: I never knew Coleridge was a follower of the scientific method of
)) thought, but there it is, folks. Materialist epistemology wins every time.
)
)Dear Michael,
)
) Well you really stepped in it this time. If you have the time, read
)Owen Barfield's "What Coleridge Thought" and you will find that the
)sometimes opiated poet was an anthroposophist before anthroposophy (as
)were many of the romantics and transcendentalists).
)
)are we having fun yet?
)joel
I knew that. I'm just trying to rewrite history like you guys do, Joel.
What, exactly, have I stepped in, Joel? Is there something about
Coleridge's statement about ideas and expression that is NOT rational,
materialist? Does the fact that he was a dopehead (prefiguring some other
Anthroposophists we know, too, eh?) mean what he says about reason and
language is not what it seems to be, but really the opposite?
For all we know, Coleridge also prefigured Einstein, too.
Gimme a break, okay? Can't I have some fun too?
You guys get to do all the "fun" stuff, like see into higher worlds; we
have to settle for using anything we can grasp for a laugh, even -gasp-
transcendentalists.
There you go: a new field -- transcendental science.
But DON'T ask me to read that impenetrable bore Owen Barf. ield. (Sorry.)
Yeah, we're having fun. Nice to see you're still with us, Joel, and haven't
sloped off to a higher plane.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:34:26 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Our school's parent association sponsored two panel discussions featuring
Waldorf school graduates (there were mainly high school seniors, most of
whom went to our school for most or all of their K-8 years).
Some attended Waldorf high school, and had mixed experiences. None thought
that Waldorf school caused them to be unprepared for high school.
The panel I attended had five alums: two were college-bound with science
majors planned (pre-vet and chemistry), two with to be artists (one going to
Pratt in NYC), and one is undecided.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
)
) )
) ) Does anyone know about how waldorf-educated students have fared in
) ) life-after waldorf?
)
) yes, I am surrounded by ex-waldorf grads here in the uk, and its such a
huge
) subject. mostly they have very few exam passes which makes them feel
) intellectually challenged, their basic knowledge is dreadful, in normal
) terms like if you ask where is luxembourg? they hate gardening, they scoff
) at eurythmy, it is acknowledeged that there is huge dificulty adjusting to
) the 'outside world' after waldorf, I've run out of time
) bea
)
)
)
)
)
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:28:16 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: questions to elicit discussion
Okay.
) 1. What is your name (optional but nice!), gender and age?
David Cann, male, 41
) 2. What area of the country do you live in? (Specific cities are nice but
) not necessary.)
A tiny place in southwestern Rhode Island
) 3. Do you currently have children who are enrolled in a Waldorf school?
(The
) following questions under this number apply only if you have children at
) WS.)
Yes
) a.) What are your children's ages?
almost 8, nearly 11, 12
) b.) What school do they attend? Is that a private Waldorf school, or a
) public Waldorf charter school?
Meadowbrook School (private); I'm the Board treasurer there.
) c.) How long have your children attended a WS?
The past six years; the younger two have only attended Meadowbrook. The
oldest went to public school kindergarten.
) d.) Briefly, what do you like most/least about Waldorf for your
) children?
I am happy with nearly everything associated with our school. It's not
perfect, but I nowhere else is likely to be, either.
I wish our school was larger: with larger classes, with sufficient
professional administrative staff, and with better-paid teachers.
) e.) How did you first learn about Waldorf education?
My wife informed me we were going to a "May fair" back around 1991 or 1992
or so. She had heard about it from her best friend, who in turn heard about
it from a Meadowbrook parent with whom my wife's friend hooked rugs.
) f.) Before you enrolled your child/ren, were you told that Waldorf
) education was "based upon the works of R. Steiner?" Were you aware/told
that
) Waldorf pedagogy bases everything from the color of the classroom walls to
) what snacks are served in preschool on what day to how teachers speak and
) sing are dictated by the teachings of Steiner?
Yes. No.
Well, actually ,we did help paint classrooms in the summer before school
began, so I did get introduced to lazure painting and the classroom color
scheme. Didn't know about the other stuff, but I was focused on first
grade, not preschool.
As a point of interest, Meadowbrook's classroom walls in the grades'
classrooms are all white. Our "common area" is decorated with a lovely
lazure work, however, and the kindergartens are lazure-painted.
) 4. Would you call yourself an "Anthroposophist?" How much did you know
about
) Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner when you enrolled your child? Do you
belong
) to an Anthroposophical or Waldorf education methods study group?
No.
Very little.
I attended a study group in 1998; we do a little study at every Board
meeting, and I'll be in an adult studies /"foundation studies" course this
coming year.
) 5. Did you attend a Waldorf school as a child or teenager?
no
) 5. Briefly explain why you subscribed to the Waldorf critics list.
Sometime in 1996, I heard mention of people who considered waldorf schools a
cult activity, and someone posted Dan's website address. I joined and
lurked for years; I've been posting here, off and on, for about two years.
) 6. Do you think public Waldorf schools are a good idea? If so, why? If
not,
) please explain your position.
I am conflicted on the issue. A friend whose children attend a California
charter (not one of the ones discussed on this list) has told me some of
their problems, and contrasted that school with ours.
Even if it were allowed, I would oppose any effort to make Meadowbrook a
charter school ("converting" private schools to charter isn't allowed here;
you have to start from scratch).
) 7. Have you read or studied any of the works of Rudolf Steiner? Which
ones?
Some. Scattered lectures. None of the "big works", but I'm sure we will in
the course this coming year.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:28:43 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Love, light, holding and carrying
My daughters used to argue about their opening verse (for grade 1 through
4). One learned it as
"... I reverence, O God", and the other learned,
"... I revere, O God..."
Haven't heard from the third one how theirs goes.
David
Diana said:
) I also hate to hear "reverence" used as a verb. Didn't it used to be
"revere"? :)
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:27:37 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)(x-charset iso-8859-1)Well Michael, I don't have to wade through the
)archives coz some kind soul
) and I'm not speaking anthroposophically) explained 'Godzone' .........so
)now I know!
)
)As we are practically neighbours I'll excuse your recent post as an
)antipodean aberration! :)
)
)cheers Deb
--
Generous of you; what are you, an Ocker? It's a popular myth that Godzone
was once attached to the landmass of Australia, and it's a popular myth
that Kiwis and Ozzies are "practically neighbours".
But I don't need an Ocker to "excuse" my post as any kind of "aberration",
much less "antipodean" (though I'm really fond of the Antipodes -- a New
Zealand possession, not Australian -- believe me, I'm a Yank).
And the explanation of "Godzone" from the "kind soul" is wrong: that's NOT
how I mean it, and that's not how it's come to be used.
As I said: 87. See the archives for MY explanation.
Gidday,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:48:43 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: factors in success
) Lisa says: I would have to seriously question the quality of *any* school
) program that did NOT have as one of its aims teaching children to read and
) write as soon as they enter first grade.
It's fine that that's your position, Lisa, but then what the heck were you
doing at a waldorf school? Are you saying you were unaware that the waldorf
school would not be stressing reading in first grade? I somehow doubt that.
) I also want to point out that the classroom that I mentioned in my
) previous post (the one in which fully a third of the children were either
) already receiving tutoring in reading and/or math or were being identified
) as in need of it) was NOT a first or second grade classroom.
) It was a fourth grade classroom.
You missed (or ignored) Tarjei's more important point. If 'success stories'
can be dismissed as anecdotal, so can 'failure stories' with equal validity.
Your child's experience, or the experience of her class, says nothing about
waldorf education.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:01:55 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Takeasha ("True Ancient Queen" Henderson, aka Queen GodIs [God Is], I
believe, who is now a Vassar graduate and "multi-talented performance
artist, writer, empowerer of disempowered convicts, etc., etc.", as well as
a Waldorf graduate) wrote in response to Michael Kopp's criticisms of her:
)Should I respond with a long drawn out intellectual rambling in an
)attempt to prove my intelligence and schooling, and maybe throw in a
)phrase like "the true disease of our times," so my post will sound more
)prophetic? Would it matter because you, and others I'm sure, likely
)assume anything I say in defense of Waldorf is a product of having been
)brainwashed, thus my presence in the forum seems futile.
Michael Kopp, in a long drawn out intellectual rambling (DO try to stay
with it, Takeasha, dearest, despite your Waldorf-bred attention deficit),
replies:
Well, I wouldn't waste your time if you think that we want your posts to
sound -- or you could _make_ them sound -- more "prophetic" by throwing in
phrases which you denigrate when we use them.
Prophetic. That's the key word here. If you really mean prophetic, then you
must have gotten closer to the higher worlds of Saint Rudi than most
Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical students, including the ones who spend
lifetimes burrowing through the guru's 80,000 pages in search of the
clairvoyant ability required for prophesy as promised by Rudi. Are you
bucking to take Anthroposophy back from Rudi to avenge your sister,
Blavatsky? What's your prophesy for the next Super Bowl, eh?
Come on, kid, get off your high horse and accept the criticism for what it is.
If you speak rationally and articulately -- not the opposite as you have
done so far -- then your "presence" in the forum will NOT be futile, and
will be welcomed. So far you're just like all the other products of a cult
who have never introspected it skeptically or critically, or perhaps have
never realised that's what it was, and whose knee-jerk defences of their
ethos are pathetic and hollow.
And, already you have learned the art of putdown of any opponent who offers
an argument that is longer than a 10-second sitcom punchline: ask if the
opponent thinks you should do something that you obviously think is silly
and worthless, and imply that that's what the opponent is doing themselves
("long drawn out intellectual rambling"). I suppose I should be flattered
that Takeasha thinks, if even as a putdown, that my writing is
intellectual,.*
[*That's one of the hallmarks of a Steiner's brainwashing: the inability to
grasp "long drawn out intellectual rambling" -- otherwise known as the
extended expression and study of ideas, which, even as recently as 50 years
ago when I was a kid, was still a staple of education.]
)You have judged my intelligence and education based on two days worth of
)internet chat postings. Your assertions are absurd considering what you
)know about me, and in fact, they speak more about your own willingness
)to judge on a trivial basis, in this case simply because I have
)indicated a connection to waldorf and posted a couple of comments not up
)to your intellectual and academic standards.
This is not a chat line, kiddo. We're talking people's lives, their kids'
lives (for those who belive, their and their kids spiritual lives). This
ain't tiddlywinks or parlour talk or polite banter: this is hardball
criticism of a big problem. And anyone -- anyone -- who hangs their ideas
out on the Internet can expect to get them roasted. Especially if they are
trivial about a serious subject.
No, you won't accept it, but you're wrong. I didn't judge your
_intelligence_ at all, I judged the expression of that intelligence, your
ideas and words. You may indeed be very intelligent -- it's just hard for
me to tell. As to your Vassar education -- that's not showing too well
either. But your Steiner one is.
I don't judge on trivia: your words are all you have to represent your
thoughts. So far your words are not trivially inadequate, but deeply so.
It's not a question of your not being up to MY "intellectual and academic
standards". It's that you're not up the those standards that have always
been the goal of educated people. I have seen enough Waldorf graduates to
know that that's the case with most of them. Only a few, who would be
standouts anywhere because of their greater intelligence and intellect,
rise above their conditioning. My assertions are NOT absurd, they are
well-founded.
And you are wrong that I criticise you _"simply"_ because of your Waldorf
status: I criticise ideas and the people who hold them, and beliefs and the
institutions that people associate with those beliefs; I criticise people
for defending institutions which are demonstrably dangerous. If that shoe
fits, you'll have to wear it.
)You may think you know everything about WE because your child went there
)(for how long?)and I'm telling you that you're wrong, I was in a waldorf
)school, you were not--oh yeah, nevermind, I forgot that I'm brainwashed.
My children were in a Steiner school for four and five years respectively,
and I think it is the height of arrogance for you, a young person who has
experienced something to denigrate the intellectual understanding of that
thing by another person who, while not experiencing it directly in a
classroom*, has been involved for almost a decade, and who has studied SWA
a great deal since he twigged to the fact that it was medieval mysticism,
which was about one year into our five years of association.
[*Wow! Zing! Got me, there, Takeasha. You're absolutely right: I don't
know, firsthand, what goes on in a Waldorf classroom. Very few SWA critics
do, for the simple reason that the classrooms are closed and parents who
ask if they can sit in on, say, a random day's main lesson of a morning,
are refused absolutely. Some schools hold open days where people can watch
what are called lessons; some schools do let parents in occasionally. But
one cannot simply walk into a Waldorf classroom -- even at the beginning,
so as not to interrupt -- and observe a regular lesson, as one can in most
public schools (pre-Columbine). Most Waldorf critics have thus reasonably
come to believe that what IS shown from time to time is NOT what happens
everyday. And those few Waldorf students and parents who have seen the real
thing, and got out of Waldorf, bear the critics out.]
The next paragraph (you do like stream-of-consciousness -- or is it
stream-of- unconsciousness -- writing, don't you, Takeasha) is so long and
jumbled, that I will have to take it apart to reply.
)Michael, YOU are a SAD representative of the waldorf-critics movement
)(or whatever you call yourselves)
I am not a representative of anything but my own thinking about this
educational, social, cultural, economic and political menace known as
Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophy. (I don't add "spiritual" because I don't
know of any spiritual realm, there being no evidence of one; but for people
who do believe there is one, Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy are a
greater danger to that spirituality than to any secular concern.) Did you
learn your use of insinuation ("whatever you call yourselves") from your
SWA teachers? It's common in argument by SWA Defenders of the Faith [DoFs,
a term I coined here].
)because your own ignorance of waldorf
)education is obvious,
How is that "obvious"? Normally, when one's position is attacked by a
critic, one shows rebuttal. You, like all clueless, duped, brainwashed,
irrational people, simply react against the criticism and say that I can't
know what I'm talking about because it differs with your beliefs and
experience, and I don't share your beliefs and experiences. This is rubbish
thinking and argument.
Demonstrate -- with evidence, not your opinion -- what I have said that is
ignorant of SWA.
)and you fail to show respect to someone who is
)interested in what waldorf-critics have to say,
I should show respect for you because you claim to be interested in what
"waldorf-critics" have to say? Why? Have you asked any intelligent
questions? (Have you asked any real questions, in fact; or have you just
said you think critics must be wrong because your experience was so
wonderful.)
Why should I respect you when you can't use the language correctly, admit
you don't know much about Steiner, and you don't respect me for my age,
wisdom (not to mention beauty) and knowledge?* You haven't lived much yet,
have you? But I've been around a long time. Doesn't that make me
respectable? Apparently not in your and other Waldorf grads' eyes. The fact
that I criticise you and your cult brainwashing gets up your nose, and so
you have to demand respect from me, and put me down.
[*The reason is simple: SWA's "education for freedom" means teaching
children to reject the thinking and knowledge of any established source in
favour of their own "intuition" -- a subject I've written about extensively
here (it's in the archives). We're not talking intuition as in "hunch";
we're talking intuition that Steiner insisted was the ONLY way to know the
world: literally, "teaching oneself", thinking from within, rejecting
evidence from without, attaining ultimately the ability to communicate with
"higher realms". This isn't taught _overtly_ in SWA classrooms, because
Steiner said it had to be hidden. But Steiner also said every minute, every
action, every thought, in a Waldorf classroom was to contain Anthroposophy
-- not "be informed by" or based on, as current SWA disclaimers assert when
they say Anthroposophy is not taught. SWA students are taught by stealth
and repetition and reinforcement of _their_ ideas, however wild, to reject
the world's knowledge, so that they will follow Steiner's path to the
"higher realms". But they do get Steiner's mystical mishmash of
Theosophical and other esoteric ideas of history, nature, science, and
literature, force-fed by chalk-talk and copied verbatim into pretty-looking
main lesson books. Not facts: mythology, phenomenology, esotericism. In
other words, they are brainwashed. Doubly so because they don't have facts
and they can't think critically.
[And, lest one think that I'm suggesting that Waldorf students should
accept everything they are told by adults as gospel, let me say that that
would be a twisting of my thesis about "intuition" and the relativism of
valorization of ideas as practiced by Steiner students -- in fact by all
irrationalists. I certainly want students to test what they are told, by
using the skeptical questioning of reason, by confirming or refuting
evidence, not by saying, "well, all right for you, buy MY truth is
different", or "you can't prove it isn't so, therefore I could be as right
as you are". The problem with Waldorf students is they are so busy
intuiting about the world that they don't have time or room to learn facts,
from which to reason. And nor do their teachers, trained by Steiner just
so, believe that facts are necessary for intuition. This is called
"Erewhonian" logic; see the footnote at the end of this post. ]
Takeasha, if you were truly interested in what critics have to say, you
would have read the PLANS Web site from go to woe, and delved into the
archives of this list, or lurked on this list for some time before telling
me that I'm ignorant because you were there and know better than I do.
This is the primary symptom of a Waldorf education: unwillingness to look
at the critical views of others, while pretending to have "an open mind".
It is exactly the result Steiner wanted: children who are free to believe
any weird idea that pops into their heads through "intuition", and free to
demand that that idea be given as much credence as any other idea,
unquestioned. It is particularly pernicious because it leads to the
overthrow of civilised conduct and norms of society that have been held
dear for the last 300 years. It leads to fascism.
)alienating me, and
)others I'm sure, from your cause and concerns about WE.
Well, gosh, Takeasha, I'm really not the least bit concerned with whether
I've alienated you or not by calling attention to your failings and the
brainwashing you've been subjected to. It's not my mission to rescue you; I
don't have any "cause". I'm a journalist and writer who wants to warn the
world about something that is dangerous and despicable. Grow up and dry
your crocodile tears of personal hurt with the handkerchief of knowledge.
)I have concerns
)about WE
That's not what you said in your first post, which was to tell us how
successful your mates had been (you're the one who went to Vassar, eh?),
and that you were sure that was the case with most if not all Waldorf
schools (you presented no evidence or any basis for your authority to make
this claim); and when in your first post you trotted out the hoariest old
excuse of SWA DoFs that the bad personal experiences spoken of by critics
here must be isolated instances and the bulk of the Waldorf movement is
just fine.
What are your concerns about WE, Takeasha? Begin with those, instead of
crying about reasonable criticism of your apologia for your own
inadequacies as well as SWA.
)and certainly Steiner (though I know less about him),
What are your concerns about Steiner, Takeasha? Waldorf critics have lots
of them, they're catalogued in over 30,000 posts on this list over six
years. If you don't know much about Steiner, perhaps you should educate
yourself from the sources of criticism available, instead of making
reactionary defences of WE in response to the current criticism.
)but I
)feel I have been forced to defend myself instead of discussing real
)concerns.
Well, most people whose ideas and qualifications for arguing them have been
questioned manage to do both, Takeasha, defend their ideas and
qualifications AND discuss real concerns. Since the criticisms of your
problems with language and knowledge are pertinent examples of what critics
see as the primary failings of the Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical way,
they are germane to the discussion of "real concerns". In fact, they are
the real concerns, for parents. Only "philosophy warriors" are concerned
with the underlying thinking of Steiner in terms of its place in the
history of thought. Those of us who reject Steiner and everything to do
with him because it is irrational have no need to discuss epistemology.
Those of us who decry the failures imposed on kids by such an educational
fascism have no need to discuss Steiner's method of "knowing higher
worlds". We want our kids to use reason, not intuition. If we'd know before
enrolling our kids that they would be taught UNreason, we would not have
made the mistake. We were deceived and defrauded. That's what you're
defending, and because your arguments are not well formed or logical or
able to provide any real evidence, then your are subject to the same
criticism.
)If you want more support this is not the way.
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa ....... let me catch my breath! Support
from whom, Takeasha?
In the six year history of this list, only one or two former Waldorf
parents -- nominally DoFs when they arrived here -- have ever become vocal
critics who support the efforts of PLANS in their fight against Steiner's
cult religion in public schools and against SWA schools' false advertising
and defrauding of parents. Lisa Ercolano is the most successful such
person. It takes balls to come out and say you were wrong about believing
in something that you later learn is so ridiculous as Steiner's world-view
and his destructive "education".
But there have been others who have taken heed of what the critics have
said, and removed their kids. Many have to do this quietly, and it takes
time, because they could still be subject to community backlash from local
SWA stalwarts. Retribution for defection is not unknown, and, certainly,
every parent who has ever left SWA has been subjected to good cop bad cop
treatment, love-bombing and vilification in turn. There is even a closed
mailing list for Waldorf survivors to help them deal with the trauma,
resist the importunings and attacks, and allow them space to discuss their
experiences without being universally rubbished by the Dofs, as they are
here on this list if they speak out.
So who cares whether you "support" us, Takeasha? I certainly wouldn't
expect it (no other Waldorf grad who has ever come her has, to my
knowledge, ever seen the light because of this list (some recent posters
here who were Waldorf students worked it out for themselves before they
found the list). Nobody like Ezra Beeman, who denied that HIV causes AIDS,
and backed Steiner's crackpot medical theories and those of the discredited
scientist Duesberg, has ever come back and said, "gosh, you guys were
right, I was sold a pup, thanks so much for lifting the scales from my
eyes".
Why don't you be the first, Takeasha? Turn your "concerns" with WE and
Steiner into critical thinking. Find out enough so we CAN respect you for
what you say and learn how to say it well enough that we can respect you
for the clarity of your thinking.
And let me say again, for your benefit as well as others', that I am not a
part of PLANS or any WC group or any organisation in any way.
I don't need YOUR support for my ideas, thanks, Takeasha.
[*Footnote about popular, or Erewhonian, logic. Erewhon is a sheep station
in the South Island of New Zealand, by the way. Those who have had a decent
university education in the last 100 years will know of its other meaning;
and, yes, the two are related. A great lexicographer and thinker, Bergen
Evans (whom I remember from my teenaged days as a wondrous fount of
knowledge and erudition on television game shows like "What's My Line",
wrote this a while ago. I don't think it's out of date, though the last 20
years of post-Modern anti-thought seems to have forgotten it.
[Popular logic is Erewhonian logic.
[Whereas the trained mind accords belief to plausible evidence only and
grants a possibility solely on the basis of a sound inference from
established facts, the untrained mind insists that a proposition must be
true if it cannot be disproved.
['You can't prove it isn't so!" is as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic -- as
though it were necessary to submit a piece of the moon to chemical analysis
before you could be sure that it was not made of green cheese.
[-- Bergen Evans, "The Natural History of Nonsense", 1947]
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:26:25 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: factors in success
David Cann says:
)) Lisa says: I would have to seriously question the quality of *any* school
)) program that did NOT have as one of its aims teaching children to read and
)) write as soon as they enter first grade.
)
)It's fine that that's your position, Lisa, but then what the heck were you
)doing at a waldorf school? Are you saying you were unaware that the waldorf
)school would not be stressing reading in first grade? I somehow doubt that.
)
)) I also want to point out that the classroom that I mentioned in my
)) previous post (the one in which fully a third of the children were either
)) already receiving tutoring in reading and/or math or were being identified
)) as in need of it) was NOT a first or second grade classroom.
)) It was a fourth grade classroom.
)
)You missed (or ignored) Tarjei's more important point. If 'success stories'
)can be dismissed as anecdotal, so can 'failure stories' with equal validity.
)Your child's experience, or the experience of her class, says nothing about
)waldorf education.
)
)David
--
Which is why we concentrate so much on the details of the actual classroom
experience and curriculum content, as best we can by the evidence of
Steiuner's own words, Waldorf teachers, teachers' aides, parents who get a
look in (rare), main lesson books, Waldorf teachers' college curricula and
teacher-education materials, books by Steiner Waldorf Anthrophsophy
devotees, acolytes, interpreters, practitioners and proselytes, and any
other documentary evidence we can get our hands on.
Most of which is pooh-poohed by Defenders of the Faith as being anecdotal,
out of context, misunderstood, not mainstream Waldorf practice, or whatever
is the excuse du jour.
We also ask questions, direct questions, most of which are either answered
with so much that says so little, or so little that says so much (about
obfuscation, mis- and dis-information and propaganda).
Come on, David you're telling me that the experience of my own eyes, with
my own kids, as well as watching my kids' friends, many of whom have
educational deficiencies identifiable with the Steiner Waldorf
Anthroposophy cult method of brainwashing, is not reliable?
You guys just won't give up, will you?
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:37:26 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: factors in success
Lisa here: Good point, David. I should have been more clear.
I should have said "In light of our family's experience at Waldorf, I
now seriously question ..."
Let me add that Waldorf's promise not to rush children was very
appealing to me and my husband when we enrolled my daughter and of course we
knew about it.
Waldorf's approach to reading, however, was largely irrelevent to our
situation even when we approved of it, as our daughter taught herself to
read at age 4. In fact, that was a subject of some concern to her Waldorf
teacher, who was constantly admonishing us that Olivia might be "too much in
her head" and so on.
Of course, there is a vast, vast difference between not forcing children
to do things prematurely and refusing to allow them to when the time is
right. And unfortunately, the latter is what we encountered at our Waldorf
school.
Right before we withdrew our daughter from grade 4, we met with the
teacher to try to talk to her one more time about all the things that
concerned us (our daughter had spent grades 1-4 copying all her mainlesson
material, drawings, etc. from the blackboard; she had not written a single
book report, original essay, report or story in the entire time she was
there, etc.) and were told, yet again that Olivia needed "to be moved from
her head into her trunk." (How were we to do this? You would not believe the
suggestions that teacher made. Another post! (g))
So all in all, though I still do not believe children should be pushed to
do anything before they are ready, I now firmly believe that first grade IS
the time when most children are, in fact, ready.
)) Lisa says: I would have to seriously question the quality of *any* school
)) program that did NOT have as one of its aims teaching children to read and
)) write as soon as they enter first grade.
)
) It's fine that that's your position, Lisa, but then what the heck were you
) doing at a waldorf school? Are you saying you were unaware that the waldorf
) school would not be stressing reading in first grade? I somehow doubt that.
)
)) I also want to point out that the classroom that I mentioned in my
)) previous post (the one in which fully a third of the children were either
)) already receiving tutoring in reading and/or math or were being identified
)) as in need of it) was NOT a first or second grade classroom.
)) It was a fourth grade classroom.
)
) You missed (or ignored) Tarjei's more important point. If 'success stories'
) can be dismissed as anecdotal, so can 'failure stories' with equal validity.
) Your child's experience, or the experience of her class, says nothing about
) waldorf education.
)
) David
)
) ----------------------------------------------------
) NetZero Platinum
) Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
) http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 394
-- Topica Digest --
Re:Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Love, light, holding and carrying
By faiman jlc.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By takeasha excite.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dingman mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By faiman jlc.net
RE: questions to elicit discussion
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk
pissing and shitting
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Admin: RE: Waldorf Grads
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By TTirrell1 aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:44:44 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Peter Zegers mail 1st Aug
Dear critics,
I will not go deeper into the discussion about
conspiracism/revisionism in Anthroposophy now. The post from Mr.
Boardman illustrated very well some of the problems I have
encountered in anthroposophical literature. The sad fact is that some
of these people teach "history" at Waldorfschools. As I wrote before
I am working on an article about this. I will let you know when it is
published.
Best regards,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:11:03 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: Love, light, holding and carrying
Diana Winters wrote:
) ...
) P.S. I also hate to hear "reverence" used as a verb. Didn't it used to
) be
) "revere"? :)
And can we add "to gift", "to author", and "to birth" to the list?
-Neil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:19:15 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
I am not that Takeasha, it is a common name.
I am not using my name, sorry for any confusion.
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Takeasha ("True Ancient Queen" Henderson, aka Queen GodIs [God Is], I
) believe, who is now a Vassar graduate and "multi-talented performance
) artist, writer, empowerer of disempowered convicts, etc., etc.", as well
) as
) a Waldorf graduate) wrote in response to Michael Kopp's criticisms of
) her:
)
) )Should I respond with a long drawn out intellectual rambling in an
) )attempt to prove my intelligence and schooling, and maybe throw in a
) )phrase like "the true disease of our times," so my post will sound more
) )prophetic? Would it matter because you, and others I'm sure, likely
) )assume anything I say in defense of Waldorf is a product of having been
) )brainwashed, thus my presence in the forum seems futile.
)
) Michael Kopp, in a long drawn out intellectual rambling (DO try to stay
) with it, Takeasha, dearest, despite your Waldorf-bred attention
) deficit),
) replies:
)
) Well, I wouldn't waste your time if you think that we want your posts to
) sound -- or you could _make_ them sound -- more "prophetic" by throwing
) in
) phrases which you denigrate when we use them.
)
) Prophetic. That's the key word here. If you really mean prophetic, then
) you
) must have gotten closer to the higher worlds of Saint Rudi than most
) Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical students, including the ones who
) spend
) lifetimes burrowing through the guru's 80,000 pages in search of the
) clairvoyant ability required for prophesy as promised by Rudi. Are you
) bucking to take Anthroposophy back from Rudi to avenge your sister,
) Blavatsky? What's your prophesy for the next Super Bowl, eh?
)
) Come on, kid, get off your high horse and accept the criticism for what
) it is.
)
) If you speak rationally and articulately -- not the opposite as you have
) done so far -- then your "presence" in the forum will NOT be futile, and
) will be welcomed. So far you're just like all the other products of a
) cult
) who have never introspected it skeptically or critically, or perhaps
) have
) never realised that's what it was, and whose knee-jerk defences of their
) ethos are pathetic and hollow.
)
) And, already you have learned the art of putdown of any opponent who
) offers
) an argument that is longer than a 10-second sitcom punchline: ask if the
) opponent thinks you should do something that you obviously think is
) silly
) and worthless, and imply that that's what the opponent is doing
) themselves
) ("long drawn out intellectual rambling"). I suppose I should be
) flattered
) that Takeasha thinks, if even as a putdown, that my writing is
) intellectual,.*
)
) [*That's one of the hallmarks of a Steiner's brainwashing: the inability
) to
) grasp "long drawn out intellectual rambling" -- otherwise known as the
) extended expression and study of ideas, which, even as recently as 50
) years
) ago when I was a kid, was still a staple of education.]
)
) )You have judged my intelligence and education based on two days worth of
) )internet chat postings. Your assertions are absurd considering what you
) )know about me, and in fact, they speak more about your own willingness
) )to judge on a trivial basis, in this case simply because I have
) )indicated a connection to waldorf and posted a couple of comments not up
) )to your intellectual and academic standards.
)
) This is not a chat line, kiddo. We're talking people's lives, their
) kids'
) lives (for those who belive, their and their kids spiritual lives). This
) ain't tiddlywinks or parlour talk or polite banter: this is hardball
) criticism of a big problem. And anyone -- anyone -- who hangs their
) ideas
) out on the Internet can expect to get them roasted. Especially if they
) are
) trivial about a serious subject.
)
) No, you won't accept it, but you're wrong. I didn't judge your
) _intelligence_ at all, I judged the expression of that intelligence,
) your
) ideas and words. You may indeed be very intelligent -- it's just hard
) for
) me to tell. As to your Vassar education -- that's not showing too well
) either. But your Steiner one is.
)
) I don't judge on trivia: your words are all you have to represent your
) thoughts. So far your words are not trivially inadequate, but deeply so.
) It's not a question of your not being up to MY "intellectual and
) academic
) standards". It's that you're not up the those standards that have always
) been the goal of educated people. I have seen enough Waldorf graduates
) to
) know that that's the case with most of them. Only a few, who would be
) standouts anywhere because of their greater intelligence and intellect,
) rise above their conditioning. My assertions are NOT absurd, they are
) well-founded.
)
) And you are wrong that I criticise you _"simply"_ because of your
) Waldorf
) status: I criticise ideas and the people who hold them, and beliefs and
) the
) institutions that people associate with those beliefs; I criticise
) people
) for defending institutions which are demonstrably dangerous. If that
) shoe
) fits, you'll have to wear it.
)
) )You may think you know everything about WE because your child went there
) )(for how long?)and I'm telling you that you're wrong, I was in a waldorf
) )school, you were not--oh yeah, nevermind, I forgot that I'm brainwashed.
)
) My children were in a Steiner school for four and five years
) respectively,
) and I think it is the height of arrogance for you, a young person who
) has
) experienced something to denigrate the intellectual understanding of
) that
) thing by another person who, while not experiencing it directly in a
) classroom*, has been involved for almost a decade, and who has studied
) SWA
) a great deal since he twigged to the fact that it was medieval
) mysticism,
) which was about one year into our five years of association.
)
) [*Wow! Zing! Got me, there, Takeasha. You're absolutely right: I don't
) know, firsthand, what goes on in a Waldorf classroom. Very few SWA
) critics
) do, for the simple reason that the classrooms are closed and parents who
) ask if they can sit in on, say, a random day's main lesson of a morning,
) are refused absolutely. Some schools hold open days where people can
) watch
) what are called lessons; some schools do let parents in occasionally.
) But
) one cannot simply walk into a Waldorf classroom -- even at the
) beginning,
) so as not to interrupt -- and observe a regular lesson, as one can in
) most
) public schools (pre-Columbine). Most Waldorf critics have thus
) reasonably
) come to believe that what IS shown from time to time is NOT what happens
) everyday. And those few Waldorf students and parents who have seen the
) real
) thing, and got out of Waldorf, bear the critics out.]
)
) The next paragraph (you do like stream-of-consciousness -- or is it
) stream-of- unconsciousness -- writing, don't you, Takeasha) is so long
) and
) jumbled, that I will have to take it apart to reply.
)
) )Michael, YOU are a SAD representative of the waldorf-critics movement
) )(or whatever you call yourselves)
)
) I am not a representative of anything but my own thinking about this
) educational, social, cultural, economic and political menace known as
) Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophy. (I don't add "spiritual" because I don't
) know of any spiritual realm, there being no evidence of one; but for
) people
) who do believe there is one, Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy are a
) greater danger to that spirituality than to any secular concern.) Did
) you
) learn your use of insinuation ("whatever you call yourselves") from your
) SWA teachers? It's common in argument by SWA Defenders of the Faith
) [DoFs,
) a term I coined here].
)
) )because your own ignorance of waldorf
) )education is obvious,
)
) How is that "obvious"? Normally, when one's position is attacked by a
) critic, one shows rebuttal. You, like all clueless, duped, brainwashed,
) irrational people, simply react against the criticism and say that I
) can't
) know what I'm talking about because it differs with your beliefs and
) experience, and I don't share your beliefs and experiences. This is
) rubbish
) thinking and argument.
)
) Demonstrate -- with evidence, not your opinion -- what I have said that
) is
) ignorant of SWA.
)
) )and you fail to show respect to someone who is
) )interested in what waldorf-critics have to say,
)
) I should show respect for you because you claim to be interested in what
) "waldorf-critics" have to say? Why? Have you asked any intelligent
) questions? (Have you asked any real questions, in fact; or have you just
) said you think critics must be wrong because your experience was so
) wonderful.)
)
) Why should I respect you when you can't use the language correctly,
) admit
) you don't know much about Steiner, and you don't respect me for my age,
) wisdom (not to mention beauty) and knowledge?* You haven't lived much
) yet,
) have you? But I've been around a long time. Doesn't that make me
) respectable? Apparently not in your and other Waldorf grads' eyes. The
) fact
) that I criticise you and your cult brainwashing gets up your nose, and
) so
) you have to demand respect from me, and put me down.
)
) [*The reason is simple: SWA's "education for freedom" means teaching
) children to reject the thinking and knowledge of any established source
) in
) favour of their own "intuition" -- a subject I've written about
) extensively
) here (it's in the archives). We're not talking intuition as in "hunch";
) we're talking intuition that Steiner insisted was the ONLY way to know
) the
) world: literally, "teaching oneself", thinking from within, rejecting
) evidence from without, attaining ultimately the ability to communicate
) with
) "higher realms". This isn't taught _overtly_ in SWA classrooms, because
) Steiner said it had to be hidden. But Steiner also said every minute,
) every
) action, every thought, in a Waldorf classroom was to contain
) Anthroposophy
) -- not "be informed by" or based on, as current SWA disclaimers assert
) when
) they say Anthroposophy is not taught. SWA students are taught by stealth
) and repetition and reinforcement of _their_ ideas, however wild, to
) reject
) the world's knowledge, so that they will follow Steiner's path to the
) "higher realms". But they do get Steiner's mystical mishmash of
) Theosophical and other esoteric ideas of history, nature, science, and
) literature, force-fed by chalk-talk and copied verbatim into
) pretty-looking
) main lesson books. Not facts: mythology, phenomenology, esotericism. In
) other words, they are brainwashed. Doubly so because they don't have
) facts
) and they can't think critically.
)
) [And, lest one think that I'm suggesting that Waldorf students should
) accept everything they are told by adults as gospel, let me say that
) that
) would be a twisting of my thesis about "intuition" and the relativism of
) valorization of ideas as practiced by Steiner students -- in fact by all
) irrationalists. I certainly want students to test what they are told, by
) using the skeptical questioning of reason, by confirming or refuting
) evidence, not by saying, "well, all right for you, buy MY truth is
) different", or "you can't prove it isn't so, therefore I could be as
) right
) as you are". The problem with Waldorf students is they are so busy
) intuiting about the world that they don't have time or room to learn
) facts,
) from which to reason. And nor do their teachers, trained by Steiner just
) so, believe that facts are necessary for intuition. This is called
) "Erewhonian" logic; see the footnote at the end of this post. ]
)
) Takeasha, if you were truly interested in what critics have to say, you
) would have read the PLANS Web site from go to woe, and delved into the
) archives of this list, or lurked on this list for some time before
) telling
) me that I'm ignorant because you were there and know better than I do.
)
) This is the primary symptom of a Waldorf education: unwillingness to
) look
) at the critical views of others, while pretending to have "an open
) mind".
) It is exactly the result Steiner wanted: children who are free to
) believe
) any weird idea that pops into their heads through "intuition", and free
) to
) demand that that idea be given as much credence as any other idea,
) unquestioned. It is particularly pernicious because it leads to the
) overthrow of civilised conduct and norms of society that have been held
) dear for the last 300 years. It leads to fascism.
)
) )alienating me, and
) )others I'm sure, from your cause and concerns about WE.
)
) Well, gosh, Takeasha, I'm really not the least bit concerned with
) whether
) I've alienated you or not by calling attention to your failings and the
) brainwashing you've been subjected to. It's not my mission to rescue
) you; I
) don't have any "cause". I'm a journalist and writer who wants to warn
) the
) world about something that is dangerous and despicable. Grow up and dry
) your crocodile tears of personal hurt with the handkerchief of
) knowledge.
)
) )I have concerns
) )about WE
)
) That's not what you said in your first post, which was to tell us how
) successful your mates had been (you're the one who went to Vassar, eh?),
) and that you were sure that was the case with most if not all Waldorf
) schools (you presented no evidence or any basis for your authority to
) make
) this claim); and when in your first post you trotted out the hoariest
) old
) excuse of SWA DoFs that the bad personal experiences spoken of by
) critics
) here must be isolated instances and the bulk of the Waldorf movement is
) just fine.
)
) What are your concerns about WE, Takeasha? Begin with those, instead of
) crying about reasonable criticism of your apologia for your own
) inadequacies as well as SWA.
)
) )and certainly Steiner (though I know less about him),
)
) What are your concerns about Steiner, Takeasha? Waldorf critics have
) lots
) of them, they're catalogued in over 30,000 posts on this list over six
) years. If you don't know much about Steiner, perhaps you should educate
) yourself from the sources of criticism available, instead of making
) reactionary defences of WE in response to the current criticism.
)
) )but I
) )feel I have been forced to defend myself instead of discussing real
) )concerns.
)
) Well, most people whose ideas and qualifications for arguing them have
) been
) questioned manage to do both, Takeasha, defend their ideas and
) qualifications AND discuss real concerns. Since the criticisms of your
) problems with language and knowledge are pertinent examples of what
) critics
) see as the primary failings of the Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical way,
) they are germane to the discussion of "real concerns". In fact, they are
) the real concerns, for parents. Only "philosophy warriors" are concerned
) with the underlying thinking of Steiner in terms of its place in the
) history of thought. Those of us who reject Steiner and everything to do
) with him because it is irrational have no need to discuss epistemology.
) Those of us who decry the failures imposed on kids by such an
) educational
) fascism have no need to discuss Steiner's method of "knowing higher
) worlds". We want our kids to use reason, not intuition. If we'd know
) before
) enrolling our kids that they would be taught UNreason, we would not have
) made the mistake. We were deceived and defrauded. That's what you're
) defending, and because your arguments are not well formed or logical or
) able to provide any real evidence, then your are subject to the same
) criticism.
)
) )If you want more support this is not the way.
)
) Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa ....... let me catch my breath!
) Support
) from whom, Takeasha?
)
) In the six year history of this list, only one or two former Waldorf
) parents -- nominally DoFs when they arrived here -- have ever become
) vocal
) critics who support the efforts of PLANS in their fight against
) Steiner's
) cult religion in public schools and against SWA schools' false
) advertising
) and defrauding of parents. Lisa Ercolano is the most successful such
) person. It takes balls to come out and say you were wrong about
) believing
) in something that you later learn is so ridiculous as Steiner's
) world-view
) and his destructive "education".
)
) But there have been others who have taken heed of what the critics have
) said, and removed their kids. Many have to do this quietly, and it takes
) time, because they could still be subject to community backlash from
) local
) SWA stalwarts. Retribution for defection is not unknown, and, certainly,
) every parent who has ever left SWA has been subjected to good cop bad
) cop
) treatment, love-bombing and vilification in turn. There is even a closed
) mailing list for Waldorf survivors to help them deal with the trauma,
) resist the importunings and attacks, and allow them space to discuss
) their
) experiences without being universally rubbished by the Dofs, as they are
) here on this list if they speak out.
)
) So who cares whether you "support" us, Takeasha? I certainly wouldn't
) expect it (no other Waldorf grad who has ever come her has, to my
) knowledge, ever seen the light because of this list (some recent posters
) here who were Waldorf students worked it out for themselves before they
) found the list). Nobody like Ezra Beeman, who denied that HIV causes
) AIDS,
) and backed Steiner's crackpot medical theories and those of the
) discredited
) scientist Duesberg, has ever come back and said, "gosh, you guys were
) right, I was sold a pup, thanks so much for lifting the scales from my
) eyes".
)
) Why don't you be the first, Takeasha? Turn your "concerns" with WE and
) Steiner into critical thinking. Find out enough so we CAN respect you
) for
) what you say and learn how to say it well enough that we can respect you
) for the clarity of your thinking.
)
) And let me say again, for your benefit as well as others', that I am not
) a
) part of PLANS or any WC group or any organisation in any way.
)
) I don't need YOUR support for my ideas, thanks, Takeasha.
)
)
) [*Footnote about popular, or Erewhonian, logic. Erewhon is a sheep
) station
) in the South Island of New Zealand, by the way. Those who have had a
) decent
) university education in the last 100 years will know of its other
) meaning;
) and, yes, the two are related. A great lexicographer and thinker, Bergen
) Evans (whom I remember from my teenaged days as a wondrous fount of
) knowledge and erudition on television game shows like "What's My Line",
) wrote this a while ago. I don't think it's out of date, though the last
) 20
) years of post-Modern anti-thought seems to have forgotten it.
)
) [Popular logic is Erewhonian logic.
)
) [Whereas the trained mind accords belief to plausible evidence only and
) grants a possibility solely on the basis of a sound inference from
) established facts, the untrained mind insists that a proposition must be
) true if it cannot be disproved.
)
) ['You can't prove it isn't so!" is as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic -- as
) though it were necessary to submit a piece of the moon to chemical
) analysis
) before you could be sure that it was not made of green cheese.
)
) [-- Bergen Evans, "The Natural History of Nonsense", 1947]
)
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
) --
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:40:14 +0000
From: Takeasha (takeasha excite.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
I am not a Vassar grad...The truth is I didn't give my name because I
was not sure the nature of your discussion group. I am at work, I cannot
continue chatting with you all because I do have real things to do, and
this has not been constructive in any way for me, or for you.
I'm sure I will check up on this chat when I have more time on my hands
to respond in a worthy manner to your posts.
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Takeasha ("True Ancient Queen" Henderson, aka Queen GodIs [God Is], I
) believe, who is now a Vassar graduate and "multi-talented performance
) artist, writer, empowerer of disempowered convicts, etc., etc.", as well
) as
) a Waldorf graduate) wrote in response to Michael Kopp's criticisms of
) her:
)
) )Should I respond with a long drawn out intellectual rambling in an
) )attempt to prove my intelligence and schooling, and maybe throw in a
) )phrase like "the true disease of our times," so my post will sound more
) )prophetic? Would it matter because you, and others I'm sure, likely
) )assume anything I say in defense of Waldorf is a product of having been
) )brainwashed, thus my presence in the forum seems futile.
)
) Michael Kopp, in a long drawn out intellectual rambling (DO try to stay
) with it, Takeasha, dearest, despite your Waldorf-bred attention
) deficit),
) replies:
)
) Well, I wouldn't waste your time if you think that we want your posts to
) sound -- or you could _make_ them sound -- more "prophetic" by throwing
) in
) phrases which you denigrate when we use them.
)
) Prophetic. That's the key word here. If you really mean prophetic, then
) you
) must have gotten closer to the higher worlds of Saint Rudi than most
) Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical students, including the ones who
) spend
) lifetimes burrowing through the guru's 80,000 pages in search of the
) clairvoyant ability required for prophesy as promised by Rudi. Are you
) bucking to take Anthroposophy back from Rudi to avenge your sister,
) Blavatsky? What's your prophesy for the next Super Bowl, eh?
)
) Come on, kid, get off your high horse and accept the criticism for what
) it is.
)
) If you speak rationally and articulately -- not the opposite as you have
) done so far -- then your "presence" in the forum will NOT be futile, and
) will be welcomed. So far you're just like all the other products of a
) cult
) who have never introspected it skeptically or critically, or perhaps
) have
) never realised that's what it was, and whose knee-jerk defences of their
) ethos are pathetic and hollow.
)
) And, already you have learned the art of putdown of any opponent who
) offers
) an argument that is longer than a 10-second sitcom punchline: ask if the
) opponent thinks you should do something that you obviously think is
) silly
) and worthless, and imply that that's what the opponent is doing
) themselves
) ("long drawn out intellectual rambling"). I suppose I should be
) flattered
) that Takeasha thinks, if even as a putdown, that my writing is
) intellectual,.*
)
) [*That's one of the hallmarks of a Steiner's brainwashing: the inability
) to
) grasp "long drawn out intellectual rambling" -- otherwise known as the
) extended expression and study of ideas, which, even as recently as 50
) years
) ago when I was a kid, was still a staple of education.]
)
) )You have judged my intelligence and education based on two days worth of
) )internet chat postings. Your assertions are absurd considering what you
) )know about me, and in fact, they speak more about your own willingness
) )to judge on a trivial basis, in this case simply because I have
) )indicated a connection to waldorf and posted a couple of comments not up
) )to your intellectual and academic standards.
)
) This is not a chat line, kiddo. We're talking people's lives, their
) kids'
) lives (for those who belive, their and their kids spiritual lives). This
) ain't tiddlywinks or parlour talk or polite banter: this is hardball
) criticism of a big problem. And anyone -- anyone -- who hangs their
) ideas
) out on the Internet can expect to get them roasted. Especially if they
) are
) trivial about a serious subject.
)
) No, you won't accept it, but you're wrong. I didn't judge your
) _intelligence_ at all, I judged the expression of that intelligence,
) your
) ideas and words. You may indeed be very intelligent -- it's just hard
) for
) me to tell. As to your Vassar education -- that's not showing too well
) either. But your Steiner one is.
)
) I don't judge on trivia: your words are all you have to represent your
) thoughts. So far your words are not trivially inadequate, but deeply so.
) It's not a question of your not being up to MY "intellectual and
) academic
) standards". It's that you're not up the those standards that have always
) been the goal of educated people. I have seen enough Waldorf graduates
) to
) know that that's the case with most of them. Only a few, who would be
) standouts anywhere because of their greater intelligence and intellect,
) rise above their conditioning. My assertions are NOT absurd, they are
) well-founded.
)
) And you are wrong that I criticise you _"simply"_ because of your
) Waldorf
) status: I criticise ideas and the people who hold them, and beliefs and
) the
) institutions that people associate with those beliefs; I criticise
) people
) for defending institutions which are demonstrably dangerous. If that
) shoe
) fits, you'll have to wear it.
)
) )You may think you know everything about WE because your child went there
) )(for how long?)and I'm telling you that you're wrong, I was in a waldorf
) )school, you were not--oh yeah, nevermind, I forgot that I'm brainwashed.
)
) My children were in a Steiner school for four and five years
) respectively,
) and I think it is the height of arrogance for you, a young person who
) has
) experienced something to denigrate the intellectual understanding of
) that
) thing by another person who, while not experiencing it directly in a
) classroom*, has been involved for almost a decade, and who has studied
) SWA
) a great deal since he twigged to the fact that it was medieval
) mysticism,
) which was about one year into our five years of association.
)
) [*Wow! Zing! Got me, there, Takeasha. You're absolutely right: I don't
) know, firsthand, what goes on in a Waldorf classroom. Very few SWA
) critics
) do, for the simple reason that the classrooms are closed and parents who
) ask if they can sit in on, say, a random day's main lesson of a morning,
) are refused absolutely. Some schools hold open days where people can
) watch
) what are called lessons; some schools do let parents in occasionally.
) But
) one cannot simply walk into a Waldorf classroom -- even at the
) beginning,
) so as not to interrupt -- and observe a regular lesson, as one can in
) most
) public schools (pre-Columbine). Most Waldorf critics have thus
) reasonably
) come to believe that what IS shown from time to time is NOT what happens
) everyday. And those few Waldorf students and parents who have seen the
) real
) thing, and got out of Waldorf, bear the critics out.]
)
) The next paragraph (you do like stream-of-consciousness -- or is it
) stream-of- unconsciousness -- writing, don't you, Takeasha) is so long
) and
) jumbled, that I will have to take it apart to reply.
)
) )Michael, YOU are a SAD representative of the waldorf-critics movement
) )(or whatever you call yourselves)
)
) I am not a representative of anything but my own thinking about this
) educational, social, cultural, economic and political menace known as
) Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophy. (I don't add "spiritual" because I don't
) know of any spiritual realm, there being no evidence of one; but for
) people
) who do believe there is one, Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy are a
) greater danger to that spirituality than to any secular concern.) Did
) you
) learn your use of insinuation ("whatever you call yourselves") from your
) SWA teachers? It's common in argument by SWA Defenders of the Faith
) [DoFs,
) a term I coined here].
)
) )because your own ignorance of waldorf
) )education is obvious,
)
) How is that "obvious"? Normally, when one's position is attacked by a
) critic, one shows rebuttal. You, like all clueless, duped, brainwashed,
) irrational people, simply react against the criticism and say that I
) can't
) know what I'm talking about because it differs with your beliefs and
) experience, and I don't share your beliefs and experiences. This is
) rubbish
) thinking and argument.
)
) Demonstrate -- with evidence, not your opinion -- what I have said that
) is
) ignorant of SWA.
)
) )and you fail to show respect to someone who is
) )interested in what waldorf-critics have to say,
)
) I should show respect for you because you claim to be interested in what
) "waldorf-critics" have to say? Why? Have you asked any intelligent
) questions? (Have you asked any real questions, in fact; or have you just
) said you think critics must be wrong because your experience was so
) wonderful.)
)
) Why should I respect you when you can't use the language correctly,
) admit
) you don't know much about Steiner, and you don't respect me for my age,
) wisdom (not to mention beauty) and knowledge?* You haven't lived much
) yet,
) have you? But I've been around a long time. Doesn't that make me
) respectable? Apparently not in your and other Waldorf grads' eyes. The
) fact
) that I criticise you and your cult brainwashing gets up your nose, and
) so
) you have to demand respect from me, and put me down.
)
) [*The reason is simple: SWA's "education for freedom" means teaching
) children to reject the thinking and knowledge of any established source
) in
) favour of their own "intuition" -- a subject I've written about
) extensively
) here (it's in the archives). We're not talking intuition as in "hunch";
) we're talking intuition that Steiner insisted was the ONLY way to know
) the
) world: literally, "teaching oneself", thinking from within, rejecting
) evidence from without, attaining ultimately the ability to communicate
) with
) "higher realms". This isn't taught _overtly_ in SWA classrooms, because
) Steiner said it had to be hidden. But Steiner also said every minute,
) every
) action, every thought, in a Waldorf classroom was to contain
) Anthroposophy
) -- not "be informed by" or based on, as current SWA disclaimers assert
) when
) they say Anthroposophy is not taught. SWA students are taught by stealth
) and repetition and reinforcement of _their_ ideas, however wild, to
) reject
) the world's knowledge, so that they will follow Steiner's path to the
) "higher realms". But they do get Steiner's mystical mishmash of
) Theosophical and other esoteric ideas of history, nature, science, and
) literature, force-fed by chalk-talk and copied verbatim into
) pretty-looking
) main lesson books. Not facts: mythology, phenomenology, esotericism. In
) other words, they are brainwashed. Doubly so because they don't have
) facts
) and they can't think critically.
)
) [And, lest one think that I'm suggesting that Waldorf students should
) accept everything they are told by adults as gospel, let me say that
) that
) would be a twisting of my thesis about "intuition" and the relativism of
) valorization of ideas as practiced by Steiner students -- in fact by all
) irrationalists. I certainly want students to test what they are told, by
) using the skeptical questioning of reason, by confirming or refuting
) evidence, not by saying, "well, all right for you, buy MY truth is
) different", or "you can't prove it isn't so, therefore I could be as
) right
) as you are". The problem with Waldorf students is they are so busy
) intuiting about the world that they don't have time or room to learn
) facts,
) from which to reason. And nor do their teachers, trained by Steiner just
) so, believe that facts are necessary for intuition. This is called
) "Erewhonian" logic; see the footnote at the end of this post. ]
)
) Takeasha, if you were truly interested in what critics have to say, you
) would have read the PLANS Web site from go to woe, and delved into the
) archives of this list, or lurked on this list for some time before
) telling
) me that I'm ignorant because you were there and know better than I do.
)
) This is the primary symptom of a Waldorf education: unwillingness to
) look
) at the critical views of others, while pretending to have "an open
) mind".
) It is exactly the result Steiner wanted: children who are free to
) believe
) any weird idea that pops into their heads through "intuition", and free
) to
) demand that that idea be given as much credence as any other idea,
) unquestioned. It is particularly pernicious because it leads to the
) overthrow of civilised conduct and norms of society that have been held
) dear for the last 300 years. It leads to fascism.
)
) )alienating me, and
) )others I'm sure, from your cause and concerns about WE.
)
) Well, gosh, Takeasha, I'm really not the least bit concerned with
) whether
) I've alienated you or not by calling attention to your failings and the
) brainwashing you've been subjected to. It's not my mission to rescue
) you; I
) don't have any "cause". I'm a journalist and writer who wants to warn
) the
) world about something that is dangerous and despicable. Grow up and dry
) your crocodile tears of personal hurt with the handkerchief of
) knowledge.
)
) )I have concerns
) )about WE
)
) That's not what you said in your first post, which was to tell us how
) successful your mates had been (you're the one who went to Vassar, eh?),
) and that you were sure that was the case with most if not all Waldorf
) schools (you presented no evidence or any basis for your authority to
) make
) this claim); and when in your first post you trotted out the hoariest
) old
) excuse of SWA DoFs that the bad personal experiences spoken of by
) critics
) here must be isolated instances and the bulk of the Waldorf movement is
) just fine.
)
) What are your concerns about WE, Takeasha? Begin with those, instead of
) crying about reasonable criticism of your apologia for your own
) inadequacies as well as SWA.
)
) )and certainly Steiner (though I know less about him),
)
) What are your concerns about Steiner, Takeasha? Waldorf critics have
) lots
) of them, they're catalogued in over 30,000 posts on this list over six
) years. If you don't know much about Steiner, perhaps you should educate
) yourself from the sources of criticism available, instead of making
) reactionary defences of WE in response to the current criticism.
)
) )but I
) )feel I have been forced to defend myself instead of discussing real
) )concerns.
)
) Well, most people whose ideas and qualifications for arguing them have
) been
) questioned manage to do both, Takeasha, defend their ideas and
) qualifications AND discuss real concerns. Since the criticisms of your
) problems with language and knowledge are pertinent examples of what
) critics
) see as the primary failings of the Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical way,
) they are germane to the discussion of "real concerns". In fact, they are
) the real concerns, for parents. Only "philosophy warriors" are concerned
) with the underlying thinking of Steiner in terms of its place in the
) history of thought. Those of us who reject Steiner and everything to do
) with him because it is irrational have no need to discuss epistemology.
) Those of us who decry the failures imposed on kids by such an
) educational
) fascism have no need to discuss Steiner's method of "knowing higher
) worlds". We want our kids to use reason, not intuition. If we'd know
) before
) enrolling our kids that they would be taught UNreason, we would not have
) made the mistake. We were deceived and defrauded. That's what you're
) defending, and because your arguments are not well formed or logical or
) able to provide any real evidence, then your are subject to the same
) criticism.
)
) )If you want more support this is not the way.
)
) Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa ....... let me catch my breath!
) Support
) from whom, Takeasha?
)
) In the six year history of this list, only one or two former Waldorf
) parents -- nominally DoFs when they arrived here -- have ever become
) vocal
) critics who support the efforts of PLANS in their fight against
) Steiner's
) cult religion in public schools and against SWA schools' false
) advertising
) and defrauding of parents. Lisa Ercolano is the most successful such
) person. It takes balls to come out and say you were wrong about
) believing
) in something that you later learn is so ridiculous as Steiner's
) world-view
) and his destructive "education".
)
) But there have been others who have taken heed of what the critics have
) said, and removed their kids. Many have to do this quietly, and it takes
) time, because they could still be subject to community backlash from
) local
) SWA stalwarts. Retribution for defection is not unknown, and, certainly,
) every parent who has ever left SWA has been subjected to good cop bad
) cop
) treatment, love-bombing and vilification in turn. There is even a closed
) mailing list for Waldorf survivors to help them deal with the trauma,
) resist the importunings and attacks, and allow them space to discuss
) their
) experiences without being universally rubbished by the Dofs, as they are
) here on this list if they speak out.
)
) So who cares whether you "support" us, Takeasha? I certainly wouldn't
) expect it (no other Waldorf grad who has ever come her has, to my
) knowledge, ever seen the light because of this list (some recent posters
) here who were Waldorf students worked it out for themselves before they
) found the list). Nobody like Ezra Beeman, who denied that HIV causes
) AIDS,
) and backed Steiner's crackpot medical theories and those of the
) discredited
) scientist Duesberg, has ever come back and said, "gosh, you guys were
) right, I was sold a pup, thanks so much for lifting the scales from my
) eyes".
)
) Why don't you be the first, Takeasha? Turn your "concerns" with WE and
) Steiner into critical thinking. Find out enough so we CAN respect you
) for
) what you say and learn how to say it well enough that we can respect you
) for the clarity of your thinking.
)
) And let me say again, for your benefit as well as others', that I am not
) a
) part of PLANS or any WC group or any organisation in any way.
)
) I don't need YOUR support for my ideas, thanks, Takeasha.
)
)
) [*Footnote about popular, or Erewhonian, logic. Erewhon is a sheep
) station
) in the South Island of New Zealand, by the way. Those who have had a
) decent
) university education in the last 100 years will know of its other
) meaning;
) and, yes, the two are related. A great lexicographer and thinker, Bergen
) Evans (whom I remember from my teenaged days as a wondrous fount of
) knowledge and erudition on television game shows like "What's My Line",
) wrote this a while ago. I don't think it's out of date, though the last
) 20
) years of post-Modern anti-thought seems to have forgotten it.
)
) [Popular logic is Erewhonian logic.
)
) [Whereas the trained mind accords belief to plausible evidence only and
) grants a possibility solely on the basis of a sound inference from
) established facts, the untrained mind insists that a proposition must be
) true if it cannot be disproved.
)
) ['You can't prove it isn't so!" is as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic -- as
) though it were necessary to submit a piece of the moon to chemical
) analysis
) before you could be sure that it was not made of green cheese.
)
) [-- Bergen Evans, "The Natural History of Nonsense", 1947]
)
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
) --
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:39:12 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
David Cann Wrote
)
) Our school's parent association sponsored two panel discussions featuring
) Waldorf school graduates (there were mainly high school seniors, most of
) whom went to our school for most or all of their K-8 years).
)
) Some attended Waldorf high school, and had mixed experiences. None thought
) that Waldorf school caused them to be unprepared for high school.
)
) The panel I attended had five alums: two were college-bound with science
) majors planned (pre-vet and chemistry), two with to be artists (one going to
) Pratt in NYC), and one is undecided.
)
) David
Newpaul Here
David I have seen kids graduate (8th grade at my school) and I have seen
kids leave in 3rd, 5th, or any of the other grades. In general the
parents are shocked to learn about their child's academic deficiencies.
Most of these kids require remedial tutoring. They had no study habits,
few if any critical thinking skills, and the parents unanimously agreed
that they had made a mistake in trusting Waldorf to begin with.
In my own case, my son is leaving Waldorf to start another school
hopefully in 6th grade. His reading and, vocabulary, and writing skills
are appalling. We had to pay for a professional evaluation by a
psychologist because Waldorf does not evaluate kids in any way that will
give anyone a clue as to what they have learned. Now I am looking at
finding some professional tutors to try to get him up to grade level.
Several schools I have talked to have said that he would have to repeat
5th grade because developmentally he was so far behind. The
psychologist said that if we did not do something quick he might be so
far behind he may never be able to do college work. The price of this
ridiculous education is far more expensive than just tuition.
Psychological evaluation - $1200.00
Tutoring $4300.00 for one year
Total $5500.00 just to try to pay for the
mistake of placing my
kid in WE in the first place.
David Cann writes from another post
) 5. Briefly explain why you subscribed to the Waldorf critics list.
)
) Sometime in 1996, I heard mention of people who considered waldorf schools a
) cult activity, and someone posted Dan's website address. I joined and
) lurked for years; I've been posting here, off and on, for about two years.
Paul
David you can fool yourself but I see right through you veiled
benevolence. You are here to run interference concerning the real
issues and for no other purpose than to distort the truth. In my
opinion, you are the cult. If you are not in the cult, wouldn't you
would have removed your kids long ago. How can you sit here and listen
to the testimonies of trusting parents whose children have been harmed
by this ridiculous education. Where are your critical thinking skills
David? Cults are able to control and manipulate their members in large
part because they brainwash their followers into blindly accepting their
philosophies without critically evaluating or discussing them.
I would appreciate your being honest for once about who you really are
and why you are here. I believe you are an anthro here on a damage
control mission. You are not seeking to evaluate We in any critical
basis. You are here to run interference so that others may not see the
truth clearly.
Paul Dingman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:35:36 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Newpaul wrote:
) David I have seen kids graduate (8th grade at my school) and I have seen
) kids leave in 3rd, 5th, or any of the other grades. In general the
) parents are shocked to learn about their child's academic deficiencies.
) Most of these kids require remedial tutoring. They had no study habits,
) few if any critical thinking skills, and the parents unanimously agreed
) that they had made a mistake in trusting Waldorf to begin with.
)
) In my own case, my son is leaving Waldorf to start another school
) hopefully in 6th grade. His reading and, vocabulary, and writing skills
) are appalling.
I have watched students leave Waldorf school with excellent study
habits, great reading, writing skills, and vocabulary. I've documented
the high-school experience of the kids in the one class of which I have
reasonably intimate knowledge. My anecdotal knowledge of other classes
is consistent with that experience.
My daughter left Waldorf eighth grade to attend a highly academic
private high school. In early ninth grade parent meetings, the most
common conversation starter was "... and is your child struggling with
all the homework, too?". Unlike so many of the children from public
schools, our Waldorf-educated child found that her high school work load
was *easier* than it had been in elementary school.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:46:16 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: questions to elicit discussion
) 1. What is your name (optional but nice!), gender and age?
Neil Faiman, male, age 48.
) 2. What area of the country do you live in? (Specific cities are nice
) but
) not necessary.)
Wilton, New Hampshire
) 3. Do you currently have children who are enrolled in a Waldorf school?
one Waldorf elementary alumna
) a.) What are your children's ages?
Now age 19 (entering her sophomore year of college this fall)
) b.) What school do they attend? Is that a private Waldorf school, or a
) public Waldorf charter school?
attended Pine Hill Waldorf School, a private Waldorf school in Wilton,
NH
) c.) How long have your children attended a WS?
Attended for ten years (two years of kindergarten and grades one through
eight -- Pine Hill is a "K-8" school).
) d.) Briefly, what do you like most/least about Waldorf for your
) children?
Most: A solid educational experience that fully lived up to Waldorf's
promise of academic, aesthetic, and moral education.
Least: Being part of a small, tightly-knit group of kids for many years
is a wonderful thing, but eventually can become stifling. (This was
Elspeth's primary reason for deciding against Waldorf high school.)
) e.) How did you first learn about Waldorf education?
First heard it mentioned in a presentation of educational options in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, when Elspeth was a baby. Saw a newspaper snippet about
a Pine Hill open house several years later when she was preschool age.
) f.) Before you enrolled your child/ren, were you told that Waldorf
) education was "based upon the works of R. Steiner?"
Yes.
) Were you aware/told that
) Waldorf pedagogy bases everything from the color of the classroom walls
) to
) what snacks are served in preschool on what day to how teachers speak
) and
) sing are dictated by the teachings of Steiner?
I'll abstain on this question, since I don't accept your premises.
) 4. Would you call yourself an "Anthroposophist?"
No.
) How much did you know about
) Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner when you enrolled your child?
I owned and had read portions of Harwood's _The Recovery of Man in
Childhood_, which is a straight-up presentation of the anthroposophical
conception of childhood and education.
) Do you belong
) to an Anthroposophical or Waldorf education methods study group?
No, but attended several many years ago.
) 5. Did you attend a Waldorf school as a child or teenager?
No.
) 5. Briefly explain why you subscribed to the Waldorf critics list.
Joined out of curiosity; stayed because I think it's good that there be
a few people around who can counter the WC caricature of Waldorf
education with their positive personal experiences.
) 6. Do you think public Waldorf schools are a good idea? If so, why? If
) not,
) please explain your position.
I'm undecided on this. I'd like Waldorf education to be more widely
available. I'm really a voucher advocate -- I think that families ought
to have the right to make their own educational choices, and that
state-paid tuition shouldn't be limited to attendees of state schools.
I have no problem with Waldorf-inspired public schools, or with use of a
Waldorf-like curriculum in a public school. My impression is that the
Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School has shown that this can be accomplished
in a constitutionally acceptable fashion.
I'm much more dubious about real public Waldorf schools, though. I
don't see how you can have something that you can call a true Waldorf
school without Waldorf-trained teachers; I don't see how you can have
Waldorf training without a substantial anthroposophical component; I
tend to agree with Steve Premo that anthroposophy should be regarded as
a religion in the context of constitutional questions (although I
understand, and mostly agree with, anthroposophists who argue that
anthroposophy is not a religion for them, as they understand religion);
and I can't imagine how it could be constitutional to require (or even
encourage) religious training as a condition of employment in a public
institution.
) 7. Have you read or studied any of the works of Rudolf Steiner? Which
) ones?
I have about two feet of books and lectures by Steiner (as well as
assorted other anthroposophical works) on my bookshelf, and have read
almost all of them. That includes all the "basic" Steiner works
(_Philosophy of Freedom_, _Theosophy_, _Outline of Occult Science_,
_Knowledge of the Higher Worlds_, _Christianity as Mystical Fact_), many
but not all of his Waldorf education books, and probably over a hundred
lectures.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:21:24 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
) Psychological evaluation - $1200.00
) Tutoring $4300.00 for one year
) Total $5500.00 just to try to pay for the mistake of placing
my
) kid in WE in the first place.
Sarina:
Ouch, Newpaul: you have a right to be pissed. Did the psych eval.
include a WISC-III and/or Woodcock-Johnson test? Both test scores,
taken together, could provide a very good picture of how far your
son's abilities currently vary from his potential. According to what
you've posted, a large spread would be expected - but these tests can
really pinpoint strengths and weaknesses. For that cost ($1200), I
would expect at least one of theset tests to have been done...?
Also, I am just curious if Newpaul or ANYONE has ever done any of
these tests for their WE-schooled children?
(For those who don't know, the WISC-III is the current standard IQ
test used in all the school districts, and the Woodcock-Johnson is an
acheivement test. A child scoring average-to-high on the IQ test, but
low on the acheivement test, has obviously been educationally
deprived.)
) David you can fool yourself but I see right through you veiled
) benevolence. You are here to run interference concerning the real
) issues and for no other purpose than to distort the truth.
(snip)
) I would appreciate your being honest for once about who you really
are
) and why you are here.
Sarina:
Newpaul, you are justified in being angry, but don't take it out on
David - it sounds as if you're accusing him of lying about who he is,
now? Puleeze.
David has provided a lot of info. about who and what and where he is,
and usually only comments on his individual school and its' practices.
There is no reason to accuse him of being a cult brainwasher! You
can't blame him for defending a school he is working hard to make a
good one, even if the endeavor (hey, that's a good word for the WE
lingo list!) does eventually become unsuccessful due to culty
take-over.
If anything, he is one of the duped.
(And I'm not saying the majority of the W. schools are *not* bad - I
think most of them probably are - but your words to David sound an
awful lot like "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" rather than anything
approaching an actual question or constructive criticism.)
Congratulations on getting your son out of that school, by the way; I
know you have worried about this for a long time. It must feel good to
finally be getting him on the right track. It only took me two months
to get my son out - and me a fence-sitter at that! - so I can only
imagine how agonizing this wait must have been for you.
I know the tutoring is expensive, but it is worth it - your son is
lucky to have you there to provide it.
Good luck.
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 19:44:49 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)
) I have watched students leave Waldorf school with excellent study
) habits, great reading, writing skills, and vocabulary. I've documented
) the high-school experience of the kids in the one class of which I have
) reasonably intimate knowledge. My anecdotal knowledge of other classes
) is consistent with that experience.
)
) My daughter left Waldorf eighth grade to attend a highly academic
) private high school. In early ninth grade parent meetings, the most
) common conversation starter was "... and is your child struggling with
) all the homework, too?". Unlike so many of the children from public
) schools, our Waldorf-educated child found that her high school work load
) was *easier* than it had been in elementary school.
)
well neil,
I am amazed at this this os MOST certainly not anything like the experiences
at the UK waldorf schools, even the chairman at MH would have a problem
getting out those words, he would say "there are some very dificult choice
to be made to have a waldorf education"
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 20:35:08 +0100
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Please, Peter and Terry, don't use up our bandwith with a long "you
)said" "no I didn't" pissing match. Back to topic.
-Dan Dugan
Dan, I'm only too happy to oblige; I won't be replying to Zegers, but
you must surely recognise that you yourself bear the ultimate
responsibility for this kind of thing in allowing (inviting ?) the likes
of Staudenmaier and Zegers onto the list in the first place, people who
have their vicious little axes to grind and who seem to have little
better to do with their lives than write long exhaustive "scholarly"
analyses trying to prove that people who are NOT racists ARE racists.
Such stuff is way off topic for this list, but obviously you have
judged that such posts serve the PLANS anti-Waldorf agenda in some way
and so you tolerate them.
Of course, I realise it's my responsibility if I choose to *reply* to
the kind of low tactics engaged in by Peter Zegers. Because of the
detailed and devious nature of his criticism (as I said, the devil is in
the detail), any reply, unfortunately, has to get down there into the
muddy detail too and sort him out. Also, I'm sure you recognise that
this list is visited by newcomers and others (contributers or lurkers)
who know little about either Waldorf, Steiner, or the personalities who
post to the list. I try to keep such people in mind, and it is
especially with them in mind that I felt that the charges of
Zegers needed to be answered, as he had chosen to publicly misrepresent
me on the Net. OK, 'nuff said.
Finally, your use of the term 'pissing match' is unnecessarily vulgar,
brings down the tone of the list and warrants an apology from you to all
subscribers. If such an apology is not forthcoming from you within 48
hours, may I suggest you unsubscribe yourself for a week as penance ?
:-)
Ta ra a bit, chucks !
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:30:37 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: pissing and shitting
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )Please, Peter and Terry, don't use up our bandwith with a long "you
) )said" "no I didn't" pissing match. Back to topic.
Terry wrote:
)Finally, your use of the term 'pissing match' is unnecessarily vulgar,
)brings down the tone of the list and warrants an apology from you to all
)subscribers.
...and Tarjei writes:
As most of you ought to remember, I have found it necessary on
several occasions to set the record straight about what I previously
said or didn't say for the simple reason that subscribers with sloppy
memory or poor reading comprehension skills have repeated their bad
habit of ascribing to me opinions or statements that I have not
expressed. If this has anything to do with pissing, the remark in
question should be made to those who invite us to urination matches
by claiming that someone said something they didn't. Unless, of
course, it's a competition in bullshit, chickenshit, and horseshit,
in which case we're talking about defecation matches.
Which reminds me of a certain much quoted lecture cycle by Steiner,
"Health and Illness," where he speaks about pregnant women and how
they influence embryos like a stand-up comedian. If the problem at
hand - all the shitting and shit-throwing and bullshit and so on -
has anything to do with digestive disturbances among long time
subscribers to this list, a word of advice from the controversial
doctor may be in order - if excessive materialistic thinking is the
cause:
"It would be extraordinary interesting, for example, to consider the
following: You see, there were a great many philosophers in England -
Hobbes, Bacon, Lock, Hume. These philosophers, even including John
Stuart Mill, led essentially to the great rise of materialism. These
philosophers all had such heavy thoughts that they could not
penetrate the spiritual with their thoughts. They clung to matter
with their thoughts. It would be extraordinarily interesting to
examine the digestions of all these philosophers, these many
philosophers. I am convinced they all suffered from constipation!
Starting with Hobbes in the seventeenth century, and proceeding all
the way into the nineteenth, this whole philosophy that brought us
materialism was actually caused by the constipation of individual
philosophers! This materialism could have been prevented - what I say
now is not in earnest, I only wish to make a joke! - if one had given
Hobbes, Bacon, Locke, and the others regular laxatives in their
youth. Then all this materialism most likely would not have arisen."
[Health and Illness, Volume 2, Fever Versus Shock; Pregnancy, Dec.
30, 1922,GA #348]
)If such an apology is not forthcoming from you within 48
)hours, may I suggest you unsubscribe yourself for a week as penance ?
):-)
I guess that would depend upon whose urinary tracts have been
insulted, and if they feel offended. But I'm sure there are herbs or
other medicines available - anthroposophical as well as orthodox -
that will alleviate bladder problems as well and help the
participants to win their pissing matches.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:41:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: RE: Waldorf Grads
At 1:19 PM +0000 8/3/01, Takeasha wrote:
)I am not that Takeasha, it is a common name.
)I am not using my name, sorry for any confusion.
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)) Takeasha ("True Ancient Queen" Henderson, aka Queen GodIs [God Is], I
)) believe, who is now a Vassar graduate and "multi-talented performance
)) artist, writer, empowerer of disempowered convicts, etc., etc.", as well
)) as
)) a Waldorf graduate) wrote in response to Michael Kopp's criticisms of
) ) her:
Takeasha, you're new. Please don't quote a long message just to make
a short comment. It clogs up the digests and the archives with
useless repetition. Just the selection above would have been
sufficient to indicate what you were replying to.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 06:19:58 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
--part1_d3.18920831.289d264e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Terry here:
Re Walorf grads going to college/ good colleges, given Waldorf's failure to
allow for studying/testing of the effectiveness of their educational
approach, at any time in the U.S., in the last 75 years, I suggest that
Waldorf grads college placment rates are as much a factor of their
socio-economic status as anything else. Upper-middle class kids in the U.S.
go to college at a significantly higher rate than others... period.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 395
-- Topica Digest --
Re:Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re:Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Re:Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:12:45 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Dear critics,
Mr. Boardman¥s reply to Dan Dugan is the latest example of the
strange way the anthroposophists want to deal with criticism and
critics. Instead of using rational discourse, they resort most of the
time to character-assasination of the critic. "Rudolf Steiner can¥t
be a racist, because Rudolf Steiner is no racist", is the boring
refrain we get to hear time after time after time ... I am feeling
very sorry for the children at the Waldorfschools that are taught by
this kind of people. Only repetition doesn¥t make a statement more
true. It is my sad experience that no matter how much we substantiate
our view, investigate claims made by anthroposophists etc., critics
can¥t engage the anthroposophists in a rational debate. The best we
get is a comment on a minor detail. Since I don¥t want to bore
everyone on this list with my research in progress, I will send the
article about Anthroposophy and conspiracism when it is finished.
People who are interested in this topic can contact me off-list. I am
especially interested in material on this Gennadij Bondarew I told
you about before.
Best regards,
Peter Zegers
P.S. Dan, don¥t use "nasty" words, anthroposophists will surely use
them for putting an end to a debate. Whatever they can find to avoid
a serious debate, they will use!!
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 11:11:54 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Peter and others:
Isn't it obvious by now, (how many times do we have to stab a
corpse!), that no one who understands the 'supernature of the
premises' upon which philosophy is founded and all such dialogue
which, without philosophy -------would be a wholly dishonest and
unfruitful endeavor, amounting to but the vain, polite and clever
espousing of well-rehearsed hidden aganda, no one who acknowledges
the 'supernature of the premises' upon which philosophy is embraced,
will ever consent to allow their thoughts to be downsized in such a
way which excludes metaphysical influences as part of the warp and
woof of discussion.
Therefore, you, and others who wish to uncover truth, rather than
load your nintendo machine guns with allegations should be prepared
to consider that the intention of all debate is philosophical, rather
than argumentative, and to the extent that this premise is understood
and championed as the more noble and rewarding of the two
alternatives, come to understand that debate can be conceived as a
dialectical synthesis of between the rationally-architectured
thoughts and meta-rational spheres of influence. There is a
difference between a a face and a skull. A face has light, and
expression, a skull, a blank stare. Dialogue without philosophical
influence is a skull.
Any attempt to regard ideas saturated with influence and innuendo
sired in a sphere of human capacity from which art and religion and
metaphysics are ever sourced, as contaminants to dialogue, displays
what we may fairly coin and henceforth refer to as "Spiritual ADHD".
This is yet another subtle genre of Xenophobia, the fear of
discovery, a terror of expanding ones scope to encompass immortal
notions, and to articulate the responsibilities which invite their
development. Those are the higher rungs of Maslow's hierarchy; those
are the cloud-bathed altitudes of Jack's Beanstalk. While holding
discussions with those whose interest is not to collaboratively
reveal truth in their interchange, but rather to argue, which means,
to attempt to murder someone else's point of view, does not ever
constitute a "911 crisis" to the one who seeks to wed, to weave
concrete understanding with sourcing of living thoughts, living
thoughts being a good workingman's definition of wisdom, it does
indeed impose formidable barriers upon where discussion can go,
turning processes of musical counterpoint into war. What does
Earlyfire means is this: By changing the motive of encounter from
participants seeking COORDINATION of many sovereign musical voices
into a harmonious mutually-supportive balance, into a
triumphal-hungry SUBORDINATION model, we inadvertantly opt to extend,
further entrench and prolong the belief in the use of coercive
authority upon which all chauvinism, imperialism, racism as well as
every seductive cannibalistic competition and greed in civilization
depend. The 'most favored qualities' happen to be the least virtuous.
What shall be our response to this?
On a lighter note, it seems to us way out of character for anyone
involved in Anthroposophy, to promulgate any interest in diagnosing
and gunning down rivals, nor to waste their and your own time,
expending energy defending particular instances where individuals
among scattered moments of lunacy, Steiner included, harbor and
express ideas which seem unhealthy. Yet, this having been joyfully
acknowledged by the one last in line to cast the first stone, one
says again, examine the deeds and the fruits of Steiner's ideas, the
many revolutionary cultural impulses he continues to inspire and
infrastructures which ripple out from them. Do this if you want to
assess accurately whether those who found strength and beauty in his
ideas put them out in the world in a malicious or a wondrous way.
Work backwards from the fruits, and, dealing with the realities which
are present in the world, infer the motives in an honest, rather than
a deductive way. This is a paradigm truly worth embracing.
Every intent and attitude and act we initiate affects future history.
Why revise history, when we can author destiny? Let the unbroken
circle of history repeats itself be cut, and one end lifted and a
spiral be born, so that we can see, coming full circle how far we,
through noble labors have risen. Is there a Carpenter in the House?
To conclude, philosophy, the love of wisdom, and a true ancestor of
Anthroposophy, is truly an"extra-terrestrial" form of thought. By its
nature it is forever unpoliced, and lives in the interior space
unencumbered by any, hmmm... how does Earlyfire imagine it
....."sub-angelic obsessive-compulsion". Which is another way of
saying philosophy is not immature enough to attempt to "coerce a
point" Likewise it is juvenile to conceive of Science and the
Magical, as 'either/ors', players cast in the lethal torque and
joust of the cobra and mongoose.
As Steiner often and in many ways affirms, it is thought descends
from imagination, concrete thought coagulating from volatile
imagination. ((and heard: Thought the glove, Imagination, if you
will, the invisible hand of God which fills the glove)). I wonder if
Einstein was hypno-duped by Steiner when he made his statement
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"? Similarly I wonder
if Mohammad and his hundreds of millions of followers are going to
suffer 'flamis acribus addictis' for reading in the Quran, and
embracing "All knowledge is a single point, which the ignorant have
multiplied" Binary zero or Binary one, that is the question.
By the way, if there is a war raging in the cosmos and in human
hearts as to whether or not ambition, contending for measurable gains
and aspiration, which seeks more weightless rewards such as the
development and perfection of imagination, inspiration and intuition,
and by such invitation so might foreshadow a pedagogy, a blueprint
through which "Ask and it shall be given to you" actually works,
might this not become an interesting metaphysical basis upon which to
author a conspiracy theory. The conspirers would ascribe to the
notion that Ambition and Aspiration are enemies, while the inspirers
would hold fast to the childish notion that the development of love
is a power which enables the two of these to achieve coordination,
whereby a knowledge capable of bridging these might, for the first
time in the spiral of history, brought forth as a viable undertaking,
Enough love of wisdom.
And for dessert, a little time travail:
"My words go up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts,
ne'er to heaven go"
Harvey Bornfield
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear critics,
)
) Mr. Boardman¥s reply to Dan Dugan is the latest example of the
strange way the anthroposophists want to deal with criticism and
critics. Instead of using rational discourse, they resort most of the
time to character-assasination of the critic. "Rudolf Steiner can¥t
be a racist, because Rudolf Steiner is no racist", is the boring
refrain we get to hear time after time after time ... I am feeling
very sorry for the children at the Waldorfschools that are taught by
this kind of people. Only repetition doesn¥t make a statement more
true. It is my sad experience that no matter how much we substantiate
our view, investigate claims made by anthroposophists etc., critics
can¥t engage the anthroposophists in a rational debate. The best we
get is a comment on a minor detail. Since I don¥t want to bore
everyone on this list with my research in progress, I will send the
article about Anthroposophy and conspiracism when it is finished.
People who are interested in this topic can contact me
) off-list. I am especially interested in material on this Gennadij
Bondarew I told you about before.
)
) Best regards,
)
) Peter Zegers
)
) P.S. Dan, don¥t use "nasty" words, anthroposophists will surely use
them for putting an end to a debate. Whatever they can find to avoid
a serious debate, they will use!!
)
) -----------------------------------------------
) Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
) Gratis epost-tjeneste
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:17:44 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Bea wrote, (in reply to Neil Faiman's favorable post on WE):
) well neil,
) I am amazed at this this is MOST certainly not anything like the
experiences
) at the UK waldorf schools, even the chairman at MH would have a problem
) getting out those words, he would say "there are some very dificult choice
) to be made to have a waldorf education"
) bea
charlie:
Do you have the authority to speak about the experiences at all the UK
Waldorf schools, Bea, or just MH?
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 19:27:42 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
I'm not sure who gives the 'authority'?
but after many many years involved in the waldorf school I had many
conversations with parents from just about all the waldorf schools in the
UK, many parents arrived at michael hall from smaller schools, many parents
left MH to go to other schools, we were always very curious as to the
experiences of parents at other waldorf schools
bea
) Bea wrote, (in reply to Neil Faiman's favorable post on WE):
)) well neil,
)) I am amazed at this this is MOST certainly not anything like the
) experiences
)) at the UK waldorf schools, even the chairman at MH would have a problem
)) getting out those words, he would say "there are some very dificult choice
)) to be made to have a waldorf education"
)) bea
)
) charlie:
) Do you have the authority to speak about the experiences at all the UK
) Waldorf schools, Bea, or just MH?
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 18:59:33 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Dear Harvey Bornfield,
I didn¥t quite get what you were trying to say. To me it sounded like
unintelligible nonsense (or maybe like a poor attempt to imitate the
style of Rudolf Steiner). Maybe you could try again in a more
"profane" way to explain what you want us to consider?
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Gratis epost-tjeneste
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:53:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
DAN DUGAN
) )Please, Peter and Terry, don't use up our bandwith with a long "you
) )said" "no I didn't" pissing match. Back to topic.
TERRY BOARDMAN
)Dan, I'm only too happy to oblige; I won't be replying to Zegers, but
)you must surely recognise that you yourself bear the ultimate
)responsibility for this kind of thing in allowing (inviting ?) the likes
)of Staudenmaier and Zegers onto the list in the first place,
This is an open forum and anybody willing to follow the rules is
welcome. Don't blame me for your bad luck in encountering people who
disagree with you. If you want nicey-nice I suggest the
Anthroposophical and Waldorf mailing lists.
)people who
)have their vicious little axes to grind and who seem to have little
)better to do with their lives than write long exhaustive "scholarly"
)analyses trying to prove that people who are NOT racists ARE racists.
The only counter you have for researched arguments is ad hominems.
)Such stuff is way off topic for this list, but obviously you have
)judged that such posts serve the PLANS anti-Waldorf agenda in some way
)and so you tolerate them.
We wouldn't talk about Steiner's racism if it wasn't in our face.
"A white mother of a successful biracial (African American and white)
child loved her son's Waldorf school but had to work constantly
against teachers who would tell her of the evolutionary limits of
Black children." [McDermott, Ray. "Racism and Waldorf Education."
Research Bulletin. Waldorf Education Research Institute, Sunbridge
College: Vol. 1 No. 2 June, 1996, p. 4]
)Of course, I realise it's my responsibility if I choose to *reply* to
)the kind of low tactics engaged in by Peter Zegers. Because of the
)detailed and devious nature of his criticism (as I said, the devil is in
)the detail), any reply, unfortunately, has to get down there into the
)muddy detail too and sort him out.
This is ad hominem. Reply to his arguments.
) Also, I'm sure you recognise that
)this list is visited by newcomers and others (contributers or lurkers)
)who know little about either Waldorf, Steiner, or the personalities who
)post to the list. I try to keep such people in mind, and it is
)especially with them in mind that I felt that the charges of
)Zegers needed to be answered, as he had chosen to publicly misrepresent
)me on the Net. OK, 'nuff said.
Talk about the issues, please.
)Finally, your use of the term 'pissing match' is unnecessarily vulgar,
)brings down the tone of the list and warrants an apology from you to all
)subscribers. If such an apology is not forthcoming from you within 48
)hours, may I suggest you unsubscribe yourself for a week as penance ?
):-)
We're grown-ups here.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 22:42:20 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Re:Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Peter wrote:
Dear Harvey Bornfield,
I didn¥t quite get what you were trying to say. To me it sounded like
unintelligible nonsense (or maybe like a poor attempt to imitate the style
of Rudolf Steiner). Maybe you could try again in a more "profane" way to
explain what you want us to consider?
Peter Zegers
charlie:
I, personally, cannot see any similarity between Harvey's writings and those
of Steiner. Steiner deliberately used a matter-of-fact style of writing so
he would not be accused of using the power of language to persuade people.
Harvey, on the other hand, delights in the use of language, in the poetic
turn of phrase. He certainly does not mimic Steiner in this regard. I find
Harvey's posts convoluted, but enjoyable; a good excercise for the brain.
One thing I think Harvey is trying to get across is that instead of
descending into an argumentative stalemate, we should be using debate in a
responsible and understanding way in order to approach the real truth. That
which will never be changed and is not restricted by our narrow opinions and
prejudices. We certainly don't agree with each other but at least we can try
to understand where the other side is coming from.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 396
-- Topica Digest --
(to Dan Dugan) Re:Peter Zeger's mail of 1st August
By terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk
Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By canndw netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 21:11:40 +0100
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: (to Dan Dugan) Re:Peter Zeger's mail of 1st August
DAN DUGAN
) )Please, Peter and Terry, don't use up our bandwith with a long "you
) )said" "no I didn't" pissing match. Back to topic.
TERRY BOARDMAN
)Dan, I'm only too happy to oblige; I won't be replying to Zegers, but
)you must surely recognise that you yourself bear the ultimate
)responsibility for this kind of thing in allowing (inviting ?) the likes
)of Staudenmaier and Zegers onto the list in the first place,
DAN:
)This is an open forum and anybody willing to follow the rules is
)welcome. Don't blame me for your bad luck in encountering people who
)disagree with you. If you want nicey-nice I suggest the
)Anthroposophical and Waldorf mailing lists.
I have nothing against people who disagree with me. What I DO object to
is when people deliberately misuse my name and misrepresent what I say
in order to prove or justify a point in an argument of theirs in which I
am not even involved. That is what Zegers did.
)people who
)have their vicious little axes to grind and who seem to have little
)better to do with their lives than write long exhaustive "scholarly"
)analyses trying to prove that people who are NOT racists ARE racists.
DAN:
)The only counter you have for researched arguments is ad hominems.
*You* imply the arguments of Zegers are serious "research"; I say they
are slanted propaganda, and I have told you that I am not going to get
involved in "debating" with them because I have better things to do than
debate with propaganda. What I have written above about Zeger's axe is
no "ad hominem". You don't seem to understand the meaning of the phrase.
It does not get at him *as a person* but at what he is doing - something
which I think many people can recognise.
)Of course, I realise it's my responsibility if I choose to *reply* to
)the kind of low tactics engaged in by Peter Zegers. Because of the
)detailed and devious nature of his criticism (as I said, the devil is in
)the detail), any reply, unfortunately, has to get down there into the
)muddy detail too and sort him out.
DAN:
)This is ad hominem. Reply to his arguments.
No, it is not *ad hominem*. If you must use Latin, at least learn to use
correct Latin. If you have bothered to read my replies to Zegers you
will see that I have already dealt at length with his "arguments" about
me and shown them for what they are - devious and specious. I do not
intend to waste any more time on them. I repeat, it was his *arguments*
about me and my views that were devious and specious, not the man
himself.
) Also, I'm sure you recognise that
)this list is visited by newcomers and others (contributers or lurkers)
)who know little about either Waldorf, Steiner, or the personalities who
)post to the list. I try to keep such people in mind, and it is
)especially with them in mind that I felt that the charges of
)Zegers needed to be answered, as he had chosen to publicly misrepresent
)me on the Net. OK, 'nuff said.
DAN:
)Talk about the issues, please.
No thanks. I said enough last year about "the issues" for the time
being. I didn't come here this time to do that, but only to reply to
Zegers' misuse of my name and his misrepresentation of my thoughts, and
also to reply to you.
TERRY:
)Finally, your use of the term 'pissing match' is unnecessarily vulgar,
)brings down the tone of the list and warrants an apology from you to all
)subscribers. If such an apology is not forthcoming from you within 48
)hours, may I suggest you unsubscribe yourself for a week as penance ?
):-)
DAN:
)We're grown-ups here.
Please speak for yourself, Dan; lighten up, and learn to take a joke.
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 16:20:38 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Zeger's mail 1st Aug
Peter,
You're right. Earlyfire's coming inland. A person can drown in them
'thar mysteries. I'll meet you at the OK corral.
Underneath racism, and the reason it imperils human society is an
element of prejudice which authors three kinds of malice out in the
world. In the sphere of attitude, racism appears as the dark
distancing chill of arrogance; in the life of feeling it
surfaces as a passion, a poison of hatred, and in the theater where
people define their own self-identity, it coutours itself as a
duality which sets up a barrier between a person of privelege and an
underling. But to understand racism, one must identify
Prejudice as the driving force behind it. Racism is not what Racism
is about, but Prejudice is what empowers Racism. Racism's but the
footnote, the echo, the ripple effect, merely one of many epicenters
where Prejudice which sires it and many other ruthless
disruptions to the progress of civilization, finds its way to the
surface of human relations as war or more subtle, clandestine genres
of oppression.
Without the observation, without the diagnosis of the presence and
intent to manifest one or more of these three malicious expressions
of prejudice, any allegation of racism will only be uproariously
laughed out of the court of human judgment. Ergo, Go
ahead, Peter, pack your knapsack with a decade's supply of
peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, and take your meticulous
scientifically handsome stethescope out on the road, intent on
listening to hearts, yes, go tirelessly traverse the world's gardens
and
deserts on a global search, leaving your spike-fanged treads and your
litany of published 8 and a half by 11 accuracies on flowers and
cinders alike, everywhere the world over, hunting out, snooping out
instances of morally-repugnant acts of
prejduce"flourishing" in the large watershed of noble and benevolent
initiatives which have issued forth from Anthroposophical endeavor.
And bring to us, your little dimwit peasants, some of Marco Polo's
brave new spice from distant, intriguing places to
demonstrate to all of us intellectually boneless, the myriad heinous
ways in which the skeletons of Esoteric Christianity have emerged
from the closet of scandal, and even as we speak are wounding, are
corrupting the children. Stop by Greece: Don't forget to
bring us all back a swig of Hemlock, also. (And now we have the
long-awaited answer to the question "Is there an etheric blowtorch"
;-D)
Peter, Terry was looking at the deeds of both Steiner as well as
those who have been and are aligned under the canopy of assumptions
which comprise the Anthroposophical world view, and observing the
widspread intent within this movement to inspire and heal,
recognized, as you also should also be able to do, that such motives
directly contradict the promulgation of rage and scathe and rancour,
three rude sisters which invade holy spaces in human nature and lie
in wait like a wolf, grandmothering, well
camuoflaged in an unlikely Shroud of Turin, as Red Riding Hood, the
Human race, God's youngest spirit creature, draws ever nearer the
lair, her innocenc imperiled by a beast seeking to be perceived and
applauded as a peace-maker. Like a Vampire, undetected,
prejudice casts a face only in the 6th sense's mirror.
It is not necessary to excuse or forget the errors and indiscretions
which men commit in moments of lunacy, in this matrix of perils and
seductions into which we, briefly mortally meshed find challenge by
day and solace by night. Yet all this having been
said, one observes that without an exhale of compassion, a steady
diet of triumphal campaigns becomes, before too long, a very stale
enchantment, and paves the quickest road to "Has-been".
So I say again, Philosophy is perfecting the art of dialogue, one
which builds a consciously-experienced, rather than a blind-man's
bridge and traversing the gulf between dreams and labors, between
matters solemn and matters inspiring, comes at last to
recognize of the nature of man as the theater in which the physical
and the Once-Upon-a Time find their own chemistry and are forever wed.
Brave, new spice from distant, intriguing places: How is it Achieved?
Now Earlyfire's back to sea
Harvey Bornfield
"For as I say, the world has changed. There was a time when a
traveller, if he had the will and knew only a few of the secrets,
could send his barge out into the Summer Sea and arrive not at
Glastonbury of the monks, but at the Holy Isle of Avalon; for at
that time the gates between the worlds drifted within the mists, and
were open, one to another, as the traveller thought and willed. For
this is the great secret, which was known to all educated men in our
day; that bywhat men think, we create the world
around us, daily, new."
Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon, Introduction
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear Harvey Bornfield,
)
) I didn¥t quite get what you were trying to say. To me it sounded
like unintelligible nonsense (or maybe like a poor attempt to imitate
the style of Rudolf Steiner). Maybe you could try again in a more
"profane" way to explain what you want us to consider?
)
) Peter Zegers
)
) -----------------------------------------------
) Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
) Gratis epost-tjeneste
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:32:10 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
) Newpaul said:
)
) David I have seen kids graduate (8th grade at my school) and I have seen
) kids leave in 3rd, 5th, or any of the other grades. In general the
) parents are shocked to learn about their child's academic deficiencies.
) Most of these kids require remedial tutoring. They had no study habits,
) few if any critical thinking skills, and the parents unanimously agreed
) that they had made a mistake in trusting Waldorf to begin with.
David: If true, this is very sad. I presume, then, that if parents of
graduates and other withdrawn students are unanimous in their animus toward
the waldorf school, that the school is in decline and will shortly cease to
exist?
I, too, am familiar with many families who have left our school, and of
students who left at all grade levels. I routinely see names of former
students of our school on local public and private school honor rolls.
Several that I know of skipped a grade upon entering public school in order
to be closer in age to public school kids, with no serious effects.
Many of the parents whose children left our school prior to graduation are
still very, very supportive of our school and of our continued development,
and several still have their younger children enrolled.
You may correct about the school in your area, Newpaul. But I know better
than to think your description applies to all waldorf schools, and it
certainly does not apply to mine.
NewPaul again:
) I would appreciate your being honest for once about who you really are
) and why you are here. I believe you are an anthro here on a damage
) control mission. You are not seeking to evaluate We in any critical
) basis. You are here to run interference so that others may not see the
) truth clearly.
Believe what you want. Readers of this list are welcome to judge for
themselves whether I'm on the level or not.
Speaking for myself, I evaluate our kids' WE in a critical manner
continually, and make a fresh judgement every year.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 397
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dingman mindspring.com
need German-)English translation of new article
By dan dandugan.com
Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By canndw netzero.net
Re: factors in success
By canndw netzero.net
Re: factors in success
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 10:16:27 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
) ) Newpaul said:
) )
) ) David I have seen kids graduate (8th grade at my school) and I have seen
) ) kids leave in 3rd, 5th, or any of the other grades. In general the
) ) parents are shocked to learn about their child's academic deficiencies.
) ) Most of these kids require remedial tutoring. They had no study habits,
) ) few if any critical thinking skills, and the parents unanimously agreed
) ) that they had made a mistake in trusting Waldorf to begin with.
)
) David:
)If true, this is very sad. I presume, then, that if parents of
) graduates and other withdrawn students are unanimous in their animus toward
) the waldorf school, that the school is in decline and will shortly cease to
) exist?
Paul:
I would hope so? But my school is busy indoctrinating new prospective
parents with Waldorf "play groups" in local churches and community
centers. Once the parents get used to some of the less objectionably
Waldorfy ways they will be more accepting of putting their children in
an elementary school that does not emphasize reading until 3rd grade.
And once the school bell rings and classroom door closes, out comes the
occult stuff.
)
) I, too, am familiar with many families who have left our school, and of
) students who left at all grade levels. I routinely see names of former
) students of our school on local public and private school honor rolls.
) Several that I know of skipped a grade upon entering public school in order
) to be closer in age to public school kids, with no serious effects.
)
) Many of the parents whose children left our school prior to graduation are
) still very, very supportive of our school and of our continued development,
) and several still have their younger children enrolled.
)
) You may correct about the school in your area, Newpaul. But I know better
) than to think your description applies to all waldorf schools, and it
) certainly does not apply to mine.
Paul
David I would contend that based on my experience at my school and the
experiences of all of the other parents on this list and on the
survivors list, that you either do not have your eyes opened to see
Waldorf critically, or your one school is truly unique. My experience
as verified by this list is the norm. In many cases other families
experience much worse. There is serious child abuse, sexual abuse, and
bullying all sanctioned by the Anthroposophists and their beliefs in
Karma and Reincarnation. From my experience, Waldorf Education is
inherently abusive toward children. My son had to endure 3 years with
an angry teacher who constantly tried to control her out of control
class with her anger. When the parents had finally had enough they went
to the Board and the Core faculty to have the teacher dismissed. In
July of this year, the faculty finally released their decision to keep
this angry teacher. Did my Waldorf School act in the best interests of
the teachers or in the best interests of the kids?
)
)
) NewPaul again:
) ) I would appreciate your being honest for once about who you really are
) ) and why you are here. I believe you are an anthro here on a damage
) ) control mission. You are not seeking to evaluate We in any critical
) ) basis. You are here to run interference so that others may not see the
) ) truth clearly.
)
) Believe what you want. Readers of this list are welcome to judge for
) themselves whether I'm on the level or not.
)
) Speaking for myself, I evaluate our kids' WE in a critical manner
) continually, and make a fresh judgement every year.
)
) David
Paul
My only comment, is how do you stay on this list and read about the
constant abuses and the occultism and the sectarianism and the bad
academics of Waldorf Schools and still believe you have made the best
educational choice for your kids? Your school may be better on the
surface, but its still a Waldorf School. It is still mired in Steiner's
occult philosophies. Your children are taught the same curriculum with
its strongly occult leaning that all waldorf kids are. You must be
pretty comfortable with Steiner to be comfortable with keeping your kids
in your Waldorf School. If this is the case, I understand completely
why you have so rigidly refused to consider any of the facts which are
daily placed before you on this list.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:09:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: need German-)English translation of new article
We just posted a "new" article on PLANS web site (it was written in 1996).
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/NorbertBiermann.html
It's in German and we're looking for a volunteer translator.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:56:31 +0000
From: Kerr (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
I'm hoping someone can point some of this out to me.
To begin with, I'm a humanist (UU) with strong buddhist leanings, and
I'm using the Enki Education materials as a guide in my homeschooling.
http://www.enkieducation.org Enki is unapologetically waldorf inspired,
its replaced anthroposophy with shambhala buddhism (a secular form of
buddhism) and because of that its *evolved* and it encorporates elements
of montessori, the UN international school, and Quaker Friends schools
with waldorf education's methodology.
)From my point of view Waldorf Education is much too eurocentric, is
teaching anthroposophy (indirectly most of the time but pretty directly
in the high schools), is too dependant on a teacher led model, demands
much too large class sizes, and is ill equipted to deal with exceptional
students, both those with LD and those who are gifted.
At the same time I see it as an educational model with 80 years
experience using multiple intelligences in the classroom, and 80 years
experience using educational kinesiology in the classroom. While I
don't agree with the curriculum I do agree with the arts integrated
model.
Why should I divorce myself from the positive aspects of waldorf
education (and really, as a teacher I can find a lot more support for
using these things in waldorf books and training seminars than I can in
the mainstream) simply because I have a real problem with anthroposophy?
Kerr - fence sitting waldorf inspired homeschooler - NOT AN ANTHROPOD!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:04:37 +0000
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Paul
But my school is busy indoctrinating new prospective
) parents with Waldorf "play groups" in local churches and community
) centers.
Dottie
Are you and your son out of this school yet? It is quite shocking to
hear of a parent(you have at least been on this list for six months and
probably more), who accuses Waldorf of sanctioning sexual abuse, and
still allows his son to attend this school.
Paul
My son had to endure 3 years with
) an angry teacher who constantly tried to control her out of control
) class with her anger.
Dottie
And who's fault is this? Did they force you to stay, is that it?
Dottie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 02:32:53 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
Kerr wrote:
)Why should I divorce myself from the positive aspects of waldorf
)education (and really, as a teacher I can find a lot more support for
)using these things in waldorf books and training seminars than I can in
)the mainstream) simply because I have a real problem with )anthroposophy?
I don't see any reason you should divorce yourself from these things.
Teaching to multiple intelligences, and integrating the arts, are a
wonderful idea and definitely are ideas that should spread.
What happens *in Waldorf schools* is often not at all what people imagine
when they have read *the ideas* on paper, or even seen a Waldorf classroom
or attended an open house. So I say, more power to you, take the ideas you
like and go with them! Just keep your kids far away from a Waldorf classroom
in a Waldorf school, and integrate the arts *your way* and use *your*
understanding of multiple intelligences or any part that inspires you.
I would personally prefer (and I suspect other critics agree) that you not
*call* it Waldorf. We can't stop you, of course, but we wish you wouldn't
because we were so badly disillusioned about the reality of Waldorf schools
that we hate to see anyone promoting it, and thereby leading others to
decide to enroll their kids. In other words, you're giving them good PR by
telling everyone these good ideas are "Waldorf." What you don't realize is
that *your* good ideas *aren't* what usually goes on in Waldorf, which is
often pretty dysfunctional.
)From what I can tell, Waldorf homeschoolers are totally doing their own
thing and are usually doing so much diluting or combining that a purist
Waldorf teacher would not even consider it Waldorf, in fact they would
shudder. However, you are promoting the movement despite your lack of
knowledge about Waldorf schools, and they're not sorry about that.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:55:06 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
Hi, Kerr, welcome to the list!
"Fence-sitters" tend to get roasted here, so try to keep a thick skin,
okay?
Maybe you can explain better than I have what "good ideas" you value
that are uniquely Waldorf. I never have been able to articulate it
properly, but you have more experience with 'Waldorf-inspired'
teaching than I.
Good luck!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:20:29 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
Paul: My experience (with Waldorf Education) as verified by this list is
the norm.
David: The people who post on the critics' list and (I presume) the
"survivors' list" are a minute proportion of Waldorf families. I will agree
that the types of complaints voiced by anti-Waldorf parents do tend to be
similar, but I don't agree that the opinions voiced on this are "normative"
of parents at Waldorf schools. The silent, mainly happy (in my experience)
majority of parents is not heard from here.
Paul again: My son had to endure 3 years with an angry teacher who
constantly tried to control her out of control class with her anger. When
the parents had finally had enough they went to the Board and the Core
faculty to have the teacher dismissed. In July of this year, the faculty
finally released their decision to keep this angry teacher. Did my Waldorf
School act in the best interests of the teachers or in the best interests of
the kids?
David: Your writing suggests that ALL the families in the class oppose this
teacher's continuation. If so, then the faculty acted foolishly, since
there can be no class without willing parents to foot the bill. If, on the
other hand, there are a variety of viewpoints among the parents, the
decision is quite a bit harder. My experience is that for every parent who
says, "Fire this teacher or I walk!" is another parent who says, "Retain
this teacher or I walk!"
How many families in the class wish this teacher to be replaced? When was
this expressed to the college or to the board (hint: it's much easier to
take action in January than in May or June)?
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:44:49 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: factors in success
Michael Kopp, to me:
) Come on, David you're telling me that the experience of my own eyes, with
) my own kids, as well as watching my kids' friends, many of whom have
) educational deficiencies identifiable with the Steiner Waldorf
) Anthroposophy cult method of brainwashing, is not reliable?
)
) You guys just won't give up, will you?
David: I don't find the experiences that you (and others) relate on this
list to be convincing about waldorf in general, and (more to the point) with
respect to the waldorf education I've observed. Your writing is so at odds
with my own personal experience that I can't reconcile the two, and I've
learned to trust my own judgement.
What gets called "evidence" here is not convincing because it shows claimed
linkages without demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship, or even a
correlation.
For the record, the critic whom I consider best at putting together a
coherent picture of the 'anti-Waldorf' argument is Diana. She takes the
trouble to connect the various "puzzle pieces" that the rest of the critics
don't. Most everybody else is happy to throw charges and accusations
against the wall to see what sticks, but Diana attempts (and often
overreaches, in my opinion) to show WHY things relate.
If you guys are going to change many attitudes about waldorf education, I
think Diana's approach must be followed. I also think you need to compile
some data to strengthen your individual stories. Speaking just for myself,
until you do, I'll view most of what I read here as extreme, unfortunate,
and probably rare, cases.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:20:50 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: factors in success
) david:
) If you guys are going to change many attitudes about waldorf education, I
) think Diana's approach must be followed. I also think you need to compile
) some data to strengthen your individual stories. Speaking just for myself,
) until you do, I'll view most of what I read here as extreme, unfortunate,
) and probably rare, cases.
I was in waldorf for over 10yrs, I live near the waldorf school, I am
absolutely clear that there is a huge exodus from the school starting around
class 3, but the marketing is very good at attracting new familiies into the
school, if they were honest to parents they would lose that sucess.
I dont need to follow anyones approach, I am on this list because I am a
critic of waldorf education, I dont know of any other education that has a
critic list, and if it did would it have so many of the followers bothering
to argue on the list. How does a critics list attract SO many defenders?
are you all worried what we'll say? cant we be trusted here on our own?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:28:58 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
)
) kerr wrote:
) From my point of view Waldorf Education is much too eurocentric, is
) teaching anthroposophy (indirectly most of the time but pretty directly
) in the high schools), is too dependant on a teacher led model, demands
) much too large class sizes, and is ill equipted to deal with exceptional
) students, both those with LD and those who are gifted.
I agree with the teacher led model, if you get a bad teacher for 8 years it
can be dramatic.
We argued in our school all the time about class sizes but they were quite
happy to go up to 38 in a class.
You are right again LD students are realy let down and often it is parents
of LD students who are desparate and enroll in the school, especially after
class 3. There is a waldorf model of teaching and gifted students dont get
any leeway, everyone has to fit in.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:44:08 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
)
)
) Why should I divorce myself from the positive aspects of waldorf
) education (and really, as a teacher I can find a lot more support for
) using these things in waldorf books and training seminars than I can in
) the mainstream) simply because I have a real problem with anthroposophy?
presumably you just take all the bits you like from all educations, sounds
good to me, but dont muddle that with waldorf, anyone who has been in a
waldorf school knows that you have to follow each aspect of it rigidly.
Ballet, football, outside remedial help, taichi, yoga, are all no no's
bothmer gym and eurythmy are the only acceptable exercises, even eating the
right grain on the right day, having only dolls without faces, no tv at all,
only block crayons until class 2, only wet paper to paint on until way up in
the school and as for multi media in art, well only if you use the 'correct'
media, no text books, no trousers on kindergarden teachers, if I had more
time I could fill pages with what is not allowed
bea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 04:02:41 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments
her
Sarina McDonald wrote:
) Hi, Kerr, welcome to the list!
)
) "Fence-sitters" tend to get roasted here, so try to keep a thick skin,
) okay?
)
) Maybe you can explain better than I have what "good ideas" you value
) that are uniquely Waldorf. I never have been able to articulate it
) properly, but you have more experience with 'Waldorf-inspired'
) teaching than I.
)
) Good luck!
Thanks Sarina...it is a huge topic (so is any teaching methodology
actually) I'll skip kindergarten because I know lots of people "get" why
parents are drawn to waldorf early education, the play based model, the
natural materials etc (I'm a hard core environmentalist and anti-corporate
consumerist too - so that has influenced my feelings about natural toys
and minimal toys more than waldorf has). the sense that they are not
pushing children into academics before they're ready.
Things I appreciate about waldorf - the rhythm - the developmental thread,
the seasonal rhythm, the block lesson rhythm, the intake, sleep, output
rhythm of the academic work, the daily rhythms established. I think a lot
of children feel more secure and grounded when they have a predictable
routine that recognizes *their needs* as well as the adults in their life.
I do appreciate the *acceptance* of different temperments (it matches up
with constitutional homeopathy which I ascribe to)
I love the arts integration (the craft handwork, music, drama, 2nd and 3rd
languages) being used to help children absorb academics. I think a lot of
people misread arts integration as an art curriculum.
I love the cultural immersion that is possible (even though I present a
much broader multicultural experience for my child than he'd EVER get in a
waldorf school) with the pace of the year. I love the storytelling.
As a teacher - I love the work I do creating a meaningful *different*
curriculum each year....and that I am working with and developing a deeper
relationship with my son as the years go by. I think if child and teacher
"click" the class teacher who moves with the class is a great idea.
I love the physical experience of colour that wet on wet painting has
given my son (and thats not to say we don't also do loads of other art
making and have sparkle paint :-) and his experience with mixing colours
has made him a much better artist all around.
I have a profoundly gifted child who's been telling people he is going to
be a rennaisance man when he grows up since the age of three, and we've
found that we're able to meet his intellectual needs while paying
attention to the waldorf developmental thread and that "protective"
element has saved him a lot of grief. He also has SID and we've
incorporated all his OT into our daily circle time. I've found that all
the midline crossing work done in waldorf circle materials have really
helped him - 2e love formdrawing for the same reason.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 398
-- Topica Digest --
RE: factors in success
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Waldorf Grads
By alice javanet.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
(lost the thread, sorry)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Grads
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
By canndw netzero.net
Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Delurking.....
By theosopost hotmail.com
tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
By snell gv.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:57:09 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: factors in success
mypostbox.formail wrote:
I am on this list because I am a critic of waldorf education, I dont
know of any other education that has a critic list, and if it did would
it have so many of the followers bothering to argue on the list. How
does a critics list attract SO many defenders?
are you all worried what we'll say? cant we be trusted here on our own?
------------------------
David: Bea, It's my understanding that Dan wants 'defenders' here;
otherwise, why have an open subscription policy? Lisa and Debra's
'survivors' list doesn't, so they probably don't (have defenders, that
is); I certainly don't read that list.
This list has 'defenders' precisely because Dan has advertised his list
widely on Yahoo and other major search engines. Bob & Nancy's
"Waldorfworld.net" index includes a link to Dan's site, too. It's very
easy for those interested in waldorf (pro and con) to find this list.
Most of the other waldorf lists are dull; I find this one more
stimulating, even as I find much of the discussion peripheral to my
interests.
David
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:57:20 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
David Cann wrote:
Alice responds to David's response:
)
) Paul: My experience (with Waldorf Education) as verified by this list is
) the norm.
)
) David: The people who post on the critics' list and (I presume) the
) "survivors' list" are a minute proportion of Waldorf families. I will agree
) that the types of complaints voiced by anti-Waldorf parents do tend to be
) similar, but I don't agree that the opinions voiced on this are "normative"
) of parents at Waldorf schools.
Alice here: I think that is why I continue on this list. It is clearly
not for support after a negative Waldorf school experience, it is
because there is a way that much criticism of Waldorf education is
silenced by anthroposophical leaders. There are many complaints by the
parents - but many are AFRAID to speak up because of retribution for
their children or themselves. Long before we had our truly tragic
experience, there was rebellion and rumbling among the more "real"
parents...and the sense that they always had to put on a mask before
they entered the school grounds. It is this spiritual superiority that
keeps the sheep in conformity, like any good religion, only this one
uses the love of our children to keep us in line.
The silent, mainly happy (in my experience)
) majority of parents is not heard from here.
Alice: I understand your school is extremely small...I imagine that you
band together because of your size - the "David and Goliath" syndrome?
)
) Paul again: My son had to endure 3 years with an angry teacher who
) constantly tried to control her out of control class with her anger. When
) the parents had finally had enough they went to the Board and the Core
) faculty to have the teacher dismissed. In July of this year, the faculty
) finally released their decision to keep this angry teacher. Did my Waldorf
) School act in the best interests of the teachers or in the best interests of
) the kids?
)
) David: Your writing suggests that ALL the families in the class oppose this
) teacher's continuation.
Alice: There can rarely if ever be a majority to agree in a Waldorf
classroom. Remember, this education attracts artisans, spiritualists,
anthroposophists,conventional but burned out, therapists/educators who
want something better,europeans, upwardly socially mobile(they usually
don't last long if that is their primary goal)families of kids who
already suspect their child of a "learning difference" etc. It is hard
enough to agree about mundane things like when can the class have an
overnight without the parents and other developmental opinions.
I think the difference between W and conventional education or other
non-parochial schools is that there is a freedom to express. Most of us
are not steeped in anthroposophy, so we are always in a position of
"one-down" from the faculty. This is not an ego issue, it is a matter
of communication and trust. How can we ever be viewed as experts on our
own children?
We can't in WE.
I was so surprised at how well I was listened to this last year when my
son started at Montessori. What a breath of fresh air! It took us both
months to relax and realize how human and humane it was compared with
Waldorf.
I know you were commenting, politically, David - particularly in your
position of treasurer. But the system in W seems to be set up on the
power of a few. I know they seem spiritually informed and so nice, but
if there is any contention, what power do you really have?(except to
withdraw, as many of us have....)
continuing as a modified Waldorf reformer...when I have the energy.
Alice
If so, then the faculty acted foolishly, since
) there can be no class without willing parents to foot the bill. If, on the
) other hand, there are a variety of viewpoints among the parents, the
) decision is quite a bit harder. My experience is that for every parent who
) says, "Fire this teacher or I walk!" is another parent who says, "Retain
) this teacher or I walk!"
)
) How many families in the class wish this teacher to be replaced? When was
) this expressed to the college or to the board (hint: it's much easier to
) take action in January than in May or June)?
)
) David
)
) ----------------------------------------------------
) NetZero Platinum
) Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
) http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:18:55 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap" comments her
Hi Kerr, Thanks for your post on what "Waldorf-inspired" stuff you use in
homeschooling. As I hope I made clear in my other post, my intent isn't to
criticize what you are doing at home, but to explain why to the critics,
calling it "Waldorf" is a problem because what you are doing at home
probably *isn't* what happens in Waldorf, yet you are giving Waldorf good PR
by saying you use these great Waldorf ideas.
Few of these ideas are actually unique to Waldorf, and they are twisted in
Waldorf such that you would probably not recognize what you think is
Waldorf.
)I'll skip kindergarten because I know lots of people "get" why parents )are
)drawn to waldorf early education, the play based model, the )natural
)materials etc (I'm a hard core environmentalist and anti-)corporate
)consumerist too - so that has influenced my feelings about )natural toys
)and minimal toys more than waldorf has). the sense that )they are not
)pushing children into academics before they're ready.
I have the most experience with k'garten (compared to grades) so I'll
comment. What you've listed are exactly the reasons we signed up. We liked
the "play-based model" too, because it was supposed to encourage the
imagination. It does, if the children are imagining what the teacher wants
them to imagine - a big "if."
re: "Not pushing children into academics before they're ready": That's not
exactly it, though you hear the phrase a lot. It is actually a timetable
that tells you when they are supposed to be ready, according to birth of
etheric bodies and such (no reading before teeth fall out), and if your
child doesn't fit that time table, and happens to want to read earlier, too
bad. "Delaying academics in all children as long as possible" would be more
accurate.
The "early reading" thing is my personal bugaboo - almost all parents who
sign up for Waldorf agree their child should not read "early." They don't
understand that "early" in Waldorf does not mean 3, 4, or 5. It means 7 or
8. (Steiner actually said it would be best to wait till the 11th or 12th
year.) There are clearly some children for whom the delay is not a problem,
but a great many are bored silly and/or lose a critical window of
opportunity to learn.
)Things I appreciate about waldorf - the rhythm - the developmental )thread,
)the seasonal rhythm, the block lesson rhythm, the intake, )sleep, output
)rhythm of the academic work, the daily rhythms )established.
I'll just say what I said in my previous post: More power to you
establishing daily rhythms, inbreathing/outbreathing etc. In Waldorf schools
this often morphs into an obsessive rigidity, sort of a caricature of what
you describe above.
)I love the arts integration (the craft handwork, music, drama, 2nd and )3rd
)languages) being used to help children absorb academics
This is a major misconception people have about Waldorf: that the arts are
used to "help children absorb academics." More often they are used to
*prevent* the children absorbing academics. They're used to instill a
meditative frame of mind, keep the children "out of their heads" (and to
encourage them to meditate on certain symbols or themes that are important
in anthroposophy).
Drawing and painting and all the arts are wonderful, but *not* when they
*replace* reading, thinking, discussion, analysis, questioning, debate, and
when the latter are strongly discouraged for as long as possible. At home
you can do both. *Not* what Waldorf is about.
I would certainly agree other schools need to take music, drama, the arts
more seriously; Waldorf encourages parents to think Waldorf is the only
school in the world where you can get good arts instruction, and this is far
from true. And, of course, at home, you can do as much or as little art as
your children want or as you think is best for them.
Sarina has talked about this here too - using the wet on wet to help a child
get interested in learning the alphabet. Steiner would turn over in his
grave. That is *not* the correct use of wet on wet, in fact it would be seen
as soul-destroying.
)I love the cultural immersion that is possible (even though I present a
)much broader multicultural experience for my child than he'd EVER get )in a
)waldorf school) with the pace of the year. I love the )storytelling.
I agree cultural immersion is a good idea, but you're quite right that
Eurocentrism is central to Waldorf. They are not "immersed" in various
cultures to learn about the differences between different cultures; the
cultures are presented in a specific sequence because different cultures are
supposed to correspond to different developmental stages or "soul moods" or
"progress" in the children, and this is obviously heavily value-judgment
laden vis. the various cultures.
)I love the physical experience of colour that wet on wet painting has
)given my son (and thats not to say we don't also do loads of other art
)making and have sparkle paint :-)
Ah. There's the catch. It's great that you got the idea of wet on wet from
Waldorf. Go for it. If you were a parent in a Waldorf school, you would get
a lot of flak about the sparkle paint. To a Waldorf teacher the sparkle
paint would be a disasterous, damaging thing you are doing to your child,
and you'd probably be seriously guilt-tripped. You would be *undoing* the
good you had done by doing the wet on wet, see?
Most of the Waldorf parents do all this stuff anyway, and just guiltily hide
it. (For the kids, it is very confusing why these things are ok at home but
somehow "naughty" to mention at school.) The same applies to practically any
type of art making you can think of that is *not* wet on wet (or crayoning,
or beeswax modeling). Magic markers, colored pencils, oil paints, rubber
stamps, stencils, play dough, stickers and coloring books, blow pens,
glitter, finger painting (they think finger painting is very "base" and "too
physical," brings out the "lower self").
I accidentally deleted the part about mixing colors, but I'm sure from a
Waldorf teacher's perspective (not mine), you're doing that wrong too. Like
virtually everything in Waldorf, there is only one specific way to mix
colors, a prescribed anthroposophic sequence, with spiritual meanings
assigned to all the colors. (It sounded appealing to me until I saw how it
worked with 4- and 5-year-olds who were eager to actually get some paint on
the paper, and how the teacher browbeat them. They may not make pictures,
and they may not make lines.) Some of us got tired of all the criticism and
rigidity and decided this stuff was more damaging than the sparkle paint,
which is a lot of fun. :)
)I have a profoundly gifted child who's been telling people he is going )to
)be a rennaisance man when he grows up since the age of three, and )we've
)found that we're able to meet his intellectual needs while paying
)attention to the waldorf developmental thread
Your gifted son would waste away in Waldorf. Waldorf teachers would not
approve of your "meeting his intellectual needs." He's not supposed to have
any. They would advise you to *ignore* his intellectual needs, and claim it
was your fault for "intellectualizing" him. You'd be advised to "move him
out of his head," stop answering his questions (just ignore them, or sing a
song to drown him out), or give fanciful answers even if what he clearly
wants is accurate information. I don't think you said how old your gifted
child is, but this would apply to any child under, say, 11 or 12 - it's not
just about preschoolers. I'd better stop now, but thank you again for your
post.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:48:49 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: (lost the thread, sorry)
David wrote:
)For the record, the critic whom I consider best at putting together a
)coherent picture of the 'anti-Waldorf' argument is Diana.
Well. Thank you (except for the "overreaching" part.) :)
)I also think you need to compile some data to strengthen your individual
)stories.
How would we do that? They are dead-set against anybody observing or
evaluating them from the big bad "outside" world. If anybody does get in to
observe, they're forbidden to take notes, or take photos or videos or make a
tape recording, and are discouraged from talking to the children. (They tell
you it's better for the children to observe adults doing "real" things with
their hands, like knitting, rather than "head" stuff like writing on a piece
of paper, but this policy has the additional effect of making documentation
of classroom activities virtually impossible.)
How's this research going to get done? If you have suggestions, or would
like to volunteer your school for such a study, please tell!
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:09:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Grads
)Paul: My experience (with Waldorf Education) as verified by this list is
)the norm.
)
)David: The people who post on the critics' list and (I presume) the
)"survivors' list" are a minute proportion of Waldorf families. I will agree
)that the types of complaints voiced by anti-Waldorf parents do tend to be
)similar, but I don't agree that the opinions voiced on this are "normative"
)of parents at Waldorf schools. The silent, mainly happy (in my experience)
)majority of parents is not heard from here.
I agree with David. The great majority of parents are happy with
Waldorf. But all that means is that Waldorf is good at making parents
believe in the system, not that the system doesn't have serious
problems built in.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:09:06 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"
comments her
Dear Kerr, let me pick on a couple of points in your post:
)the sense that they are not
)pushing children into academics before they're ready.
When are children ready for "academics"? Let's take reading and
counting for starters. When do you think children are ready for
reading and counting? Upon what is your belief based?
)I've found that all
)the midline crossing work done in waldorf circle materials have really
)helped him - 2e love formdrawing for the same reason.
I'm curious about this "midline crossing" terminology, where does it come from?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:11:15 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
--------------1B00D3471EECD49B54D8E865
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Dear Kerr, let me pick on a couple of points in your post:
)
) )the sense that they are not
) )pushing children into academics before they're ready.
)
) When are children ready for "academics"? Let's take reading and
) counting for starters. When do you think children are ready for
) reading and counting? Upon what is your belief based?
Well I don't agree with the waldorf idea that the loss of primary
teeth indicates
academic readiness. I think its something very individual with
children. I've
been really influenced by the theories put forth by David Elkind in The Hurried
Child and in Miseducation. and Raymond and Dorothy Moore. I think
our society has
made the mistake of confusing early intervention programs for disadvantaged
children with the idea that if it works with them, it'll put "normal" children
ahead if we push early academics, when the stress it puts on children is more
likely to encorage burnout than academic excellence. As the parent
of a profoundly
gifted child I know that in his early years the best way to meet his
needs was to
provide tons of opportunities - to PLAY in the children's museum, to
meet artists,
writers, filmmakers, scientists, etc, it was not to provide workbooks, not to
provide "educational toys". It was allowing him to teach himself to
read with real
books, not graded primers. It was exposing him to different types of
storytellers
from many different cultures as well as books. It meant...when I saw
him obsessing
over a particular subject, I made sure we gave him opportunities to
explore that
subject in a variety of ways....not simply through reading for instance.
I DO have a problem with our society's values as far as "academics"
are concerned.
I think we're misguided if we think rote recitation of numbers means more than
spatial sense for instance. That singing the alphabet song has more value and
gauges more than being able to retell a story in sequence. I think it would be
much better if we paid attention to our children's NATURAL aquisition of skills
than pushing certain ones with "educational" toys, innane songs,"educational"
television, and our expectations..
)
)
) )I've found that all
) )the midline crossing work done in waldorf circle materials have really
) )helped him - 2e love formdrawing for the same reason.
)
) I'm curious about this "midline crossing" terminology, where does
it come from?
Educational kinesiology, Paul Dennison has been its biggest promoter
but most of my
knowledge comes from my son's psychiatrist and his occupational
therapist. I've
taken a workshop so that I can utilize it at home as well. Its using
coordinated
body movement to enhance learning. In my son's case he finds it
calming and it is
helping him become more coordinated overall. We also utilize karate
classes for
the same kind of exercises. My son has Sensory Integration Disorder and has
problems with laterality (he has a very hard time physically writing,
and is very
"rigid" in his sense of movement he still can't pedal a bike for instance)-
exercises that involve crossing the midline (the centre of the body) help him
coordinate his movements and make small muscle activities that involve back and
forth movements like writing much easier.
--------------1B00D3471EECD49B54D8E865--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:44:06 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
David:
) )I also think you need to compile some data to strengthen your individual
) )stories.
)
Diana:
) How's this research going to get done? If you have suggestions, or would
) like to volunteer your school for such a study, please tell!
I was thinking of things the critics could share among themselves. Track
departure and arrivals (including waiting lists for schools that have them)
from each class -- numbers of kids and reason for departure. How many
children attend the school from grade one through eight? What grade causes
the biggest problem? What are the traits of teachers who lose (or don't
lose) a lot of kids? What special subject additions or deletions affected
enrollment?
Those of you with old main lesson books could compare them for consistency,
'language level' and grammar for those containing compositions (grade four
and up at our school), anthroposophical content, similarity of block
structure, all that stuff. I have pointed out before (because it's true)
that the main lesson book and its content is NOT the sole measure of a
waldorf education, but since everybody uses them, and it fairly well
documents what was covered, and suggests each child's achievement level, it
seems a good source of data.
My question to Paul (where I asked about various attitudes among parents
about a teacher he wants removed) could also be a worthwhile data point.
Most of you live near a waldorf school, and probably still have friends,
relatives, or acquaintances associated with the schools. By sticking with
things that might be verified, you can support your claims that the schools
are all carbon-copies of each other, and that relations with parents are
lousy, without having to push buttons that get people's hackles up (unless
that's your only goal, of course).
That's what I meant.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:49:05 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
David wrote:
)
) Newpaul: My experience (with Waldorf Education) as verified by this list is
) the norm.
)
) David: The people who post on the critics' list and (I presume) the
) "survivors' list" are a minute proportion of Waldorf families.
Newpaul
That could be indicative of the families ahrimatic fear of computers and
the internet.
I will agree
) that the types of complaints voiced by anti-Waldorf parents do tend to be
) similar, but I don't agree that the opinions voiced on this are "normative"
) of parents at Waldorf schools. The silent, mainly happy (in my experience)
) majority of parents is not heard from here.
)
Newpaul
Gee seems that I recall the Debra Snell, Lisa Ercolano, Sharon Lombard
and hundreds of others were all silent, and not heard from on this list
until their kids were abused in the system.
) Newpaul again: My son had to endure 3 years with an angry teacher who
) constantly tried to control her out of control class with her anger. When
) the parents had finally had enough they went to the Board and the Core
) faculty to have the teacher dismissed. In July of this year, the faculty
) finally released their decision to keep this angry teacher. Did my Waldorf
) School act in the best interests of the teachers or in the best interests of
) the kids?
)
) David: Your writing suggests that ALL the families in the class oppose this
) teacher's continuation. If so, then the faculty acted foolishly, since
) there can be no class without willing parents to foot the bill. If, on the
) other hand, there are a variety of viewpoints among the parents, the
) decision is quite a bit harder. My experience is that for every parent who
) says, "Fire this teacher or I walk!" is another parent who says, "Retain
) this teacher or I walk!"
Newpaul
Of the 18 or so interviewed by the board and core, almost 1/2 were for
firing. Numerous instances of abusive behavior were reported and
verified by other parents to show the incompetence not only of the
teacher in question, but the Core Faculty as well. Many abusive
instances were repeated by various parents. I am not comfortable
recanting in detail these instances, but I had a list of 8 or 10, and my
cousin a public school teacher, said that for any "1" of the infractions
a teacher would be immediately terminated in his school. The other
parents who favored her staying were even aware of individual abusive
and inappropriate behaviors perpetrated upon *their own children* and
still chose to support the teacher. Now I ask you David does this look
like - a cult? Walks like a cult, talks like a cult, acts like a cult.
You answer the question, " was the decision to retain this teacher in
the best interest of the kids or in the best interest of the teacher?"
)
) How many families in the class wish this teacher to be replaced? When was
) this expressed to the college or to the board (hint: it's much easier to
) take action in January than in May or June)?
Newpaul
Here is the history. In August of last year, the problem was realized
by parents other than myself. After the parents went to the teacher,
they went to the board. A letter was issued in October telling parents
in a vague way that a study was being done. In January, a parent
evening was held to address parental concerns with the teacher there.
The Teacher defended herself and blamed the parents. In May the core
was allegedly about to send a letter of support for the teacher to the
parents. Some of the parents complained bitterly. The core decided to
interview all of the parents to see what we knew in May. School ended
in June. The core released a statement endorsing the teacher and
supporting her as class teacher for the 2001-02 year on June 29th. Many
of the parents were prepared to stay if they committed to get a new
teacher. I thing about 6 families bailed and 4 more think would have if
they thought there was education outside of WE. This problem teacher
has been angrily dealing with the kids since she arrived at the school
and only after several years is she finally exposed.
I have concluded that the Core Faculty had a predetermined agenda and
outcome in mind from the beginning. Show concern, do an
anthroposophical study that blames the problem on the overly energetic
classroom dynamics never mentioning that we might have an angry
dysfunctional person in the classroom, write letters leading parents to
believe that something was being done, interview the parents. Say
Hallelulia when school ends and wait another 20 some odd days until it
so late the parents might reconsider leaving. Then pat yourself on the
back you have achieved you real goal, to do nothing.
Yup, this has been exactly my experience. Abuse, deception, control,
manipulation, and stall until school is over.
I would be just as comfortable dropping my kid off at the bus station or
the subway for the day than trusting him to the lying and abusive
Anthroposophists at the local Waldorf School. There is no one there to
look after my child. The Anthroposophists run the school for their own
benefit. And the teachers do nothing to hold one another accountable.
Newpaul
)
)
) David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:44:36 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
newpaul wrote:
) The Anthroposophists run the school for their own
) benefit. And the teachers do nothing to hold one another accountable.
this would be an accurate description of michael hall steiner waldorf school
bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 20:21:04 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
)
) Paul: My experience (with Waldorf Education) as verified by
this list is
) the norm.
)
) David: The people who post on the critics' list and (I presume) the
) "survivors' list" are a minute proportion of Waldorf
families. I will agree
) that the types of complaints voiced by anti-Waldorf parents
do tend to be
) similar, but I don't agree that the opinions voiced on this
are "normative"
) of parents at Waldorf schools. The silent, mainly happy (in
my experience)
) majority of parents is not heard from here.
)
)
) I agree with David. The great majority of parents are happy with
) Waldorf. But all that means is that Waldorf is good at making parents
) believe in the system, not that the system doesn't have serious
) problems built in.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Newpaul
You are always so d# &%*ed scientific Dan. My first hand Waldorf
Experiences have been verified by this list over and over. I am not
going to change my hypothesis just because the WE promoters refuse to
admit there might be a problem.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:35:28 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Kerr wrote:
)I think our society has made the mistake of confusing early )intervention
)programs for disadvantaged children with the idea that if )it works with
)them, it'll put "normal" children ahead if we push early )academics, when
)the stress it puts on children is more likely to )encorage burnout than
)academic excellence.
I think you have a good point about the influence of early-intervention
programs filtering down to "normal" children. However, after having said
that reading readiness is individual, next you say "the stress it puts on
children is more likely to encourage burnout," as if all children were the
same. You were right the first time - stick with the emphasis on the
individual! Some children might be stressed, so don't stress them. Some
children want to learn, so teach them.
)As the parent of a profoundly gifted child I know that in his early )years
)the best way to meet his needs was to provide tons of )opportunities - to
)PLAY in the children's museum, to meet artists, )writers, filmmakers,
)scientists, etc,
Just a note, here, Kerr, but what you are advocating would *never* occur in
a Waldorf school. Trust me, they are not inviting artists, writers,
filmmakers and scientists in to talk to the kids. You would be very strongly
discouraged from doing any of these things. If you'd like to know the
reasons, I'll elaborate, but just wanted to correct any misimpression you
may have that these ideas are compatible with Waldorf.
)It was allowing him to teach himself to read with real books, not )graded
)primers.
Waldorf doesn't care for either real books *or* primers, Kerr. They should
be delayed as long as possible, and then there are strict restrictions on
what kinds of books are deemed appropriate; you can pretty much forget the
children's section in your public library, let's put it that way. They will
not encourage you to get your child a library card.
)It was exposing him to different types of storytellers from many )different
)cultures as well as books.
There too, Waldorf teachers would probably discourage you from going to hear
these storytellers, unless the storyteller if a Waldorf teacher. Others are
probably telling the story "wrong" even if the content is acceptable. The
setting will be wrong, there will be recorded music, or if nothing else the
refreshments will be wrong. (Stay home, they say.)
)It meant...when I saw him obsessing over a particular subject, I made )sure
)we gave him opportunities to explore that subject in a variety of
) )ways....not simply through reading for instance.
Just note that reading would be *last* on their list, they'd rather you
didn't. They accept that most parents are going to anyway, but they don't
like it.
)I DO have a problem with our society's values as far as "academics" )are
)concerned. I think we're misguided if we think rote recitation of )numbers
)means more than spatial sense for instance. That singing the )alphabet
)song has more value and gauges more than being able to retell )a story in
)sequence.
I like the spatial sense thing too, but depending on the age of the child, I
think a Waldorf teacher would be unlikely to encourage a child to retell a
story in sequence. This would be considered "intellectualizing." The
children are supposed to "take in" a story, but not have thoughts about it,
ask questions, or discuss it. They are discouraged from verbalizing anything
about the story.
)I think it would be much better if we paid attention to our children's
) )NATURAL aquisition of skills than pushing certain ones with
) )"educational" toys, innane songs," educational" television, and our
) )expectations..
There you would be in agreement with the average Waldorf teacher, I think.
Personally, I've really never understood what could possibly be so evil
about the ABC song, though when I was a Waldorf parent, I felt very guilty
that I had taught it to my son.
)most of my knowledge comes from my son's psychiatrist and his )occupational
)therapist.
Your child's Waldorf teacher would be unlikely to agree with your taking him
to a psychiatrist or occupational therapist, unless this person also
happened to be an anthroposophist.
)We also utilize karate classes
Completely taboo in Waldorf.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:59:36 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Delurking.....
Coming out of lurk mode during a rare quiet evening. First of all, it seems
that many of the criticisms of the Waldorf school could also be made against
parochial schools or public institutions if one wanted to make them.
Secondly - I am wondering why Michael Kopp was not removed from the site for
his ad hominem attacks of both Sune and Takeasha? Was he warned? Ad
hominems seem to be a major concern of Dan's and I'm wondering if the rule
applies to all ad hominems or just those made by non-critics?
Lastly - can we get something straight? Anectdotal evidence is just
anectdotal evidence. As I mentioned in an earlier post - we all see life
through filters (at least that's what I believe) - and such filters can skew
what we see - affecting this anectdotal "evidence."
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:35:56 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
Lisa here: I think I speak for most of us critics when I say we would *love*
to be able to track enrollments and withdrawals/various reasons for leaving
at Waldorf schools.
I doubt, however, that such data tracking would be possible. The Waldorf
schools, either individually or as a group, would likely not allow it! After
all, it's difficult enough to understand who is doing what, why and when
even when your child is enrolled in a Waldorf school.* Imagine a school
allowing outsiders -- and outsiders known to be highly critical -- to have
access to such information!
* In my experience, even families with children enrolled don't always hear
the truth about why another family chooses to leave. More often than not, if
I asked why so-and-so took their child out, I would hear some version of
"Oh, that boy/girl had some problems, and the parent decided to work on
those at home before coming back." Several times at least, I followed up
with the families themselves and heard a whole different story. This kind of
excuse is Waldorf's way of "whitewashing" negative situations that might
impact on enrolled families' feelings/perceptions about Waldorf. It's
another example of the good ole' Waldorf "What They Don't Know Can't Hurt
Us" attitude that so many of us are familiar with.
) David:
)) )I also think you need to compile some data to strengthen your individual
)) )stories.
))
) Diana:
)) How's this research going to get done? If you have suggestions, or would
)) like to volunteer your school for such a study, please tell!
)
) I was thinking of things the critics could share among themselves. Track
) departure and arrivals (including waiting lists for schools that have them)
) from each class -- numbers of kids and reason for departure. How many
) children attend the school from grade one through eight? What grade causes
) the biggest problem? What are the traits of teachers who lose (or don't
) lose) a lot of kids? What special subject additions or deletions affected
) enrollment?
)
) Those of you with old main lesson books could compare them for consistency,
) 'language level' and grammar for those containing compositions (grade four
) and up at our school), anthroposophical content, similarity of block
) structure, all that stuff. I have pointed out before (because it's true)
) that the main lesson book and its content is NOT the sole measure of a
) waldorf education, but since everybody uses them, and it fairly well
) documents what was covered, and suggests each child's achievement level, it
) seems a good source of data.
)
) My question to Paul (where I asked about various attitudes among parents
) about a teacher he wants removed) could also be a worthwhile data point.
)
) Most of you live near a waldorf school, and probably still have friends,
) relatives, or acquaintances associated with the schools. By sticking with
) things that might be verified, you can support your claims that the schools
) are all carbon-copies of each other, and that relations with parents are
) lousy, without having to push buttons that get people's hackles up (unless
) that's your only goal, of course).
)
) That's what I meant.
)
) David
)
) ----------------------------------------------------
) NetZero Platinum
) Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
) http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:44:00 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
her
--------------3B4F43F8E640461319118404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Diana Winters wrote:
) Kerr wrote:
)
) )I think our society has made the mistake of confusing early )intervention
) )programs for disadvantaged children with the idea that if )it works with
) )them, it'll put "normal" children ahead if we push early )academics, when
) )the stress it puts on children is more likely to )encorage burnout than
) )academic excellence.
)
) I think you have a good point about the influence of early-intervention
) programs filtering down to "normal" children. However, after having said
) that reading readiness is individual, next you say "the stress it puts on
) children is more likely to encourage burnout," as if all children were the
) same. You were right the first time - stick with the emphasis on the
) individual! Some children might be stressed, so don't stress them. Some
) children want to learn, so teach them.
Ah but I specifically said "push academics" My son hasn't been in a waldorf
school, but did attend a public magnet school for a year ...my experience was
pretty typical from what I've learned. 3.5-5.5 year olds being given
30 minutes
of free play then sat down to do handwriting exercises where they traced
alphabet letters and their numbers, worksheet after worksheet and a window
dressing of unit studies apples on this weeks worksheets, pumpkins on next
weeks. Everything in the classroom was labelled with a card with
what it was on
it, and all their games were structured around specific skills. More than 20%
of his little classmates were on medications to make them pliable -
children who
I knew weren't taking those pills on weekends and during holidays. I don't
think academically geared kindergartens meet the needs of any children, it
certainly wasn't meeting the needs of my gifted child...after one *ahem*
incident the principal actually said to me "Tyren is so advanced
academically we
don't need to look at those skills at all, lets just see about his
socialization
skills for the next 3 or 4 years, compliance is as important as multiplication
and division."
) )As the parent of a profoundly gifted child I know that in his early )years
) )the best way to meet his needs was to provide tons of )opportunities - to
) )PLAY in the children's museum, to meet artists, )writers, filmmakers,
) )scientists, etc,
)
) Just a note, here, Kerr, but what you are advocating would *never* occur in
) a Waldorf school. Trust me, they are not inviting artists, writers,
) filmmakers and scientists in to talk to the kids. You would be very strongly
) discouraged from doing any of these things. If you'd like to know the
) reasons, I'll elaborate, but just wanted to correct any misimpression you
) may have that these ideas are compatible with Waldorf.
Oh I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact that my teaching methods are
inspired by waldorf. I think you can take the good and discard the bad. I've
taken teaching method seminars, I know the anthroposophical dance around child
development, media influences etc. I know the disapproval when my
son excitedly
talked all about seeing Guernica at a Picasso exhibition and being an extra in
"Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer" LOL! It doesn't change the insight I got into
lesson planning and working with lesson blocks.
)
) Waldorf doesn't care for either real books *or* primers, Kerr. They should
) be delayed as long as possible, and then there are strict restrictions on
) what kinds of books are deemed appropriate; you can pretty much forget the
) children's section in your public library, let's put it that way. They will
) not encourage you to get your child a library card.
Well to be honest, until Tyren was 7 I *was* censoring his reading material.
This is a child who easily falls into phobias. I kept our shelves stocked with
fairy tales, myths and legends of the non gory kind. We got really
good picture
books, and beautiful wordless books, and we put the heavier stuff away for
awhile. I couldn't stop him reading (can you stop a child from breathing?) but
I didn't teach him to, he taught himself when he was 2 with The Way
Things Work,
then read The Borrowers and to this day he is positive they exist.
His interest
in reading waxed and waned until he was 7. He'd go months where he didn't
choose to read anything as far as I could tell - built a lot of elaborate traps
and structures in those periods (many were to trap the Borrowers :-). I don't
think traditional western education allows for those natural lulls in
the period
they consider critical to reading success. He just finished reading all of
Douglas Adams books and wants to read Mordecai Richler's novels because he read
about his death and he loved Jacob Two Two when he was "young" (He's 8
now)...I'm trying to hold him off a bit because of the adult content.
)
)
) )It was exposing him to different types of storytellers from many )different
) )cultures as well as books.
)
) There too, Waldorf teachers would probably discourage you from going to hear
) these storytellers, unless the storyteller if a Waldorf teacher. Others are
) probably telling the story "wrong" even if the content is acceptable. The
) setting will be wrong, there will be recorded music, or if nothing else the
) refreshments will be wrong. (Stay home, they say.)
Yes and thats why we are merely waldorf inspired. In Enki education authentic
voices are important so storytellers from other cultures are
welcomed. Its hard
to deny I'm using a waldorf model when I use storytelling and animal puppets to
introduce a new math concept - then don't talk about it for a week while he
digests it. Or tell curative stories at bedtime to help my son digest his
"issues".
) )It meant...when I saw him obsessing over a particular subject, I made )sure
) )we gave him opportunities to explore that subject in a variety of
) ) )ways....not simply through reading for instance.
)
) Just note that reading would be *last* on their list, they'd rather you
) didn't. They accept that most parents are going to anyway, but they don't
) like it.
Reading is actually last on my list too, I can't stop my child from
reading (and
wouldn't want to) but I know that he is better served in the long run by
*experiencing* things. It isn't easy getting across to 7-8 year olds
(no matter
how bright) that just because its in print doesn't make it so.
) )I DO have a problem with our society's values as far as "academics" )are
) )concerned. I think we're misguided if we think rote recitation of )numbers
) )means more than spatial sense for instance. That singing the )alphabet
) )song has more value and gauges more than being able to retell )a story in
) )sequence.
)
) I like the spatial sense thing too, but depending on the age of the child, I
) think a Waldorf teacher would be unlikely to encourage a child to retell a
) story in sequence. This would be considered "intellectualizing." The
) children are supposed to "take in" a story, but not have thoughts about it,
) ask questions, or discuss it. They are discouraged from verbalizing anything
) about the story.
But I wouldn't encourage retelling either in a young child (I think recitation
has to come up naturally, in conversation or in play) My son often acted out
stories he's heard - embellishing them with his perceptions - but in perfect
sequence. At the same time he steadfastly refused to sing that damned song
LOL! I have watched in a waldorf kindergarten the children acting out through
play the story from that week. I do think - from my experience - that part of
internalizing a story is working through it in play.
) )I think it would be much better if we paid attention to our children's
) ) )NATURAL aquisition of skills than pushing certain ones with
) ) )"educational" toys, innane songs," educational" television, and our
) ) )expectations..
)
) There you would be in agreement with the average Waldorf teacher, I think.
) Personally, I've really never understood what could possibly be so evil
) about the ABC song, though when I was a Waldorf parent, I felt very guilty
) that I had taught it to my son.
LOL I hate the song because I think it's the wrong way to approach reading
skills in children who aren't visual learners. Visual learners digest words in
chunks and wholes - they seldom use phonics, for them the alphabet song is
irrelevant. For children who require decoding skills, its actually harmful -
they need to completely relearn what the alphabet MEANS aaaaaaaaaaaa,
bbbbbb,kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk, (or more often ssssssssss) not "aye, bee, see".
Save the damned song until they're learning to use the dictionary and need to
know the alphabetical order. If I had a child who was a phonics decoder, I'd
definitely introduce them to the alphabet using the waldorf model of story -
sound - visual reminder of sound.)most of my knowledge comes from my son's
psychiatrist and his )occupational
) )therapist.
)
) Your child's Waldorf teacher would be unlikely to agree with your taking him
) to a psychiatrist or occupational therapist, unless this person also
) happened to be an anthroposophist.
I know, if he was in a waldorf school he'd be getting curative eurythmy instead
... and they are remarkably similar - just OT has no "magical"
pretenses...and I
doubt they'd give him a bumble ball to play with at waldorf school LOL! Is
there much difference on the "woo woo" scale between anthro doctors and gestalt
psychotherapists -psychiatrists??? :-)
) )We also utilize karate classes
)
) Completely taboo in Waldorf.
And in Enki they've replaced Eurythmy and Bothmer with Akido and Children's
Archery (We like our dojo too much to switch to an Akido dojo...but Tyren would
like to do both) The thing is martial arts are supported in waldorf *inspired*
programs because the movements may have a different intent, but they have the
same affect on the physical body, integration of head, heart, and hands....and
I've seen in a lot of waldorf initiatives that don't have access to a
eurythmist
they are using martial arts too.
--------------3B4F43F8E640461319118404--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:48:00 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Lies, Abuse, Deception That's What Cults are Made Of
)newpaul wrote:
)) The Anthroposophists run the school for their own
)) benefit. And the teachers do nothing to hold one another accountable.
)
)this would be an accurate description of michael hall steiner waldorf school
)bea
))
Debra:
As a former board member, I can attest that faculty meetings can be
intense, icy and non supportive. The public face presented to parents
always amazed me. That THESE back stabbing teachers could put on such a
united front seemed like an impossible feat accomplished.
Waldorf schools are filled with smoke and mirrors. Don't assume it ends
anywhere. Those faculty performances were especially hard on the teachers
(who disliked each other).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:32:22 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3080104343_4625037_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
kerr wrote:
Well to be honest, until Tyren was 7 I *was* censoring his reading material.
This is a child who easily falls into phobias. I kept our shelves stocked
with fairy tales, myths and legends of the non gory kind. We got really
good picture books, and beautiful wordless books, and we put the heavier
stuff away for awhile
bea here.
My daughter hadnt seen a book at age 7, she was in class 1 of the waldorf
school and didnt know her numbers or letters, but I trusted they knew what
they were doing by the end of class 4 I didnt trust anymore and I went out
and bought a reading scheme and spent the long summer hoidays working on
reading every day, by then she was frightened of books and 'knew' that this
was something that was so difficult she would never be able to do it, her
(very antho)waldorf teacher kept saying "it will come when she's ready" but
the children in her (normal )tennis club lessons laughed at her because she
couldent read the instructions on the drinks machine she was nearly 11 they
thought she was wierd, she refused to go to anything outside of school.
Reading is actually last on my list too, I can't stop my child from reading
(and wouldn't want to) but I know that he is better served in the long run
by *experiencing* things. It isn't easy getting across to 7-8 year olds (no
matter how bright) that just because its in print doesn't make it so.
none of the children in our waldorf school class needed to warned about
print at 7/8yrs old they werent allowed to read anything except their own
writing, they could have been warned about that though it said things like
"god loves the animals"
how old is your son now kerr?
--MS_Mac_OE_3080104343_4625037_MIME_Part--
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 399
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired itscrap"comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
By alice javanet.com
Re: tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
OT: math question for Kerry or anyone else
By sarina bainbridge.net
group psychopathology
By hermit tiac.net
Re: OT: math question for Kerry or anyone else
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
multiple intelligences
By momof2gals mindspring.com
lying ?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: group psychopathology
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: lying ?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: lying ?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: lying ?
By theosopost hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:22:52 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired itscrap"comments
her
--------------51E3794EACC9B59EF6010536
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
bea asked:
)
) none of the children in our waldorf school class needed to
) warned about print at 7/8yrs old they werent allowed to read
) anything except their own writing, they could have been
) warned about that though it said things like "god loves the
) animals"
) how old is your son now kerr?
)
He's 8 .... Last year (grade 2) we looked at fables and animal stories
(like in WE) and we looked at heroes from many cultures instead of just
the saints (Ghandi, Buddha, etc) so I do follow the developmental thread
in regards to the kinds of stories that will reach children of different
ages....I totally support that concept in waldorf education. This year
(grade 3) we plan on looking at creation stories and stories of a
"fall" in September we start with Native American stories, in winter,
Hebrew, and in the spring Mayan and South/Central American.
I have no doubt at all that WE fails many children, but so do public
schools. My son for example would be crushed in EITHER situation.
I'm SO sorry your daughter went through such a horrible experience
learning to read! How is she now???
Kerr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:36:56 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
bea wrote:
)My daughter hadnt seen a book at age 7,
DL: I'm confused. Are you saying that she wasn't exposed to books until the
age of seven?
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:38:32 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
bea wrote:
)My daughter hadnt seen a book at age 7,
DL: I'm confused. Are you saying that she wasn't exposed to books until the
age of seven?
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 09:52:25 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
*snips*
) * In my experience, even families with children enrolled don't always hear
) the truth about why another family chooses to leave. More often than not, if
) I asked why so-and-so took their child out, I would hear some version of
) "Oh, that boy/girl had some problems, and the parent decided to work on
) those at home before coming back." Several times at least, I followed up
) with the families themselves and heard a whole different story. This kind of
) excuse is Waldorf's way of "whitewashing" negative situations that might
) impact on enrolled families' feelings/perceptions about Waldorf. It's
) another example of the good ole' Waldorf "What They Don't Know Can't Hurt
) Us" attitude that so many of us are familiar wi
Alice here: I absolutely agree with Lisa. At this WS, they have some
kind of weird concept about protecting the community from the truth.. it
seems to be one of the most insidious and cult-like aspects..
They hate "parking-lot" talk and it seems worry that parents together
generate trouble.
As the last year's sixth grade, we were meeting regularly because there
were so many unsatisfied parents/children.
The school was very clear that they did NOT want us meeting on our own.
They were vague about the reasons, referring to possible incorrect
information being generated within the group.
They seemed to be anxious and threatened and didn't trust the parent
group to be supportive/compassionate or productive.
(it was proven that we were all of those things..)
These are mostly parents who want their children to continue, but are
distressed at the lack of role that they are given in their children's
education..
-Alice
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:49:31 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: tracking data on WS: was "lost the thread, sorry"
) Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) *snips*
)
) * In my experience, even families with children enrolled
don't always hear
) the truth about why another family chooses to leave. More
often than not, if
) I asked why so-and-so took their child out, I would hear some
version of
) "Oh, that boy/girl had some problems, and the parent decided to work on
) those at home before coming back." Several times at least, I
followed up
) with the families themselves and heard a whole different
story. This kind of
) excuse is Waldorf's way of "whitewashing" negative situations
that might
) impact on enrolled families' feelings/perceptions about Waldorf. It's
) another example of the good ole' Waldorf "What They Don't
Know Can't Hurt
) Us" attitude that so many of us are familiar wi
)
)
) Alice here: I absolutely agree with Lisa. At this WS, they have some
) kind of weird concept about protecting the community from the truth.. it
) seems to be one of the most insidious and cult-like aspects..
) They hate "parking-lot" talk and it seems worry that parents together
) generate trouble.
) As the last year's sixth grade, we were meeting regularly because there
) were so many unsatisfied parents/children.
) The school was very clear that they did NOT want us meeting on our own.
) They were vague about the reasons, referring to possible incorrect
) information being generated within the group.
) They seemed to be anxious and threatened and didn't trust the parent
) group to be supportive/compassionate or productive.
) (it was proven that we were all of those things..)
) These are mostly parents who want their children to continue, but are
) distressed at the lack of role that they are given in their children's
) education..
)
) -Alice
Newpaul
I have experienced the same thing. One teacher got physically abusive
with one of my sons and his best friend. When the school learned the
other boy's parent and I were discussing the situation, their first
response was to criticize us. Saying that it is a school policy that
matters of disagreement are only handled between parents and school
faculty. Our kids class teacher (not the physically abusive teacher in
the incident) made a conscious decision to pick on my son's friend until
the boy didn't want to return to school. She yelled and screamed and
verbally attacked him and let him know he was wanted in her class. The
boy stayed out the last 2 weeks of school, and no one from the Waldorf
School even bothered to call and see if he was okay or to inquire why he
was no longer showing up for classes. Significantly, the boy's mother
help start our school. It grew out of a play group she formed.
When the core decided to interview the parents about the angry class
teacher. They did it one at a time so that none of the parents were
aware of the others concerns.
Newpaul
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:57:42 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
David:
)I was thinking of things the critics could share among themselves.
)Track departure and arrivals (including waiting lists for schools that
) )have them) from each class -- numbers of kids and reason for )departure.
)How many children attend the school from grade one through eight? )What
)grade causes the biggest problem? What are the traits of )teachers who
)lose (or don't lose) a lot of kids? (etc.)
David, surely you don't think the schools would share this information with
us? Naturally many of us are in touch with people who've left as well as
some people who've stayed, but no one who is still committed to the school
is going to pass along information such as numbers of families departing and
their reasons for departure, if it is unfavorable to the school, and no one
who has left *has* such information. Do you think if I called our former
Waldorf school and asked, "What are the traits of the teachers who lose a
lot of kids?" they would be interested in discussing this with me? I do pick
up information on the grapevine (translate: at the swim club), but it
couldn't be considered objective data, obviously.
)the main lesson book and its content is NOT the sole measure of a )waldorf
)education, but since everybody uses them, and it fairly well )documents
)what was covered, and suggests each child's achievement )level, it seems a
)good source of data.
The critics are certainly doing such things, but again, getting any kind of
sample that could be considered representative is difficult. If they're all
from children whose families left angry, then Waldorf supporters will say -
fairly - that this is biased; families who are still happy with the school
won't turn over their kids' books to critics who have an "agenda" (as you
know since you yourself have refused, understandably in my opinion).
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 16:10:56 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Kerr:
)My son hasn't been in a waldorf school, but did attend a public )magnet
)school for a year ...my experience was pretty typical from what )I've
)learned. 3.5-5.5 year olds being given 30 minutes of free play )then sat
)down to do handwriting exercises where they traced alphabet )letters and
)their numbers, worksheet after worksheet (snip)
)I don't think academically geared kindergartens meet the needs of any
) )children, it certainly wasn't meeting the needs of my gifted
) )child...after one *ahem* incident the principal actually said to me
) )"Tyren is so advanced academically we don't need to look at those )skills
)at all, lets just see about his socialization skills for the )next 3 or 4
)years, compliance is as important as multiplication
)and division."
I don't like the sound of what you describe much either. But it sounds like,
for your son, the academics weren't too early, as much as *too late*! And
presented rather mindlessly, by a not-very-talented teacher. A Waldorf
teacher, however, would think your son had been ghastly mishandled and
miseducated before he got there. Sorry - not at all saying I agree - just
that the people you are drawing your inspiration from would not approve of
what you are doing.
I wrote:
)these ideas are [not] compatible with Waldorf.
Kerr:
)Oh I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact that my teaching )methods
)are inspired by waldorf.
Well, at the risk of sounding argumentative for no good reason, it seems to
me it's inspired by a mistaken idea of what Waldorf is about. If you want to
*call* it Waldorf, of course, you have that right! Again, I'm certainly not
criticizing what you're doing, I'm just trying to explain to you why the
critics wince to hear it called "Waldorf" when we know how far removed -
night and day - what you are doing is from what Waldorf teachers consider
appropriate.
)I think you can take the good and discard the bad.
Yes, in homeschooling, you can. You can really do whatever you like and call
it "Waldorf."
)I know the disapproval when my son excitedly talked all about seeing
) )Guernica at a Picasso exhibition and being an extra in "Jesus Christ
) )Vampire Slayer" LOL!
LOL also! Nope, Picasso, vampire slaying, pretty far off the Waldorf
appropriateness scale. (Don't ask me why slaying dragons is appropriate and
slaying vampires isn't.)
I wrote:
)Waldorf doesn't care for either real books *or* primers, Kerr.
)Well to be honest, until Tyren was 7 I *was* censoring his reading
) )material. This is a child who easily falls into phobias. I kept our
) )shelves stocked with fairy tales, myths and legends of the non gory
) )kind. We got really good picture books, and beautiful wordless books,
) )and we put the heavier stuff away for awhile. I couldn't stop him
) )reading (can you stop a child from breathing?) but I didn't teach him
) )to, he taught himself when he was 2 with The Way Things Work, then )read
)The Borrowers and to this day he is positive they exist.
LOL! I loved the Borrowers and I was pretty sure they existed for a long
time too. Kerr, what you mean by "censorship" isn't what's done in Waldorf -
it is *nothing* remotely related to what you're saying here. You're
censoring him because he's already read *too much*, but Waldorf would never
have let him read any of this stuff in the first place.
They'd as soon you beat a 2-year-old as give him a book like The Way Things
Work (or a 10-year-old). They consider there to be *nothing worse* than "how
things work" information for small children. Ditto Morecai Richler, good
Lord (again, their opinion, not mine). The Borrowers are actually sort of
cynical and sarcastic sometimes, even bitter, if I recall, and they would
probably be frowned on also. Waldorf will not encourage your child to delve
into classic children's literature.
)Its hard to deny I'm using a waldorf model when I use storytelling and
) )animal puppets to introduce a new math concept - then don't talk about
) )it for a week while he digests it. Or tell curative stories at )bedtime
)to help my son digest his "issues".
I disagree, because I think intent is everything, and if your intent is
completely different from Waldorf's, I don't think the superficial
similarities make it "Waldorf." Storytelling and puppetry aren't original to
Waldorf or owned by Waldorf. I do agree they could be successfully
integrated into other forms of education, but not using Waldorf principles.
I mean, the settings and the puppets, especially the marionettes, are always
beautiful; take that and leave the rest.
)Reading is actually last on my list too, I can't stop my child from
) )reading (and wouldn't want to)
But your reasons for un-prioritizing reading are the polar opposite of
Waldorf. He reads *well* and you want him to balance it with other things.
This is completely different from *stopping* him from reading in the first
place!
It seems quite ironic to me that the parents of kids who are highly advanced
academically look to Waldorf for "balance." If you put him in a Waldorf
school, they would systematically tear down what you've helped him - or
allowed him - to achieve.
)It isn't easy getting across to 7-8 year olds (no matter
)how bright) that just because its in print doesn't make it so.
LOL, boy do I know this! I have an 8-year-old also, and I have to admit he
is very vulnerable to advertising, always saying to me, "Mom, it's 'new and
improved'! Look, it' a special offer Mom!" "It says, 'Collect them all!'"
Oy.
(The Waldorf answer to this is to make sure he doesn't so much as see the
side of a cereal box, and I find this unrealistic.)
)I have watched in a waldorf kindergarten the children acting out )through
)play the story from that week. I do think - from my )experience - that
)part of internalizing a story is working through it )in play.
I agree that's a good thing.
)LOL I hate the song because I think it's the wrong way to approach )reading
)skills in children who aren't visual learners.
You're right. It isn't a way to teach reading anyway, it's just a way to
teach the alphabet.
)For children who require decoding skills, its actually harmful -
)they need to completely relearn what the alphabet MEANS aaaaaaaaaaaa,
)bbbbbb,kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk, (or more often ssssssssss) not "aye, bee,
) )see".
You're right, I think; the latest thinking in reading instruction agrees
with saving the alphabet till later and focusing on the sounds of the
letters rather than their names. In Waldorf, it's moot; neither of these
would be considered appropriate for a child under 7.
)If I had a child who was a phonics decoder, I'd definitely introduce )them
)to the alphabet using the waldorf model of story -
This is an ironic statement to me, since if Waldorf had their way, there
would be no such thing as a young child who was a "phonics decoder."
)The thing is martial arts are supported in waldorf *inspired* )programs
That's a new one on me, our Waldorf teachers shuddered at all the martial
arts, at least for any child under puberty.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:56:09 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
) Just a note, here, Kerr, but what you are advocating would *never*
occur in
) a Waldorf school.
Sarina's .02:
But Diana, I've been trying to tell you for some time that gifted
students are absolutely not going to be served in a Waldorf school -
Kerry HAS to modify things for her PG (Profoundly Gifted) child. Just
like children with learning disabilities, these kids are the ones who
are the most frustrated and damaged by a Waldorf Education - and I
believe these are the kids who end up, eventually, with the most
critical parents! (Like Lisa, for example.)
And as Kerry pointed out, gifted kids are often damaged by ANY 'type'
of education which doesn't take into account individual needs. Do you
know how many parents of gifted children are TOLD BY PUBLIC SCHOOL
PERSONNEL "your child would still learn if he were locked in an empty
room for a year, he's so smart." ?!
(Actually, I *was* told just this by the local public school
principal, just a couple of months ago. It was unbelievable - he
actually said that to my face!)
Here is a quote from another list I am on for parents of gifted kids:
"The principal at our old school was very sweet and I think well
meaning, he just didn't have a clue about gifted children. He said,
and I quote, "I wouldn't worry, you could put your daughter in a
closet with paper and pencil for the next 6 years and she would still
do great."
WHAT??? Just think what these kids could do, then, if somebody cared
enough to teach to their actual level. Sheesh!
Unfortunately, this is the attitude among many educators in many types
of schools. Unless you are fortunate enough to live in a district that
takes gifted students seriously - like Lisa's apparently does - you
will end up with the same problem in regular school as you came up
against in Waldorf: you will have a pissed-off, bored, and frustrated
child.
Also, as to the reading issue:
Kerry's son is Profoundly Gifted, which generally means he has an IQ
in the160-180 or higher range; there would have been NO WAY to keep
him from reading at an early age. (She would have HAD to have kept him
locked in a closet!) Although some HG (highly gifted) kids don't
actually start reading at all, apparently, until they're 6 or 7 - then
they suddenly skip 'Hop on Pop' and jump right in to Harry Potter!
To get to my point:
Kerry HAS to defy Waldorf wisdom, because her child has special needs.
To keep pointing out the things that she does with her son which would
be forbidden in Waldorf is pointless; she KNOWS you are right about
those things, which is why she is homeschooling. But can you really
say that she is NOT 'inspired' by WE? I think she has explained how
she ties it all together quite nicely, and how the methods she
considers "Waldorf" fit in with her individualized instruction of her
child.
Again, I think we are arguing over vocabulary words, language,
semantics...
You said "I'm just trying to explain to you why the critics wince to
hear it called "Waldorf" when we know how far removed - night and
day - what you are doing is from what Waldorf teachers consider
appropriate." But you are correct that the true difference is intent
only - Kerry is adapting things she learned from Waldorf, that very
few other schools/teachers do! So what if the Waldorf teachers don't
think it's "appropriate" at a particular age, if that's where she
borrowed the methods from? The methods themselves are still Waldorf.
(For example, I have never seen a puppet play done in the style of a
Waldorf puppet play, anywhere else. Can you deny that the STYLE of
Waldorf puppet plays is beautiful? Can you see why I would try to
emulate that style in my own preschool class, without intending any
Anthroposophical deeper meanings associated with the story?)
Can't we just say "Waldorf-inspired" in her case (and mine) means
"stealing" the methods but NOT the intent?
Nobody gets their knickers in a twist if a school calls themselves
"modified Montessori" or Montessori inspired" - it just means "we are
eclectic, but we use some Montessori stuff" - right? Why can't the
term "Waldorf inspired" be the same?
I have often wondered if, on this list at least, it's because critics
are trying so hard to discredit ALL of Waldorf that they don't want
anything good to *appear* to come out of WE, at all - regardless of
whether or not there is anything good to it.
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 14:35:02 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
her
Oh thank you Sarina! I was feeling a little at a loss, to explain this
any further. I mean I was TAUGHT how to employ waldorf methods *by*
waldorf teachers - those seminars for public school teachers and
homeschoolers are really light on the anthroposophy and heavy on
*methods*. I thought the term waldorf *inspired* differentiated what I do
from Waldorf. "They" know I'm not doing Waldorf Education at
home...actually "they" think simply by being at home I am no longer doing
WE. I've had many discussions with the local school community about how
every family that appreciates WE, then chooses to homeschool is a LOST
family in the school. "They" know I think their philosophy makes them
completely incapable of meeting my child's needs, and honestly - "they"
agree!
I mean, if you hated Picasso (easy to - he was a misogynous ass :-)and I
used cubist elements in my work and said that element was inspired by
Picasso would you argue that it wasn't a Picasso so I shouldn't mention
his inspiration? Is that really that different than singing over a
child's questions so you can pretend not to hear them?
When I talk to my board homeschool liasion and mention we are using the
Enki curriculum for inspiration he had *no clue* what I was talking
about. When I described it as a curriculum that is taking the best from
waldorf, the best from montessori, the best from Bank Street and the UN
International school, we can talk about those different elements.
Sarina McDonald wrote:
To keep pointing out the things that she does with her son which would
) be forbidden in Waldorf is pointless; she KNOWS you are right about
) those things, which is why she is homeschooling. But can you really
) say that she is NOT 'inspired' by WE? I think she has explained how
) she ties it all together quite nicely, and how the methods she
) considers "Waldorf" fit in with her individualized instruction of her
) child.
)
) Again, I think we are arguing over vocabulary words, language,
) semantics...
)
) You said "I'm just trying to explain to you why the critics wince to
) hear it called "Waldorf" when we know how far removed - night and
) day - what you are doing is from what Waldorf teachers consider
) appropriate." But you are correct that the true difference is intent
) only - Kerry is adapting things she learned from Waldorf, that very
) few other schools/teachers do! So what if the Waldorf teachers don't
) think it's "appropriate" at a particular age, if that's where she
) borrowed the methods from? The methods themselves are still Waldorf.
)
) (For example, I have never seen a puppet play done in the style of a
) Waldorf puppet play, anywhere else. Can you deny that the STYLE of
) Waldorf puppet plays is beautiful? Can you see why I would try to
) emulate that style in my own preschool class, without intending any
) Anthroposophical deeper meanings associated with the story?)
)
) Can't we just say "Waldorf-inspired" in her case (and mine) means
) "stealing" the methods but NOT the intent?
)
) Nobody gets their knickers in a twist if a school calls themselves
) "modified Montessori" or Montessori inspired" - it just means "we are
) eclectic, but we use some Montessori stuff" - right? Why can't the
) term "Waldorf inspired" be the same?
)
) I have often wondered if, on this list at least, it's because critics
) are trying so hard to discredit ALL of Waldorf that they don't want
) anything good to *appear* to come out of WE, at all - regardless of
) whether or not there is anything good to it.
)
) Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 17:27:03 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
her
Diana Winters wrote:
I don't like the sound of what you describe much either. But it sounds like,
) for your son, the academics weren't too early, as much as *too late*!
Oh I totally disagree actually! The *teaching methods* were completely wrong,
it had NOTHING to do with introducing academics early or late with him. My
child needed a *play* based model that *engaged his mind* and his body. He
NEVER should have been handed a pencil and asked to write anything in
kindergarten. He was not developmentally ready for that activity. Is that
regard he'd have been much better served in a waldorf class - doing
circles that
used a lot of finger plays, being encouraged to use his whole body, holding a
fat paintbrush and doing large strokes with it. With regards to his actual
academic needs he simply needed to be allowed to read if he felt like it, and
choose books that were at his reading level...at the time it was about grade 4
or 5...with math he needed to be able to talk about the concepts he was
interested in - the difference between a google and a googleplex, allowed to
play with math magic, allowed to ask questions and get answers - but
without any
expectations on what he was doing. I KNOW he wouldn't be served in a waldorf
class either. This is a child with 193 IQ but with a LD as well. His options
right now are going to school in the psych ward of the local children's
hospital, or having a full time educational aide with him all the time in a
public classroom where he feels physically tortured by the environment.
BUT a great deal of the waldorf *methodology* meets his needs, much better than
anything we've been exposed to through our public board.
As I said in my first post on this, Waldorf has 80 years experience
working with
multiple intelligences in a classroom setting, and 80 years experience working
with educational kinesiology (even if they call it something different) I've
been able to get a lot of information and support and practical advice on using
those methods without getting "involved" in the elements I disagree with.
Kerr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:23:32 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: OT: math question for Kerry or anyone else
Uuuuhhh...
Kerry, what IS the difference between a google and a googleplex? My
son learned about googleplexes somewhere - his reading, maybe? we're
not sure - and he is fascinated by the thought of it being "the
biggest number there is"... or something like that.
Is it? Is there somewhere online where a math drop-out can find out
about this stuff in a non-threatening way? (Okay, I didn't actually
drop out, I just stopped trying to figure it out, finally!) You know,
like "Math for Dummies" or something.
When my son would say "I love you," I'd say "I love you too."
Then he'd say, "Oh yeah? Well, I love you three!"
Then I'd say four, and he's say five, etc. Finally he began saying
things like, "I love you a googleplex - no, I love you a googleplex
NINETY NINE!"
I guess he figures that is even bigger than a googleplex?
I dunno, I - *gasp* - hate math.
Clue me in, wouldja?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:55:46 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: group psychopathology
The following post has applications both to the critics-list and to
waldorf schools. The point of this post is to remind us that we all are
humans, subject to similar failings and misperceptions.
Groups are made up of individuals. Individuals do not always perceive
the truth of the social situations in which they live. In fact they
frequently interpret events in terms most favorable to themselves.
For example, something happens we don't like. Later we tell another
person the story of this event. Many people will embellish the story in
the telling, making it more supportive of their interpretation. As the
story gets told over and again, it displaces the actual memory of the
event, and becomes the event itself - a convenient fable.
Anyone who does pyschological work with families knows this scenario
well, and frequently has to find ways to ease people away from their
favorite interpretations of events, and get them to focus on listening
to each other so as to realize that three people in the same room will
not remember the same event in the same way. Everyone remembers it from
their subjectivity, and in accord with the egoistic needs.
People in groups often share stories with each other - that is they
gossip. Frequently the subject of the gossip is someone the group (or
the leading personalities of the group) dislike for various reasons.
There is a guilty pleasure in forming an "us" against "her" or "them"
mood, and the stories told need to support this created perception of
the world. Sometimes the group is manipulated by others for some
purpose, and the "gossip" becomes a dehumanizing refrain in which the
individuals being discussed are called "gooks" or "micks" or "niggers"
or "dupes" or "cultish" etc. The group psychopathology is to make
themselves feel better than the others, by finding ways of collectively
putting the others down.
While this is common human behavior, there is really no excuse for it.
It is entirely destructive of both the object of the gossip and of those
who gossip.
The reality is that the gossip, or even attempted intellectual
conversation, that proceeds in such a way that any human being or group
is denigrated, is a sorry use of the gift of the "word". When we speak
or write we stand between the object which we are discussing and those
to whom we are communicating. We become the creators of meaning in how
we use language, and if what we share with each other is filled only
with those views supportive of our favorite "fables", and which depend
upon characterizing others as less than ourselves, then this meaning is
a kind of infectious disease placed into the social through speech and
writing.
We frequently lie to the world through these processes, but what is
worse, we also lie to ourselves. The latter may bring the most harm.
One of the clues to this kind of socially diseased speech and writing,
besides the use of terminology of "Us and Them" and the use of demeaning
words (dupes etc), is a tendency to over generalize. Generalizations
usually are lies.
So if someone says "critics think this" or "anthroposophists think
that", this cannot be true becuase the speaker/writer does not know all
critics or all anthroposophists. Someone who speaks as if Waldorf does
this and Waldorf does that is lying, because it is impossible to have
such knowledge. One can really only speak and write about what one
knows directly, not what one speculates is true when we assume that our
particular piece of knowledge can be applied to all members of a class.
And on a list where rationalism, empericism and evidence is touted as
the final arbiter of truth, then ot engage in the practice of
generalizations, of us and them and of denigrating terminology, and then
to claim rationality is also a lie. There is nothing rational, or
scientific in such statements, and certainly nothing humane.
Now before someone thinks I am calling everyone on the list liars, think
again. What I am saying is that we are human, and that we have habits
of speech and writing that are worth being examined for their
truthfulness. You may think I am accusing you of something, but it is
really your own use of the gift of the "word" that will betray you.
love,
joel
see also "Speech" http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr2.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:10:19 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: OT: math question for Kerry or anyone else
A google (actually that isn't the right spelling googol?) is 1 followed
by 100 zeros, a googleplex is 1 followed by a google of zeros. Your son
will love this ...I can't remember who created the google, but he asked
his 8 year old nephew what he'd call a really huge number and he said a
google :-) the "american" term for a google is 10 dotrigintillion. So
your son is right there are numbers bigger than a googleplex! Infinity
is the term for the fact numbers *never* end.
This reminds me of when I was arguing deep space travel with Tyren - he
was insisting there was a special way he could freeze a nuclear reactor
to provide almost unlimited fuel. We were sitting in the lobby of his
dad's office tower and this man turned around and said "Actually your son
is right" and explained it (went TOTALLY over my head) - he was a nuclear
physicist who worked for the national research council!
Try looking for Dr Math online, thats where we bring our questions and
find good links.
Kerr
Sarina McDonald wrote:
) Uuuuhhh...
)
) Kerry, what IS the difference between a google and a googleplex? My
) son learned about googleplexes somewhere - his reading, maybe? we're
) not sure - and he is fascinated by the thought of it being "the
) biggest number there is"... or something like that.
)
) Is it? Is there somewhere online where a math drop-out can find out
) about this stuff in a non-threatening way? (Okay, I didn't actually
) drop out, I just stopped trying to figure it out, finally!) You know,
) like "Math for Dummies" or something.
)
) When my son would say "I love you," I'd say "I love you too."
)
) Then he'd say, "Oh yeah? Well, I love you three!"
)
) Then I'd say four, and he's say five, etc. Finally he began saying
) things like, "I love you a googleplex - no, I love you a googleplex
) NINETY NINE!"
)
) I guess he figures that is even bigger than a googleplex?
)
) I dunno, I - *gasp* - hate math.
)
) Clue me in, wouldja?
)
) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
) Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:37:39 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: multiple intelligences
Kerr, in a recent post, you stated:
((... Waldorf has 80 years experience working with multiple intelligences in
a classroom setting ...))
Lisa here: I have to disagree, because I do not believe that "Waldorf"
actually *does* work with "multiple intelligences." To make that claim,
Waldorf education would have to stimulate the intellect, and I do not
believe that happens very often in most Waldorf classrooms.
My daughter, who is now 11 and is also considered "gifted" (though her
IQ is not 193!!! (g)) lost all her natural zeal for learning in the
deadening rigidity of her Waldorf classroom. Years of not being allowed to
ask a teacher why something is the way it is or how it works, of copying the
teachers' drawings and paintings, of following the movements that the
eurythmy teacher did, of chanting the same verse every day, etc. took their
toll, pushing my child's natural curiosity underground, as if it were
something to be ashamed of.
To be credited with working with multiple intelligences, Waldorf would
actually have to consider a child's intellect and mind.
I have to agree with Diana when she says that you are giving Waldorf
credit where credit is not due.
Don't get me wrong: it sounds as if whatever you are doing with your
remarkable son is just what he needs. I just wish you would not use the word
"Waldorf' to describe things that are not unique to Waldorf ... things that
my public school teacher sister has been doing for years (using movement,
rhythm, art, storytelling, etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:41:41 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: lying ?
Joel, you state:
Someone who speaks as if Waldorf does
this and Waldorf does that is lying,
Lisa here: then the teachers at several Waldorf schools I know are "lying,"
because parents, including myself, are often told (or have been told) that
something or other is or is not "Waldorf" when we ask about it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:25:31 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: group psychopathology
Joel - summed up very well. Thank you.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:34:56 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
)From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)Subject: lying ?
)Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:41:41 -0400
)
)Joel, you state:
)
) Someone who speaks as if Waldorf does
)this and Waldorf does that is lying,
)
)
)Lisa here: then the teachers at several Waldorf schools I know are "lying,"
)because parents, including myself, are often told (or have been told) that
)something or other is or is not "Waldorf" when we ask about it.
)
Lisa - IMHO, this is not exactly the same thing. When I teach Chekhov
classes I will tell people that such and such is Chekhovian or such and such
is not such Chekhovian. I'm not lying. I trained in the technique. I know
what is and isn't Chekhov. I think what Joel was referring to was not the
utterances of individuals about the technique/organization that they
represent, but when others speak in generalities about a group or use
specific situations as if they were true for *all*
individuals/organizations.
Now, if I were to say "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
always....." (fill in the blank) - Then I'd be lying.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:20 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
))From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
))Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))To: waldorf-critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
))Subject: lying ?
))Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:41:41 -0400
))
))Joel, you state:
))
)) Someone who speaks as if Waldorf does
))this and Waldorf does that is lying,
))
))
))Lisa here: then the teachers at several Waldorf schools I know are "lying,"
))because parents, including myself, are often told (or have been told) that
))something or other is or is not "Waldorf" when we ask about it.
))
)
) Lisa - IMHO, this is not exactly the same thing. When I teach Chekhov
) classes I will tell people that such and such is Chekhovian or such and such
) is not such Chekhovian. I'm not lying. I trained in the technique. I know
) what is and isn't Chekhov. I think what Joel was referring to was not the
) utterances of individuals about the technique/organization that they
) represent, but when others speak in generalities about a group or use
) specific situations as if they were true for *all*
) individuals/organizations.
)
) Now, if I were to say "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
) always....." (fill in the blank) - Then I'd be lying.
Lisa here: Pardon me, DL, if I don't really see the difference. The
teachers/etc., whom I have heard say "such-and-such *is* or *is not*
Waldorf" were just that -- trained Waldorf teachers. Presumably (though I
don't like to assume anything with things Waldorf!) they know what they are
talking about!
When you say that something is or is not Chekhovian, you are not lying; you
are telling the truth according to what you know about Chekhov. When a
Waldorf teacher or Anthroposophist says that something is or is not
Waldorf-ian, I would assume that they are telling the truth as *they* know
it.
Now, if you said "actors who use the Meisner acting technique sometimes
...." and if you are correct about what these actors do, why would that
statement not be correct?
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:47:35 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
) ))Joel, you state:
) ))
) )) Someone who speaks as if Waldorf does
) ))this and Waldorf does that is lying,
) ))
) ))
) ))Lisa here: then the teachers at several Waldorf schools I know are
)"lying,"
) ))because parents, including myself, are often told (or have been told)
)that
) ))something or other is or is not "Waldorf" when we ask about it.
) ))
) )DL writes:
) ) Lisa - IMHO, this is not exactly the same thing. When I teach Chekhov
) ) classes I will tell people that such and such is Chekhovian or such and
)such
) ) is not such Chekhovian. I'm not lying. I trained in the technique. I
)know
) ) what is and isn't Chekhov. I think what Joel was referring to was not
)the
) ) utterances of individuals about the technique/organization that they
) ) represent, but when others speak in generalities about a group or use
) ) specific situations as if they were true for *all*
) ) individuals/organizations.
) )
) ) Now, if I were to say "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
) ) always....." (fill in the blank) - Then I'd be lying.
)
)
)Lisa here: Pardon me, DL, if I don't really see the difference. The
)teachers/etc., whom I have heard say "such-and-such *is* or *is not*
)Waldorf" were just that -- trained Waldorf teachers. Presumably (though I
)don't like to assume anything with things Waldorf!) they know what they are
)talking about!
)
)When you say that something is or is not Chekhovian, you are not lying; you
)are telling the truth according to what you know about Chekhov. When a
)Waldorf teacher or Anthroposophist says that something is or is not
)Waldorf-ian, I would assume that they are telling the truth as *they* know
)it.
)
)Now, if you said "actors who use the Meisner acting technique sometimes
)...." and if you are correct about what these actors do, why would that
)statement not be correct?
)
)
) )
DL writes:
IMHO, there is a difference. If someone is trained in a subject (Chekhov,
Steiner, Waldorf, psychology, mathematics, etc...) and they state what is
and isn't (fill in the blank) - I presume they have the knowledge base to
make such a statement. It is different if someone says something about
something they are not trained in and then add "all" or "every" "the
typical" blah blah blah....
As far as the Meisner statement - notice an important difference between
what I wrote and your misquote of my statement. I said if I said "always" -
I'd be lying. I did not say "sometimes." And had I said "actors who use
the Meisner acting technique sometimes..." - this would not be accurate
either. The statement "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
sometimes..." implies "all" meisner actors sometimes do a particular thing.
The only way I know to have the statement be accurate (assuming I was
correct about what some Meisner actors did) would be to say "Some Meisner
actors I know do (fill in the blank)" I might even have to add the word
"sometimes" at the beginning.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 400
-- Topica Digest --
more on lying
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
By screee hotmail.com
Re: lying ?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: group psychopathology
By dan dandugan.com
FW: Upcoming Maintenance Schedule
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: more on lying
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: lying ?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: group psychopathology
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: more on lying
By alice javanet.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: more on lying
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its crap"comments
her
By earlyfire earthlink.net
tell us your Waldorf experience
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Gardner vs. Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: more on lying
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: more on lying
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: lying ?
By dan dandugan.com
reading lists
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: lying ?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: more on lying
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: lying ?
By faiman jlc.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:22:32 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: more on lying
In a discussion based on Joel's post about group psychopathology, DL says:
As far as the Meisner statement - notice an important difference between
what I wrote and your misquote of my statement. I said if I said "always" -
I'd be lying. I did not say "sometimes." And had I said "actors who use
the Meisner acting technique sometimes..." - this would not be accurate
either. The statement "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
sometimes..." implies "all" meisner actors sometimes do a particular thing.
The only way I know to have the statement be accurate (assuming I was
correct about what some Meisner actors did) would be to say "Some Meisner
actors I know do (fill in the blank)" I might even have to add the word
"sometimes" at the beginning.
Lisa here: I changed your Meisner quote deliberately, to the exact point you
were making!
Don't get me wrong: I understand *your* point.
But if we are to work from that construct -- that *anyone* who *ever*
makes a blanket-type statement about anything is lying -- well, then that
means that experts in *any* are are "lying" when they seek to impart
information to students/learners about their subject area.
For instance, if a Shakespeare expert says "Shakespeare is the master of
the sonnet," that teacher would be lying, as others might argue that someone
else was the master of the sonnet. Who's correct?
The point of Joel Wendt's post was obviously to point out that when
critics of Waldorf say "at Waldorf schools, teachers have more allegiance to
the tenets of Anthroposophy than they do to their students" (or somesuch
negative statement), that we are "lying."
According to that construct, however, Waldorf
teachers/promoters/enthusiasts, etc. are also "lying" when they make blanket
statements about what Waldorf is or is not.
This is a circular argument, and does nothing to promote meaningful
exchange on this list, imo.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:56:15 +0000
From: (screee hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
WenG: Thank you to all who spoke on this thread. Great debate, very
helpful. We're having a similar debate at home: which parts affiliated
with WE stay, which ones go. My old career in marketing led me to
dissect WE and view it as a 'brand.' The parts that work for us aren't
uniquely bound to anthroposophy. AP doesn't own educational kinesiology,
limiting TV for the sake of brain and cultural development, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:55:25 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
Dear D L, when we find Waldorf teachers doing something in the
classroom, and then we find Waldorf teaching resource books that
describe that, and we find the Steiner texts that it is based on, and
articles about it in Waldorf periodicals, and we hear lecturers
talking about it at Waldorf schools, don't you think we can call
ourselves knowledgeable, and aren't we are fully justified in saying
that that thing is "Waldorf"?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:48:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: group psychopathology
Joel Wendt, you wrote,
)The reality is that the gossip, or even attempted intellectual
)conversation, that proceeds in such a way that any human being or group
)is denigrated, is a sorry use of the gift of the "word". When we speak
)or write we stand between the object which we are discussing and those
)to whom we are communicating. We become the creators of meaning in how
)we use language, and if what we share with each other is filled only
)with those views supportive of our favorite "fables", and which depend
)upon characterizing others as less than ourselves, then this meaning is
)a kind of infectious disease placed into the social through speech and
)writing.
(sarcasm) Oh Joel, thanks for setting me straight. I'll never
criticize a group of people again. Fascists? Oh, such nice people.
(/sarcasm)
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:16:22 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: FW: Upcoming Maintenance Schedule
FYI...some Waldorf critics list extended "downtime" coming...
----------
) Dear Topica List Owner,
)
) Over the next few weeks Topica will complete a number of system
) upgrades in order to ensure optimal service and accommodate our
) rapid growth. As we expand our infrastructure, though, our site
) and services must be unavailable during the following times:
)
) * August 10, 2001, beginning at 8:00 p.m. PST, for 24-27 hours
) * August 17, 2001, beginning at 8:00 p.m. PST, for 12-15 hours
) * September 2, 2001, beginning at 12:00 p.m. PST, for 24-27 hours
) * September 7, 2001, beginning at 6:00 p.m. PST, for 12-15 hours
...Gary Bonhiver
www.waldorfcritics.org Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 20:37:57 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: more on lying
)From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)Subject: more on lying
)Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:22:32 -0400
)
)In a discussion based on Joel's post about group psychopathology, DL says:
)
)As far as the Meisner statement - notice an important difference between
)what I wrote and your misquote of my statement. I said if I said "always"
)-
)I'd be lying. I did not say "sometimes." And had I said "actors who use
)the Meisner acting technique sometimes..." - this would not be accurate
)either. The statement "actors who use the Meisner acting technique
)sometimes..." implies "all" meisner actors sometimes do a particular thing.
)The only way I know to have the statement be accurate (assuming I was
)correct about what some Meisner actors did) would be to say "Some Meisner
)actors I know do (fill in the blank)" I might even have to add the word
)"sometimes" at the beginning.
)
)Lisa here: I changed your Meisner quote deliberately, to the exact point
)you
)were making!
) Don't get me wrong: I understand *your* point.
) But if we are to work from that construct -- that *anyone* who *ever*
)makes a blanket-type statement about anything is lying -- well, then that
)means that experts in *any* are are "lying" when they seek to impart
)information to students/learners about their subject area.
) For instance, if a Shakespeare expert says "Shakespeare is the master
)of
)the sonnet," that teacher would be lying, as others might argue that
)someone
)else was the master of the sonnet. Who's correct?
) The point of Joel Wendt's post was obviously to point out that when
)critics of Waldorf say "at Waldorf schools, teachers have more allegiance
)to
)the tenets of Anthroposophy than they do to their students" (or somesuch
)negative statement), that we are "lying."
) According to that construct, however, Waldorf
)teachers/promoters/enthusiasts, etc. are also "lying" when they make
)blanket
)statements about what Waldorf is or is not.
) This is a circular argument, and does nothing to promote meaningful
)exchange on this list, imo.
)
DL: I disagree that this does nothing to promote meaningful exchange on this
list. This is about specificity of speech. Again in your example you are
not setting up equal analogies. There is a difference between an expert on
Shakespeare saying that Shakespeare was the master of the sonnet and an
expert on sonnets saying that shakespeare was the master.
I also disagree that the purpose of Joel's post was to imply
)that when critics of Waldorf say "at Waldorf schools, teachers have more
)allegiance to
)the tenets of Anthroposophy than they do to their students" (or somesuch
)negative statement), that we are )"lying."
Might you be taking his statement a little too personally?
I make my point one last time - there is a difference (imho) between an
expert in a field making statements about their field and someone making
generalities about something in which that they are not experts.
All I'm asking is that people do not make general statements "as if" they
were true.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 20:40:56 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: lying ?
)Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:55:25 -0700
)
)Dear D L, when we find Waldorf teachers doing something in the
)classroom, and then we find Waldorf teaching resource books that
)describe that, and we find the Steiner texts that it is based on, and
)articles about it in Waldorf periodicals, and we hear lecturers
)talking about it at Waldorf schools, don't you think we can call
)ourselves knowledgeable, and aren't we are fully justified in saying
)that that thing is "Waldorf"?
)
)-Dan Dugan
Good question. Would you say that you are an expert on Waldorf? On
education? Are you willing to acknowledge possible biases? All these
factors would affect my answer.
BTW - I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Michael's posts.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 20:43:58 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: group psychopathology
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: group psychopathology
)Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:48:52 -0700
)
)Joel Wendt, you wrote,
)
))The reality is that the gossip, or even attempted intellectual
))conversation, that proceeds in such a way that any human being or group
))is denigrated, is a sorry use of the gift of the "word". When we speak
))or write we stand between the object which we are discussing and those
))to whom we are communicating. We become the creators of meaning in how
))we use language, and if what we share with each other is filled only
))with those views supportive of our favorite "fables", and which depend
))upon characterizing others as less than ourselves, then this meaning is
))a kind of infectious disease placed into the social through speech and
))writing.
)
)(sarcasm) Oh Joel, thanks for setting me straight. I'll never
)criticize a group of people again. Fascists? Oh, such nice people.
)(/sarcasm)
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
DL: Dan - here's a thought. (sarcasm) Try reading Joel's post with an open
mind? (sarcasm)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:52:44 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Sarina, I understand that Kerry's son is gifted and that gifted students are
ill-served in many places, not just Waldorf. I hope I have been clear that I
don't disagree or disapprove of anything she's doing (not that she should
care if I did). She has obviously brought together a lot of sources and
methods (most of which I know little about) (she sounds like a friggin'
genius herself to me).
I don't mean to sound dismissive of the difficulties you encounter with
gifted children. Kerry came on the list *asking* why we don't like anything
Waldorf-inspired - or to hear things even called Waldorf-inspired - so I
told her.
The short version is that "Waldorf" isn't just the things you like, it's the
things you don't like too - and we're not talking about little technical
disagreements, or even big technical disagreements like the phonics vs.
whole language debate - it's about things you realize are actually harmful
to children. "Waldorf" is not a value-neutral term. It includes things that
are not in the best interests of children's health and wellbeing. If you
guys promote Waldorf, you promote the bad with the good. Do you want to
bring people to Waldorf? If you carry a banner for them, give them free
positive PR, you bring people to Waldorf.
Why not call your own approach the Sarina McDonald approach? Hey, Waldorf is
your competition, right? Promote the Sarina McDonald method, write your own
books, and steal customers away from the local Waldorf school, Sarina. :)
(That is, after maternity leave . . .)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:58:11 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: more on lying
*snips*
) DL: I disagree that this does nothing to promote meaningful exchange on this
) list. This is about specificity of speech. Again in your example you are
) not setting up equal analogies. There is a difference between an expert on
) Shakespeare saying that Shakespeare was the master of the sonnet and an
) expert on sonnets saying that shakespeare was the master.
)
) I also disagree that the purpose of Joel's post was to imply
) )that when critics of Waldorf say "at Waldorf schools, teachers have more
) )allegiance to
) )the tenets of Anthroposophy than they do to their students" (or somesuch
) )negative statement), that we are )"lying."
)
) Might you be taking his statement a little too personally?
)
) I make my point one last time - there is a difference (imho) between an
) expert in a field making statements about their field and someone making
) generalities about something in which that they are not experts.
)
) All I'm asking is that people do not make general statements "as if" they
) were true.
)
) DL
Hello DL, AK here...
I wonder how this would effect dialogue which I thought was the point of
this list?
Many of us are perhaps over the age of 35, conscious, relatively
educated, formally or informally... doesn't that qualify us to comment
about our perceptions and share our experiences?
It is important to "own" our own bias and filters, but aren't there some
commonalities, like living in this moment on the planet Earth?
I believe there is a group-consciousness...both micro-cosmically in a
classroom and on a larger scale as the concentric circles of groups of
people grow larger and overlap. What I say may have resonance for many
others, and the saddest thing is not sharing information/experiences.
We do not thrive in isolation, IMO. of course..
Except for those who occasionally pontificate here, it seems that most
of us try to balance truth-seeking with real life and individual
perception.
What is YOUR perception of this list?
-alice
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:03:09 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Kerr (Kerry?) wrote:
)Oh I totally disagree actually! The *teaching methods* were )completely
)wrong, it had NOTHING to do with introducing academics )early or late with
)him. My child needed a *play* based model that )*engaged his mind* and his
)body. He NEVER should have been handed a )pencil and asked to write
)anything in kindergarten.
Well, obviously I am not an expert and don't know your son, but with the
interests and abilities you've described, I can't imagine why not. I'm not
trying to challenge you, but I'm actually interested in how you concluded
this. I mean, did he not *want* to write? Did he resist, or do it poorly? A
good kindergarten teacher would gently encourage it, but probably not force
the issue if a child wasn't interested or ready. It's hard for me to picture
a child who "should not be handed a pencil and asked to write anything in
kindergarten." It's hard for me to understand, now, why this would come to
seem so dreadful (though I once felt exactly the same way).
)He was not developmentally ready for that activity.
Did you see ill effects that you attributed to the writing? How could you
tell it was the writing? Perhaps he told you, in so many words? Just
curious, if you care to go into it. I am certainly not suggesting you are
wrong. I agree some 5 year olds would not be developmentally ready; it just
doesn't at all seem to mesh with what else you've told us about your son.
)Is that regard he'd have been much better served in a waldorf class -
) )doing circles that used a lot of finger plays, being encouraged to use
) )his whole body, holding a fat paintbrush and doing large strokes with
) )it.
Again, I'm curious how you can determine this would have been better. It
sounds like you've bought the idyllic picture Waldorf paints for prospective
parents, of rosy-cheeked, innocent children frolicking in an enchanted
garden . . . it isn't the reality of Waldorf. Circle time was total hell,
painting was tense and stressful. You can't *make* the kids make large
strokes, and some don't want to. As you also pointed out, children are
individuals.
)With regards to his actual academic needs he simply needed to be )allowed
)to read if he felt like it, and choose books that were at his )reading
)level...at the time it was about grade 4 or 5...
)with math he needed to be able to talk about the concepts he was
)interested in - the difference between a google and a googleplex, )allowed
)to play with math magic, allowed to ask questions and get )answers - but
)without any expectations on what he was doing.
That sounds great, but . . . Sarina wants me to stop telling you why this
is, ah, NOT WALDORF! and I don't want to be the reason Sarina goes into
labor, even if she is past her due date . . .
)As I said in my first post on this, Waldorf has 80 years experience
) )working with multiple intelligences in a classroom setting, and 80 )years
)experience working with educational kinesiology (even if they )call it
)something different) I've been able to get a lot of )information and
)support and practical advice on using those methods )without getting
)"involved" in the elements I disagree with.
Howard Gardner does not endorse Waldorf. "Multiple intelligences" is another
case where Waldorf is happy to have this very trendy educational buzz word
associated with its name - due to peoples' misconceptions about Waldorf -
but from what I observed, they are missing a few of the intelligences, and
often crippling the others. There's no such thing as creative writing in the
early grades in Waldorf, for example. I don't think artistic intelligence is
developed in Waldorf either - the methods are very restricted, and any child
with actual talent would go completely nuts being allowed to paint nothing
but vague wet blobs for years.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 23:08:30 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
her
Diana Winters wrote:
) Kerr (Kerry?) wrote:
) )Oh I totally disagree actually! The *teaching methods* were )completely
) )wrong, it had NOTHING to do with introducing academics )early or late with
) )him. My child needed a *play* based model that )*engaged his mind* and his
) )body. He NEVER should have been handed a )pencil and asked to write
) )anything in kindergarten.
)
) Well, obviously I am not an expert and don't know your son, but with the
) interests and abilities you've described, I can't imagine why not. I'm not
) trying to challenge you, but I'm actually interested in how you concluded
) this. I mean, did he not *want* to write? Did he resist, or do it poorly? A
) good kindergarten teacher would gently encourage it, but probably not force
) the issue if a child wasn't interested or ready. It's hard for me to picture
) a child who "should not be handed a pencil and asked to write anything in
) kindergarten." It's hard for me to understand, now, why this would come to
) seem so dreadful (though I once felt exactly the same way).
A/ He had no interest in writing at that point in time.
B/He resisted because he found it physically painful to do (and
pretty innane he
doesn't like doing anything unless he does it in a context thats meaningful to
him)
For this child - who has a LD (He has SID) that makes small muscle control
activities that require back and forth up and down movements was not only
physically *painful* but caused him a great deal of stress that affected his
behaviour and his interest in any academics - regardless of his intelligence.
)
)
) )He was not developmentally ready for that activity.
)
) Did you see ill effects that you attributed to the writing? How could you
) tell it was the writing? Perhaps he told you, in so many words? Just
) curious, if you care to go into it. I am certainly not suggesting you are
) wrong. I agree some 5 year olds would not be developmentally ready; it just
) doesn't at all seem to mesh with what else you've told us about your son.
Ah but that is a very common misperception about bright children - that their
mental development equals increased physical development (and also that mental
capability equals developmentally ready for more mature thought
processes). Its
similar to making the assumption that a child who goes through puberty at age 7
or 8 is ready for sexual relationships or should be encouraged to persue them
because the capability is there. Writing is a physical activity,
my son has a
number of physical delays. What I'm saying is that given my child's
capabilities he would have been served better by a play based
kindergarten where
his gifts were acknowledged, and worked with through play.
My son described writing as painful. He describes being in a
classroom as being
lost in a forest where he can't find his thoughts...the sound levels in the
classroom, the chaotic activities, the lack of a rhythm to his day, and the
focus on writing skills all made his classroom a living hell.
Since then, through evaluations, occupational therapy, and play therapy and
consultations we've come to understand that this is perfectly normal for
children like him. Pushing the act of writing is totally counter productive.
Much of his OT involves things like drawing with his fingers on a salt tray,
painting with water on paper, walls, on the floor, doing finger plays
and circle
games that have him reaching across his body - doing "formdrawing" with
streamers - catching balls of various sizes and textures and passing them - ALL
without any academic expectations that he work on letters or numbers.
According
to my son's psychiatrist, and backed up by his OT the increase in SID like
symptoms in school aged children may very well have to do with the fact we are
pushing them to work on developing skills they are not ready for
(writing is one
of those) in preschool situations. It means they aren't spending enough time
doing large muscle activities that allow them the brain development
to move onto
things like writing when they are developmentally ready.
Again, I'm curious how you can determine this would have been better. It
) sounds like you've bought the idyllic picture Waldorf paints for prospective
) parents, of rosy-cheeked, innocent children frolicking in an enchanted
) garden . . . it isn't the reality of Waldorf. Circle time was total hell,
) painting was tense and stressful. You can't *make* the kids make large
) strokes, and some don't want to. As you also pointed out, children are
) individuals.
I have observed and helped out in a waldorf initiated parent-tot program and
there wasn't anymore "hell" involved in circle time than I've witnessed in
kindermusik classes or storytime at the library, or my local community centre
playgroup. Maybe the difference was that the waldorf kindergarten teacher
leading us wasn't an anthroposophist?
kerr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:15:21 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: more on lying
)From: Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: more on lying
)Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:58:11 -0400
)
)*snips*
) ) DL: I disagree that this does nothing to promote meaningful exchange on
)this
) ) list. This is about specificity of speech. Again in your example you
)are
) ) not setting up equal analogies. There is a difference between an expert
)on
) ) Shakespeare saying that Shakespeare was the master of the sonnet and an
) ) expert on sonnets saying that shakespeare was the master.
) )
) ) I also disagree that the purpose of Joel's post was to imply
) ) )that when critics of Waldorf say "at Waldorf schools, teachers have
)more
) ) )allegiance to
) ) )the tenets of Anthroposophy than they do to their students" (or
)somesuch
) ) )negative statement), that we are )"lying."
) )
) ) Might you be taking his statement a little too personally?
) )
) ) I make my point one last time - there is a difference (imho) between an
) ) expert in a field making statements about their field and someone making
) ) generalities about something in which that they are not experts.
) )
) ) All I'm asking is that people do not make general statements "as if"
)they
) ) were true.
) )
) ) DL
)
)Hello DL, AK here...
)I wonder how this would effect dialogue which I thought was the point of
)this list?
DL writes: You mean if people actually made specific comments about specific
situations? And that they had all the facts about said situation before
they spouted off their opinion dressed up as fact? They might find out that
they've been engaged in intellectual lynch mobbing.
)Many of us are perhaps over the age of 35, conscious, relatively
)educated, formally or informally... doesn't that qualify us to comment
)about our perceptions and share our experiences?
)It is important to "own" our own bias and filters, but aren't there some
)commonalities, like living in this moment on the planet Earth?
DL writes: The only people qualified to comment on our perceptions ARE us.
As to the commonalities....the fact that this country is pretty evenly split
regarding many issues tells me that the fact that we are living in this
moment on the planet earth doesn't mean all that much. In my opinion, our
beliefs shape our reality. Therefore, if I believe that something is good
or bad - I will find more easily find evidence to support this belief. I
think we could all find a group such as "people who live in the south" and
we could all find examples of people who live in the south who do (fill in
the blank) - this doesn't mean that southerners ARE that way. However,
after hearing many examples of south, a traveler heading south might find
examples that allign with the proposed idea. Does that make it true?
)
)I believe there is a group-consciousness...both micro-cosmically in a
)classroom and on a larger scale as the concentric circles of groups of
)people grow larger and overlap. What I say may have resonance for many
)others, and the saddest thing is not sharing information/experiences.
)We do not thrive in isolation, IMO. of course..
DL writes: Yes, what you say may have resonances for others. But those who
fire up a mob to attack someone can say thesame thing. So could Hitler.
NOTE: I am NOT comparing what you are saying with what was said by Hitler.
All I ask (again) is that people are responsible for their opinions. There
is, in my opinion, a lot of beliefs/feelings masquerading as facts on this
list (heck - on most lists...double heck - most of life.)
)
)Except for those who occasionally pontificate here, it seems that most
)of us try to balance truth-seeking with real life and individual
)perception.
)
)What is YOUR perception of this list?
)
)-alice
)
DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to knock
the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they are
saying.
In response to your post, though - I've never advocated isolation. I do
believe, however, that there are individuals on this list who spout off
opinion as fact. The best that we can do (imo) is to share our
"perceptions" of what has happened. No one can truly understand another's
thoughts/beliefs simply because they have seen "evidence" that the person
thinks or believes certain things. It's like the story of the elephant and
the blind men. All three blind men felt a different part of the elephant
and what do you know? All three had different interpretations of what they
thought the elephant was. Now if 100 blind men all felt only the trunk and
only one or two felt the rest of the elephant....would the 100 be right in
saying a elephant is like a snake? After all - there would be many people
to "agree" with the idea that elephants are like snakes.
And for thopse who read this and say - "yes, but - we have seen more than
the trunk..." - I say that whatever amount you saw about the other person
(s) - there's still more unseen than seen. On this list I've already had
people make assumptions about me from just a few emails. Makes it seem
pretty likely to me that these same people might make assumptions about
Waldorf without all the information.
That's all for now....
Peace
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:42:06 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments
her
I don't think Waldorf is insecure enough in its metaphysical assumptions, and
the indelible profoundity of such connections as Head-Heart-Hand =
Thought-Feeling-Will = Wisdom-Beauty-Courage = Father-Son-Holy Spirit to seek
to require validation by academicians like Gardner.
Howard Gardner has powerfully inspired much wonderful and useful redirection of
cognitive processes and educational philosophy into orchestrations of movement,
color, rhythm, etc, and by opening up such elements, and bidding them come
onstage in universities and classrooms, has rendered an enormous assistance
through which all of us, label-addicts, and human-beings alike, have come to
see that the Multiple-intelligence theory is a Pied Piper whose time has come,
and come he does to reinvite, to re-awaken learning into once again overlapping
into the ever vital sphere of art. Art voices what philosophy thinks. Look
back over the most recent few hundreds of years, but nanoseconds to an angel
or a saint, or one who can author a Beethoven's 9th, and you can discern
abundant evidence of Art becoming increasingly less trustworthy as a realm
where people sought or found strength. Then ponder why. Who was the villain in
all of this: Abstract, skeletal, metallic "bottom-line" thinking, terse, and
disinterested and finally grown deaf to subtlety, begins to hawk the
convenience of gearing up civilization with its threadbare mechanistic
assembly-line formularizations. And thus musterious, artesian Subtltety, which
lurks in the Aboriginal "Dreamtime", still alive in our own children we don't
understand, as well as ourselves, with all its intuitive and imaginative
fluorish, all this we disregard, and 'hard-coreing into the armor of maturity
and outer power, our enchantment and reverence of youth (you don't get one
without the other) which mandates, which invites us to remember that the child
must not only be embraced in love, but welcomed in lofty inspiration as well.
All this we ourselves, label-addicts and human-beings alike, placed on hold, in
an attic, Earlyfire dares say. And centuries pass.........
And so now, if you're feeling legendary, 'suddenly', ' let's include 'in God's
Own Good Time", comes along Gardner, an academic Prince Charming, a messiah
with a Ph.D. perhaps even a BMW ;-D. (- exhale: it doesn't get any better) and
machetes his way through the thick and pioneering, penetrates the cobwebs,
coming centerstage, ascends the stairs, and, there finds what has been put to
sleep, Princess Humon'isa, and with merely seven, er, oops, eight kisses of
Multiple Intelligence, adding a concrete, touchable, unabstract component back
into the brew, miraculously rejuvenates learning, in all the Non-Waldorf-Lands,
by suggesting that what we think should be reformatted, or to be more buoyant
about it, "rechoreographed", in wider more vibrant zorro-ripples than merely a
materialistic arsenal of verbal vocabulary and grayscale dollar denominations
of flat IQ might otherwise compel.
So what's the point? While it is true, every Waldorf teacher who understands
the simple truth that multi-dmensional approaches to encountering,
metabolizing,, and assimilating ideas (these have been altogether quite
commonly known in educational philosophical circles for years upon years as
"Mixed Learning Modalities") serve perfectly the art of once again, "bathing
learning in imaginative processes", and doubtless rejoice that public education
has found a way to rereverence and celebrate clothing thoughts in revolving
dance and warbling song and anchoring symmetries and hazardously thrilling
asymmetries of pounding rhythm, all these being the resurrection of the oral
tradition and the veil-rending "threat" :-),...........yes, ;-D, 'threat' it
poses to the Kingdom of the 8 and a Half by 11 and Visa's terse, efficient
16-digit magnetically-encoded plastic numeric summary of the worth of the human
being with the lab coat that it rode in on.
So the point is now clear: There are many mansions in my Father's House. As a
person who has learned that if creativity has any pedagogy at all, it must be
the only unrehearsable quality in existence, courage, then we'll frame it thus:
let Multiple-Intelligence and Waldorf environments "compete" upon this widest
contemporary stage of our own judgment, to see which is the best manifestation
of what the "Spirit of the Times" wishes to present as challenges, then if we
accept, only then, as gifts to humanity.
Humor Earlyfire, he entertains the absurd notion that perhaps the real
challenge is who is capable of acquiring in this juncture of history, the
power, the confidant and courageous capability of looking at a competitive,
adversarial 'either/or' impasse and, through a new shift of intention,
dissolving the Martian sword, turn it into a dialogue. Thus War, the age-old
obsession to subordinate, matures to musical counterpoint, the multi-voiced
invitation to coordinate. ((Sighs, pauses)) Two thousand years have passed
since we, the Theoretical Christians, heard "Blessed are the
peacemakers......etc, etc. I wonder if the Son of Man is going to send our
reputation as a race to a collection agency to dissolve our sold-separately
righteous claims in a spritz of hell-fire. (Fear not, if this had been anything
other than a rhetorical question, we, the Theoretical Humanists, would have
have to consider taking it seriously)
Before there was Waldorf, and Multiple Intelligence, there was Opera.
Harvey Bornfield
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Howard Gardner does not endorse Waldorf. "Multiple intelligences" is another
) case where Waldorf is happy to have this very trendy educational buzz word
) associated with its name - due to peoples' misconceptions about Waldorf -
) but from what I observed, they are missing a few of the intelligences, and
) often crippling the others. There's no such thing as creative writing in the
) early grades in Waldorf, for example. I don't think artistic intelligence is
) developed in Waldorf either - the methods are very restricted, and any child
) with actual talent would go completely nuts being allowed to paint nothing
) but vague wet blobs for years.
)
) Diana
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:45:02 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: tell us your Waldorf experience
DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to knock
the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they are
saying.
Lisa here: As someone who spent six years as a parent who was very involved
in my daughters' Waldorf school, I feel qualified to render informed
opinions on what occurred at the school.
DL, perhaps you have already made this clear, and I have missed it. If
so, pardon me and point me to the post involved. But until then, could you
answer the following for me: What is your experience/involvement with
Waldorf education?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:47:29 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Gardner vs. Waldorf
"Earlyfire" sayeth :
) Howard Gardner has powerfully inspired much wonderful and useful redirection
of
) cognitive processes and educational philosophy ...
Lisa here: Yeah, Earlyfire. But what's that all got to do with Waldorf?
Gardner refuses to associate himself with Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:11:19 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: more on lying
)
) DL
) And for thopse who read this and say - "yes, but - we have seen more than
) the trunk..." - I say that whatever amount you saw about the other person
) (s) - there's still more unseen than seen. On this list I've already had
) people make assumptions about me from just a few emails. Makes it seem
) pretty likely to me that these same people might make assumptions about
) Waldorf without all the information.
Making assumtions from your few emails is all we've got to go on, whereas
most of the critics on the list have had long experiences with waldorf
schools and speak from their experiences, this thread is very boring really
I had over 10 years experience in waldorf and I have much to say on my
experiences, no one can change those experinces with these kind of arguments
bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:17:06 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Diana wrote:
"Why not call your own approach the Sarina McDonald approach? Hey,
Waldorf is your competition, right? Promote the Sarina McDonald
method, write your own books, and steal customers away from the local
Waldorf school, Sarina. :)
(That is, after maternity leave . . .)"
----
Uh, okay, Diana, but I guess you could say that is what are doing,
anyway. It states pretty clearly in our Parent Handbook that we have
been influenced by, and adapted ideas from Piaget, Steiner,
Montessori, and others. And we give specific examples of what this
means, how it translates into our work with the children and the
set-up of our classroom.
I still say I've been "inspired" by Waldorf... and Montessori...
and...
Ooh! Was that a contraction?
Just kidding. ;-)
Sarina "still waiting around" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: more on lying
Bea
) I had over 10 years experience in waldorf and I have
) much to say on my
) experiences, no one can change those experinces with
) these kind of arguments
Dottie
I don't think anyone is trying to change your
experience Bea, nor could they. However it is very
hard to have a conversation with a person, who is
committed to the idea that because it happened at
their school it is happening at all Waldorf schools.
PLANS members and many of those critical of Waldorf on
this list, are not sharing their opinions about
Waldorf so we all could learn, they are forcing their
opinions as facts and that leaves no room for debate.
None.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:43:52 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
The model for knowledge which is most intriguing to me Lisa, and also aligns to
the Arthurian Round table is the Islamic saying from the Quran. It explains the
relationship clearly, perhaps I should say "clearly" So: "All knowledge is a
single point, which the ignorant have multiplied" To enhance this
relationship of
a single source of knowledge, but many conduits, we have to use
something greater
than knowledge, which is Imagination. Here's the imagination which validates,
which creates a more powerful scaffold of understanding the magical "All
knowledge is a single....."
A prism. To men of sense (both meanings, rational and those who embrace
outer-directed experience as more reliable than inner promptings), to beings of
sense, the rainbow of colors which pours out one end, is the only reliable
vocabulary, namable, touchable vocabulary, whats to hold on to, to name, to
identify, and to explore. To the person interested in what lies below
the surface
of experience, the desire to travel, as Lewis Carrol says, "through the looking
glass", to unfracture the rainbow and reveal the underlying unity as seamless
clear light, and to see that clear light as neither the presence or absense of
color, but the sire of it. To men of 'non-sense', (but I don't utilize the term
in the commonly heard condemnatory rage we hear in the immature vocal blowtorch
mockery against mystical and allegorical and "woo-woo" dimensions sent to the
back of the bus by the Lab-Coat Root-Racists, who fail the courage to dare to
coordinate science with the sphere of belief (dream, art, philosophy,
Shakespeare) in the creation of new consciousness, - to men of meta-sense, to
students of esoteric quest, fascinated in the unity of truth and its
possibility,
rather than the evasion of becoming responsible for its first-hand
self-evidencing, the image of a prism, imagination, as Einstein knows (why use
the present tense?) is more important than knowledge.
The point from which the knowledge comes, is not a point of view, it is at the
center of the Round Table. No one "owns" the center. Even the King sits on the
periphery. The authoring of knowledge is the important act. The labels, the
words, this is the husk of the creative moment which occurs at the center.
Imagination is an act of knowledging, of creating a spoke from the center to a
place on the periphery. Steiner finds the center, and authors Anthroposophy.
Gardner, by the same act of authentically finding the single point, creates
another spoke. Ideas clothed in different costumes, yet at the root
of both, the
idea Steiner mentions time and time to the Waldorf teachers that the
"flesh made
word" is mankinds part of the bargain for receiving the "word made flesh". Both
men are saying that the dead ideas are like Lazarus, and we must begin to find
ways to animate, to inspire, to connect that is on the epicenter, at
the edge of
the round table, with the energy of the center which sourced it.
I was going to begen a swift answer by saying, your, or anyon'e interest in who
would approve of who, is an attempt to establish some kind of bizarre
dominance,
authority, as if there were a conflict between Steiner and Gardiner, as though
what is right could be made literal, and considered as divorcable from intent.
That's not holistic, that kind of disruption of appearance and its underlying
gesture is not useful. The hardest mold to to break is the notion in
the life of
ideas and understanding, dialogue will eventually be murdered, and replaced by
competitive cannibalism, and so there'll "ALWAYS" come a time when
"push comes to
pull" and one voice must be judged correct and the other humiliated,
depotentiated, rendered bankrupt, rediculed into 'has-been' That's
what Earlyfire
was talking about when, at the end of the last post, he raised the image of
dissolving the Martian Sword came to the fore.
I must admit, I have a curious lack of understanding for why anyone
would, given
the opportunity to connect ideas by revealing common ground and
common energy and
intent they share, to wed them in love and see what new fruit they
together might
conceive, to instead, as my ruthless 21-year old son says "To go
Medieval on the
Ass of Compassion", and willingly wishing to juxtapose scenarios of
confrontation, hawk Las Vegas ringside seats to yet another fresh Gladatorial
rerun, or "pre-run" of the Apocalypse, such as Israel-Palestine. Fact is just
frozen inspiration. Where is our warmth? Why be content to place a pile of sand
upon a triple-beam balance and log the weight, shape, and vital signs in a
database, when you could be the wind, which is her potter, and thrill
the dune's?
Quran:
"And to Solomon the power of the swiftly-blowing wind. And it sped at
his bidding
to the lands We had blessed, for We know all things."
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) "Earlyfire" sayeth :
)
) ) Howard Gardner has powerfully inspired much wonderful and useful
redirection
) of
) ) cognitive processes and educational philosophy ...
)
) Lisa here: Yeah, Earlyfire. But what's that all got to do with Waldorf?
) Gardner refuses to associate himself with Waldorf.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:30:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
At 8:40 PM -0500 8/9/01, D L wrote:
))From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
))Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))Subject: Re: lying ?
))Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:55:25 -0700
))
))Dear D L, when we find Waldorf teachers doing something in the
))classroom, and then we find Waldorf teaching resource books that
))describe that, and we find the Steiner texts that it is based on, and
))articles about it in Waldorf periodicals, and we hear lecturers
))talking about it at Waldorf schools, don't you think we can call
))ourselves knowledgeable, and aren't we are fully justified in saying
))that that thing is "Waldorf"?
))
))-Dan Dugan
)
)
)Good question. Would you say that you are an expert on Waldorf?
Yes.
)On education?
No.
)Are you willing to acknowledge possible biases?
Conclusions based on knowledge, not prejudices.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:18:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: reading lists
Diana Winters wrote to Kerr,
)LOL! I loved the Borrowers and I was pretty sure they existed for a
)long time too. Kerr, what you mean by "censorship" isn't what's done
)in Waldorf - it is *nothing* remotely related to what you're saying
)here. You're censoring him because he's already read *too much*, but
)Waldorf would never have let him read any of this stuff in the first
)place.
)
)They'd as soon you beat a 2-year-old as give him a book like The Way
)Things Work (or a 10-year-old). They consider there to be *nothing
)worse* than "how things work" information for small children. Ditto
)Morecai Richler, good Lord (again, their opinion, not mine). The
)Borrowers are actually sort of cynical and sarcastic sometimes, even
)bitter, if I recall, and they would probably be frowned on also.
)Waldorf will not encourage your child to delve into classic
)children's literature.
I have to say that not all Waldorf teachers discourage classic
children's literature. There's a good little book, perhaps the best
Waldorf-oriented book I've seen, by Pamela Johnson Fenner and Karen
L. Rivers. It's titled "Waldorf Student Reading List (Third Edition)"
from Michaelmas Press.
What's good is that the selection of children's literature is drawn
from the world of children's literature, not just the Waldorf
enclave. Norton's "Borrowers" is recommended for fourth grade and
fifth grade.
What's inadequate is that books for independent reading begin with
third grade, consistent with Steiner's crackpot theory.
The selection under the topic of Science is only for grades 7-12, and
though it contains many gems (e.g. Asimov, Gardner), the mix tends to
the Waldorfy weird. The "Animal Behavior" section is all narrative
(e.g. Born Free, Gorillas in the Mist, Never Cry Wolf); by high
school they should be reading some real science. Four out of 16
chemistry books are entirely about alchemy! Two others are about
crystals. Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science"is there (I wonder if they know he classes Goethe and Steiner
with the crackpots?), but so are Velikovsky's pseudo-scientific
fantasies.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:00:36 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Kerr, I asked,
))When are children ready for "academics"? Let's take reading and
))counting for starters. When do you think children are ready for
))reading and counting? Upon what is your belief based?
)
)Well I don't agree with the waldorf idea that the loss of primary
)teeth indicates academic readiness. I think its something very
)individual with children. I've been really influenced by the
)theories put forth by David Elkind in The Hurried Child and in
)Miseducation.
Elkind is full of opinions and no research at all.
) and Raymond and Dorothy Moore.
Leaders of the homeschooling movement, public-school bashers, and
strong propagandists for not teaching kids young. Is this romanticism
or science? I've ordered "Better Late Than Early" that claims to be
backed up by research. Let's discuss it in a few weeks after I have a
chance to read it.
)I think our society has made the mistake of confusing early
)intervention programs for disadvantaged children with the idea that
)if it works with them, it'll put "normal" children ahead if we push
)early academics, when the stress it puts on children is more likely
)to encorage burnout than academic excellence.
Is this burnout phenomenon real? Have you any research on it?
)As the parent of a profoundly gifted child I know that in his early
)years the best way to meet his needs was to provide tons of
)opportunities - to PLAY in the children's museum, to meet artists,
)writers, filmmakers, scientists, etc, it was not to provide
)workbooks, not to provide "educational toys".
Amen to that. I was a super-brainy kid, and I learned more at home
with the Encyclopedia Brittanica and three newspapers a day than I
did in school.
)It was allowing him to teach himself to read with real books, not
)graded primers. It was exposing him to different types of
)storytellers from many different cultures as well as books. It
)meant...when I saw him obsessing over a particular subject, I made
)sure we gave him opportunities to explore that subject in a variety
)of ways....not simply through reading for instance.
)
)I DO have a problem with our society's values as far as "academics"
)are concerned. I think we're misguided if we think rote recitation
)of numbers means more than spatial sense for instance.
Put-downs of "rote recitation" ignore the fact that a huge part of
our cultural literacy requires knowing facts. Factual knowledge and
intelligence develop hand in hand. "Learning how to learn" ain't
worth much if you don't know where Paris is. Please read Hirsch's
"The Schools We Need & Why We Don't Have Them" for a well-researched
argument against the sacred cows of "progressive" education.
) That singing the alphabet song has more value and gauges more than
)being able to retell a story in sequence. I think it would be much
)better if we paid attention to our children's NATURAL aquisition of
)skills than pushing certain ones with "educational" toys, innane
)songs,"educational" television, and our expectations..
)
)) )I've found that all
)))the midline crossing work done in waldorf circle materials have really
)))helped him - 2e love formdrawing for the same reason.
))
))I'm curious about this "midline crossing" terminology, where does
))it come from?
)
)Educational kinesiology, Paul Dennison has been its biggest promoter
)but most of my knowledge comes from my son's psychiatrist and his
)occupational therapist. I've taken a workshop so that I can utilize
)it at home as well. Its using coordinated body movement to enhance
)learning. In my son's case he finds it calming and it is helping
)him become more coordinated overall.
I've always thought that the learning of times tables by stamping
around etc. is one of the best things Waldorf does. Dennison's
"Edu-K" and "Brain Gym" programs offer a whole learning system using
movement. I think the theory about how it integrates parts of the
brain may be overblown, but if it works the theory will follow. It's
hard to tell how effective it really is because it's a trademarked
system, and of course they're publishing only the glowing reports.
Thank you for finally turning me on to the source of that terminology
that keeps cropping up in Waldorf circles.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:03:47 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
Sarina, you asked,
)Nobody gets their knickers in a twist if a school calls themselves
)"modified Montessori" or Montessori inspired" - it just means "we are
)eclectic, but we use some Montessori stuff" - right? Why can't the
)term "Waldorf inspired" be the same?
Because Waldorf has a cult-like religious sect behind it. Big difference.
)I have often wondered if, on this list at least, it's because critics
)are trying so hard to discredit ALL of Waldorf that they don't want
)anything good to *appear* to come out of WE, at all - regardless of
)whether or not there is anything good to it.
Yes, that happens, sorry. Like a divorce. When you feel betrayed it's
hard to see the other's good points.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:33:18 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired its
crap"comments her
--------------03A2FA235043892228B10B00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well Dan, as you're dismissing the research and work of the president
emeritus of the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(which is the most widely respected preschool accreditation body in the US) -
Elkind, and the past dean of several colleges of teachers - Moore..I'm
wondering if you have a bone to pick with developmental psychologists???
What I couldn't find when I went looking, was any research supporting early
academics for normal kindergartners.
After you've read Better Late than Early you might also want to check out
Ready For School? by Marge Eberts and Peggy Gisler. It looks at kindergarten
readiness. The problem is if children aren't developmentally ready schools
don't have the option of turning those children away. In our case they
happily overlooked my son's gross and fine motor skill delays because his
verbal skills were so high (and you know despite his LD I question wether
they were as big of delays as we came to see them as. Kindergarten readiness
research has been based on the idea of children being 5 when they go into
kindergarten, in my district it's if you turn 4 before December 31st of the
year you enter.) This is despite research indicating that physical
development indicates kindergarten readiness much more accurately than
academic readiness. The NAEYC supports enrolling children in kindergarten at
their correct age rather than delaying entry...but they also support play
based kindergarten models - not early academics.
) Is this burnout phenomenon real? Have you any research on it?
When you let me know the type of research you'll accept, I'll gather it. I
have read longitudinal studies on this, and they recognize the phenomena.
Gotta go look through my library, I remember it being in a book that was
examining the differences between boys school readiness and girls.
) Put-downs of "rote recitation" ignore the fact that a huge part of
) our cultural literacy requires knowing facts. Factual knowledge and
) intelligence develop hand in hand. "Learning how to learn" ain't
) worth much if you don't know where Paris is. Please read Hirsch's
) "The Schools We Need & Why We Don't Have Them" for a well-researched
) argument against the sacred cows of "progressive" education.
)
What use is it to a 4-5 year old to know where Paris is when they aren't
developmentally ready to read a map and put it into meaningful context? I
have my province's curriculum in front of me (one which has gone through
massive reform to push early academics) Parents are up in arms because their
third graders are up till 10:30-11pm every night doing their
homework....anyhow....by the end of grade 1 a child should be able to
construct a *simple* map - of their school and classroom (actually learning
linear measurement to do an accurate map doesn't get covered till 3rd grade
and then they have them AGAIN wandering around the school measuring things).
What good is being able to by recite the numbers 1-100 if you don't
understand the concept of what 100 represents yet?
What good is the alphabet song when many children think elemnoo is a single
letter?
They push writing early because they need to have children writing to gauge
how much they are learning with written tests, observation requires too much
time (read time as money).
My wish for my child is not that he win at Jeopardy, but that he leave
childhood with his love of learning intact.
Kerr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:24:42 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
)From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)Subject: tell us your Waldorf experience
)Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:45:02 -0400
)
)
)
)DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to knock
)the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they are
)saying.
)
)
)Lisa here: As someone who spent six years as a parent who was very involved
)in my daughters' Waldorf school, I feel qualified to render informed
)opinions on what occurred at the school.
) DL, perhaps you have already made this clear, and I have missed it. If
)so, pardon me and point me to the post involved. But until then, could you
)answer the following for me: What is your experience/involvement with
)Waldorf education?
)
DL responds: My experience/involvement with Waldorf education is simple.
My wife and I have enrolled our daughter in a Waldorf school for
Kindegarten this fall. I am familiar with Steiner and Anthroposophy through
my work with the Michael Chekhov acting technique - Chekhov was greatly
influenced by Steiner. I also have several friends who went to Waldorf
schools. Without excpetion, they tell me they truly feel they benefitted
from the experience.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:33:51 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: lying ?
)Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:30:15 -0700
)
)At 8:40 PM -0500 8/9/01, D L wrote:
)))From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)))Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)))To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)))Subject: Re: lying ?
)))Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:55:25 -0700
)))
)))Dear D L, when we find Waldorf teachers doing something in the
)))classroom, and then we find Waldorf teaching resource books that
)))describe that, and we find the Steiner texts that it is based on, and
)))articles about it in Waldorf periodicals, and we hear lecturers
)))talking about it at Waldorf schools, don't you think we can call
)))ourselves knowledgeable, and aren't we are fully justified in saying
)))that that thing is "Waldorf"?
)))
)))-Dan Dugan
))
))
))Good question. Would you say that you are an expert on Waldorf?
)
)Yes.
DL asks: What makes you an expert on Waldorf?
)
))On education?
)
)No.
)
))Are you willing to acknowledge possible biases?
)
)Conclusions based on knowledge, not prejudices.
DL writes: Hmmmm....so is that a No?
P.S. Dan - still waiting to hear back from my question about Michael's
posts. You were public enough with your condemnation of others who attacked
(or seemed to attack) the poster and not the post - this one you seem to be
ignoring.....hmmmmmm?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:37:35 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
Harvey wishes we all had . . .
the courage to dare to coordinate science with the sphere of belief
)(dream, art, philosophy, Shakespeare) in the creation of new
) )consciousness, -
I don't see where Waldorf is coordinating science with belief, could you
explain this a little better? And as I keep pointing out to the list, you -
and others who repeatedly accuse the critics of being enemies of
spirituality - you don't really know what the "sphere of belief" of most of
the critics may be. You are the one setting up the dreaded "either/or" here,
Harvey.
)I was going to begen a swift answer by saying, your, or anyon'e )interest
)in who would approve of who, is an attempt to establish some )kind of
)bizarre dominance, authority, as if there were a conflict )between Steiner
)and Gardiner,
Oh give us a break, Earlyfire, Lisa isn't trying to "establish dominance."
(Yeah, Lisa's a real gladiator, aren't you Lisa? :)
Waldorf tries to ride the coattails of something successful, something
innovative that's been discussed in the media a lot, like Multiple
Intelligences, to garner more respectability for their own movement. Don't
shoot the messenger. We are merely pointing this out. The philosophies,
while superficially having similarities, have very different value systems
at base, and wildly differing ideas of children's needs. "Live and let live"
would be fine except that Waldorf is misrepresents both itself and Gardner's
theories by pretending these philosophies are in sync.
They do this with Jane Healey and David Elkind too. David Elkind, for
example, recommends limiting children to 2 hours of TV a day. 2 hours!!
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:38:39 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: more on lying
)From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: more on lying
)Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:11:19 +0100
)
)
) )
) ) DL
) ) And for thopse who read this and say - "yes, but - we have seen more
)than
) ) the trunk..." - I say that whatever amount you saw about the other
)person
) ) (s) - there's still more unseen than seen. On this list I've already
)had
) ) people make assumptions about me from just a few emails. Makes it seem
) ) pretty likely to me that these same people might make assumptions about
) ) Waldorf without all the information.
)
)Making assumtions from your few emails is all we've got to go on, whereas
)most of the critics on the list have had long experiences with waldorf
)schools and speak from their experiences, this thread is very boring really
)I had over 10 years experience in waldorf and I have much to say on my
)experiences, no one can change those experinces with these kind of
)arguments
)bea
Dl writes: This is my point exactly! While making assumptions is entirely
"understandable" - it ISN'T all you've got to go on. With very few
exceptions, did anyone *ask* me for more information regarding my earlier
posts - I wrote - assumption was made - assumption was acted upon. It's
this idea that "well, i heard you say (fill in the blank) and I believe it
to mean (fill in the blank) so it must mean that" that is really getting in
the way of people truly understanding each other. I don't know any one on
this list. I try to give you all the benefit of the doubt. I try and asks
questions before jumping to conlcusions. All I ask is tthat the same be
done in return. And with others.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:42:32 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: lying ?
D L wrote:
) ...
)
) P.S. Dan - still waiting to hear back from my question about Michael's
) posts. You were public enough with your condemnation of others who
) attacked
) (or seemed to attack) the poster and not the post - this one you seem to
) be
) ignoring.....hmmmmmm?
DL,
Dan has been remarkably even-handed in his attempts to guide the tone of
this list over the years. Michael Kopp, in particular, has probably
received more reprimands than any other list participant, and has been
unsubscribed at least once.
Dan's enthusiasm for guidance also appears to wax and wane, and his
overall preference is clearly to leave the list to its own devices as
much as possible. Thus, if you stick with the list, you can expect to
see plenty of stuff from all sides that you might think deserved
moderator action. However, I don't think you'll find an anti-Waldorf
bias in Dan's guidance of the list.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
satisfied Waldorf alumni parent
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 401
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired
itscrap"comments her
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: reading lists
By sarina bainbridge.net
RE: reading lists
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: more on lying
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: lying ?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
By earlyfire earthlink.net
RE: lying ?
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
By canndw netzero.net
Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
By canndw netzero.net
Re: lying ?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: more on lying
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: lying ?
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: more on lying
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: more on lying
By momof2gals mindspring.com
synthsis
By hermit tiac.net
Re: synthsis
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
[anonymous] Thank you
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: moving my domain
By dan dandugan.com
Re: [anonymous] Thank you
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: [anonymous] Thank you
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:59:54 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Trying to understand the "if its waldorf inspired
itscrap"comments her
) Because Waldorf has a cult-like religious sect behind it. Big
difference.
Oh.
) Yes, that happens, sorry. Like a divorce. When you feel betrayed
it's
) hard to see the other's good points.
Oh - like a divorce.
This makes sense to me... I think I finally *do* understand.
Hm.
Thoughtfully,
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:08:42 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: reading lists
) I have to say that not all Waldorf teachers discourage classic
) children's literature. There's a good little book,
(snip)
) What's good is that ... (snip)
----
Hey, wait a minute!
I finally think I understand how you can't see anything good in WE,
even if there is something good ("like a divorce"). This also helps to
explain the tendency to generalize, on this list, that specific
criticisms apply to all Waldorf schools across the board.
And then you go and say
"I have to say that not all Waldorf teachers ______,"
and then
"This is *good,* and so is that"!
Sheesh! What are you trying to do, confuse me?!
(this is a joke, nobody flame me!)
Sarina "about one brain cell left" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:06:18 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: reading lists
Pam Fenner is in the process of publishing a "waldorf high school
student reading list" book, so perhaps the selections for the older set
will be better in that one.
David
Dan Dugan wrote:
) There's a good little book, perhaps the best Waldorf-oriented book I've
) seen, by Pamela Johnson Fenner and Karen L. Rivers. It's titled "Waldorf
) Student Reading List (Third Edition)" from Michaelmas Press.
What's good is that the selection of children's literature is drawn from
the world of children's literature, not just the Waldorf enclave.
Norton's "Borrowers" is recommended for fourth grade and fifth grade.
What's inadequate is that books for independent reading begin with
third grade, consistent with Steiner's crackpot theory.
The selection under the topic of Science is only for grades 7-12, and
though it contains many gems (e.g. Asimov, Gardner), the mix tends to
the Waldorfy weird. The "Animal Behavior" section is all narrative e.g.
Born Free, Gorillas in the Mist, Never Cry Wolf); by high school they
should be reading some real science. Four out of 16 chemistry books are
entirely about alchemy! Two others are about crystals. Martin Gardner's
"Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science"is there (I wonder if they
know he classes Goethe and Steiner with the crackpots?), but so are
Velikovsky's pseudo-scientific fantasies.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:23:58 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
) They do this with Jane Healey and David Elkind too.
Another .02 (boy, ain't I verbose today?):
This is very true. I attended an education conference at Rudolf
Steiner College/Sacramento Waldorf School a couple of years ago, where
Jane Healy was the main speaker. (She is my idol, so I flew down just
to see her.) She seemed to have no idea what WE was about, other than
a passing recognition of the usual publicity stuff (arts based,
natural, rhythm, etc. - you all know what I mean); several times
during her lecture she said something like, "Don't you teach that,
too?" or "I believe in Waldorf, you do it this way?"
And yet the College did really "work it" when it came to emphasizing
the similarities between Dr. Healy's work and their Steiner-backed
philosophy, saying her research on brain development backed them up.
(Which it does, to a point - they all agree that TV and stupid
computer games rot your brain. (grin) Unfortunately, when it comes to
education there are other points!)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that Diana is right about this. WE seems
to have no trouble finding similarities in the work of respected
researchers - but I have yet to see any one of them actually *endorse*
WE.
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:32:31 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: more on lying
) Dl writes: This is my point exactly! While making assumptions is entirely
) "understandable" - it ISN'T all you've got to go on. With very few
) exceptions, did anyone *ask* me for more information regarding my earlier
) posts - I wrote - assumption was made - assumption was acted upon. It's
) this idea that "well, i heard you say (fill in the blank) and I believe it
) to mean (fill in the blank) so it must mean that" that is really getting in
) the way of people truly understanding each other. I don't know any one on
) this list. I try to give you all the benefit of the doubt. I try and asks
) questions before jumping to conlcusions. All I ask is tthat the same be
) done in return. And with others.
)
I dont really know what you want, this is only an email group which has
certain limitations in communication
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:34:06 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
))
))
)) DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to knock
)) the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they are
)) saying.
))
))
)) Lisa here: As someone who spent six years as a parent who was very involved
)) in my daughters' Waldorf school, I feel qualified to render informed
)) opinions on what occurred at the school.
)) DL, perhaps you have already made this clear, and I have missed it. If
)) so, pardon me and point me to the post involved. But until then, could you
)) answer the following for me: What is your experience/involvement with
)) Waldorf education?
))
)
) DL responds: My experience/involvement with Waldorf education is simple.
) My wife and I have enrolled our daughter in a Waldorf school for
) Kindegarten this fall. I am familiar with Steiner and Anthroposophy through
) my work with the Michael Chekhov acting technique - Chekhov was greatly
) influenced by Steiner. I also have several friends who went to Waldorf
) schools. Without excpetion, they tell me they truly feel they benefitted
) from the experience.
)
I will be so intersted to talk to you dl when you have experienced waldorf
education for 2/3years
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:52:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
)DL asks: What makes you an expert on Waldorf?
1-1/2 years of active Waldorf parenting, 13 years of reading books
and periodicals, visiting schools, attending lectures, and
communicating with other Waldorf parents.
)))On education?
))
))No.
))
)))Are you willing to acknowledge possible biases?
))
))Conclusions based on knowledge, not prejudices.
)
)DL writes: Hmmmm....so is that a No?
I went into Waldorf as an enthusiastic supporter. I changed my
opinion based on my experience and knowledge. A considered opinion
isn't a bias.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:59:10 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
(!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en")
(html)
Diana,
(br)I wish for the Waldorf environment what I wish for the critics. Walking
in off the street and sitting through a couple of years of reading a
masterpieces
like Knowledge of the Higher Worlds or Hamlet, or learning to play the
Goldberg Variations, might give one a credential, but never the right to
call themselves a master, to be a Steiner or Shakespeare or J.S, Bach,
human beings whose scope and supporting powers of imagination, inspiration
and intuition have been perfected to the point where as so adeptly understated
by the title of the Barbara Streisand Movie "On a clear day you can see
forever", the what we call ......."Talents of Immortality"...... bear fruit,
and enable the one in whom they have been, over centuries of aspiration,
to penetrate the veil and to see into worlds from which we descended, and
to coordinate their lives as a dialogue between the two. That's a thumbnail
sketch of the kind of kneeling devotion and leaping, singe-ing fire required
to quest out the worlds of awe and enchantment, a small spark of which
trickles down into this biological matrix of necessities and compulsions
which enmesh us in the "Laws of Nature", and show up at our doorstep as
art works, and great scientific discoveries, and acts of courage, such
as, for example "the entire life of a Martin Luther King"
(p)No, slapping a Waldorf credential on the face wou wish to present or
save, like a hit of mascara or aftershave (could be both?) is not
an "After-life insurance policy", a guarantee that every word which pours
out of the lips of the one on whose wall it is front-row-center fast impaled
is an entitlement to free parking in downtown San Francisco.
(p)Wisdom is what unites all of the multiplications of the single point
called knowledge. It is a perspective which is resilient, we are happy
to say, to every attempt to enfranchise it. Dialogue is only possible because
"God is on everybody's side" The sin is taking sides, another way of committing
what future humanity will define, come to regard, and ultimately come to
revile as "Crimes against Altruism".
(p)If a person doesn't want to do the homework of discovering how to access
that point which authors the authority to "reinvent the wheel" which is
another term for participating in the act of authoring, one can,
of course snore on in the righteous, one dares say, altogether
"desparate-ecstasy"
of "Time is Money, the real American Religion'. All you can eat Adjectival
Enhancement, anyone? =) wafting from one perfumed dream to uphill
climb, from hope to disenchantment and back full circle in a ferocious
sine-curve-like Indianapolis Gladatorial rollercoaster of necessity-driven
ambitions, ever content to backburner the noble wish to confront the ethers,
to visit the source-lands and and the source-seas and the source-skies
which free one from drinking up the hearsay of others, and stay content,
tragically content like most people to accept the second-hand echos and
ripple-effects of others acts of knowledging, to be saddled up upon the
trust in Others authority. Trust is good, probably the most understated,
sublimest, most valuable and widely taken-for-granted of any virtue, as
well as the easiest to violate, and owing to the perilously-endangered
quality of compassion, the most difficult to repair, yet at the same time
the secret of dis-affiliating the energy of trust (compare the spelling
to truss and to truth and from the language scaffolding alone infer a
connection!)
from group allegiance, blind loyalty, Mafioso-fear-based coagulations of
stereotypic "Brotherhoods", with their kisses of death, the Papal guarantees
that the world is made safe for mindlessness, and the American National
Groupie Obsession with the euphoria of competitive triumph and the multimillion
dollar rewards of hero-worshipping, when the real Hero was crucified a
couple of thousand years ago. Then, make up your mind as to whether Earlyfire
is on retainer from APOPs, or rather like Sadko, is content 'merely' to
sing to his lover the lovely river Volkhov. (Old Peter's Russian Tales,
like Bornfield himself, out of print ;-D)
(p)Earlyfire cuts 'his' lines this way, distinguishing who is interested
in developing the capability for dialogue, from who already has too many
answers and other weapons, to share the blessing of vulnerability which
love empowers. And has learned what he 'by and large' previously did not
previously know, that to wish to slice the Apops and the WCOs by the
preferential
idiosyncrasies, driven by the primitive knee-jerk lunacies of embrace and
recoil, is not the act of an individual, one who has made the rite of passage
away from imitating the knowledge and structures of understanding of others.
It is easy, all one has to do to remain as before, is do nothing besides
travel the food-clothing-shelter circuit, and one remains well-nursed backstage
of their closed religious eyelashes in their radient cocoon of Sri "Blab-Blah"
or Doctor "Blah-Blah, or Most August Herr Doctor Blah-Blah, or their favorite
Guerilla Warfare Prodigal Son avowed to inflict "Blows against the Empire"
Stereotyping, the least suspected genre of insanity, the most invisible
religion upon the planet, author of slicing up humanity in an outrageous
crisscross slashfest of OK/NotOK. Some of my best friends are ..........
(text breaks off here, must be that God intentionally left this blank space,
this downtown San Francisco parking place, 'blank for formatting
purposes')
(p)Diana Winters wrote:
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)Harvey wishes we all had . . .(/blockquote)
(Correct, The "We" is all, ALL, (b)ALL,(/b) human beings, not a particular
group,
(br)I like wisdom turfless. (The term "My wisdom" is the very Iridium bar
of Oxymoron, said Lexus of Smithsonian) Are we on common ground here?)
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)
(p)the courage to dare to coordinate science with the sphere of belief
(br))(dream, art, philosophy, Shakespeare) in the creation of new
(br)) )consciousness, -
(p)I don't see where Waldorf is coordinating science with belief,(/blockquote)
(Not, yet, but there's always hope, although if you read Ralph Twentyman's
"The Science and Art of Homeopathy", you can get exposed to all the connections
between mythology and medicine)
(p)We're looking for a "We" WITHOUT a "They", therefore an "All" This is
the standard, if one must look at groups, But a group can't coordinate
a science with belief. They'd need some collective, credentialled authority,
a charisma-inspired Pied-Piper, a Prophet-founder, to author the "metaphysical
glue" which gives a group their group identity and holds them thus spellbound
in an allegiance to yet another freshly-minted teaching which soon will
coagulate into a collection of well-numbered tenets, and shazam, we have,
I give you.....Dogma - same old blindness, different century. ONLY AN
INDIVIDUAL
can can reach into the substrata of their own belief and bridgbuilding,
at last, over the course of but a few brief centuries, achieve, win for
himself/herself the synthesis between the clarity of thought and the rhapsody
of dream, and the right to traverse each with no loss of awareness. This
is the reason why people embrace Anthroposophy, in pursuit of wonder, of
awe, of simultaneously living in the presence of both rationality and
enchantment,
not to spawn a new arms race, and the one-digit emotional IQ it rode in
on, bragging "My metaphysics can beat up yours".
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)could you
(br)explain this a little better? And as I keep pointing out to the list,
you -
(br)and others who repeatedly accuse the critics of being enemies of
(br)spirituality -(/blockquote)
To redefine the enemy in a useful way: Dogma and its entrenched turf is
the enemy of Dialogue
(br)Dialogue= "
(br)Where two or more are gathered In My Name, I shall be present" The
living Christ does the harmonizing, inspires the synthesis from opposing
points of view
(br)Dogma=
(br)"Where zero or less are gathered in My Name, I shall be AWOL. Nothing
left to do but argue, wax clever, wax ferocious, become a historical
revisionist,
be the tobacco company who gives away lie detectors.
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)you don't really know what the "sphere of belief"
of most of
(br)the critics may be. You are the one setting up the dreaded "either/or"
here,
(br)Harvey.(/blockquote)
You are making a presumption here, and then submitting it to me for a full
refund, which, if this would help, I would be happy as a Costo clerk to
do. How much do I owe you? ;-D, and what currency would make legal, if
not spiritual tender for the repayment of said imagined debt, public or
private? However if, includeded within the sphere of belief of either a
person or a group, is premise, which functions as an addiction, and recycles
through hundreds of conversations at one time whispering, at another screaming
"I have been betrayed and violated and wounded, the perpetrator must be
be brought to justice" Will the arraignment of the evil, and watching the
upcoming Fourth of July HBO special where ASWNA officials are dropped off
from WCO helicopters on hundred-foot bunjee cords ninety feet above the
index finger of the Statue of Liberty, solve the problem of your not knowing
what lurks in wait, if you're terrified, or, on a lighter note, what vibrant
thrives ready for discovery and conversation in the deathless realms beyond
this fast-food capital of the universe. Therefore, it would appear that
dialogue is more useful than dogma.
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)
(p))I was going to begen a swift answer by saying, your, or anyon'e )interest
(br))in who would approve of who, is an attempt to establish some )kind
of
(br))bizarre dominance, authority, as if there were a conflict )between
Steiner
(br))and Gardiner,
(p)Oh give us a break, Earlyfire, Lisa isn't trying to "establish dominance."
(br)(Yeah, Lisa's a real gladiator, aren't you Lisa? :)(/blockquote)
Why would you think that I could be interested in what Lisa personally
was trying or not trying to convince. Our war is against the unacknowledged
"Demon within" which attempts to structure points of view in such a way
as creates OK vs/ Not OK polarities, and so 'necessitates' war rather than
counterpoint, confrontation rather than harmony, whiich wishes to erect
a scaffolding of entrenchment rather than the rite of passage between one
isolated individual to anotyer, called dialogue.
(blockquote TYPE=CITE) (/blockquote)
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)
(p)Waldorf tries to ride the coattails of something successful, something
(br)innovative that's been discussed in the media a lot, like Multiple
(br)Intelligences, to garner more respectability for their own movement.
Don't
(br)shoot the messenger. We are merely pointing this out. The philosophies,
(br)while superficially having similarities, have very different value
systems
(br)at base, and wildly differing ideas of children's needs. "Live and
let live"
(br)would be fine except that Waldorf is misrepresents both itself and
Gardner's
(br)theories by pretending these philosophies are in sync.
(p)They do this with Jane Healey and David Elkind too. David Elkind, for
(br)example, recommends limiting children to 2 hours of TV a day. 2 hours!!
(br)
(br) (/blockquote)
The reason for the agreement is not politically aligned, designed merely
for effect, for presence in the New York Times. If it is, then the national
advocates of Waldorf would have to considered seriously flawed in their
lack of confidence in its intrinsic merit. It would be tragic to
think that wisdom could be made the whore of power. Moreover, the
chain-reaction
rate of growth of Waldorf proliferation throughout the world, especially
in civilized nations, (that is, nations in which the dominance of an irrirating
gauntlet of competitive euphoria and mercantile chauvinism has not succeeded
in creating a reverence-numb and modesty-challenged society) pretty much
makes for unchallengable evidence of its widespread success and attests
to the omni-culturally "experienced attractiveness" of its underlying beauty,
energy, and intent, when practiced with reverence and modesty. However,
if foisted in arrogance and dogmatic judgmentalism, and desparation, this
would be catastrophic to the founding principles and purposes of the movement.
(p)As I mentioned in the previous posts, you will at long last doubtless
come to discover, in the deepest and most responsible analysis, that Gardiner's
ideas of bringing intelligence out of the closet of abstraction, and linking
it to the vibrant multidimensional stage of oral-tradition potency, and
restoring our desire to regard it in artistically-enhanced
performance-based
orchestrations whose choreographic, rhythmic, musical and verbal components
have mainstayed the ritual morning circle of the Waldorf class, having
been been practiced with finesse and rev since before Howard Gardiner was
in diapers, that Gardiner's theory is wholly piggybacked upon focusing
a grandiose re-awakening of the element of imagination in the learning
process. Multiple Intelligence is a secular, and long-awaited extention
of the cognitive component of the threefold model into missing dimensions
of the Heart and Hands. These two philosophies are miraculously parallel.
If you would consider, rather then cruise over the careful model of the
relation between imagination and knowledge, which we made regarding both
Steiner and Gardiner travelling to a single point in the center of the
Round Table, each there to author knowledge, and each creating their own
spoke, their own constellation of vocabulary out to the periphery of the
world, to the place of deeds, you will be gracefully able to coordinate
the complementary intent of both ideas, to understand them as echos of
a single Michaelic Impulse for this age, for the "Flesh to be made one
again Word"
(p)(All blind-belief addicts: These are ideas, and if they are not interesting
to you, then find a pastime where thought is not optional)
(br)
(blockquote TYPE=CITE)Diana
(p)_________________________________________________________________
(br)Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at (a
href="http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp")http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp(/a)
(/html)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:42:27 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: lying ?
Neil Faiman wrote:
)DL,
)
)Dan has been remarkably even-handed in his attempts to guide the tone of
)this list over the years. Michael Kopp, in particular, has probably
)received more reprimands than any other list participant, and has been
)unsubscribed at least once.
)
)Dan's enthusiasm for guidance also appears to wax and wane, and his
)overall preference is clearly to leave the list to its own devices as
)much as possible. Thus, if you stick with the list, you can expect to
)see plenty of stuff from all sides that you might think deserved
)moderator action. However, I don't think you'll find an anti-Waldorf
)bias in Dan's guidance of the list.
I tend to agree here. Back in May, Dan declined to reprimand me after
I said a certain party was "full of shit" because he regarded it as
an outburst. There is a certain confusion about what an ad hominem is
and what it isn't, but this list does not have a monopoly on this
confusion. It is a widespread problem.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:03:19 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
)
)
)))
)))
))) DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to knock
))) the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they are
))) saying.
)))
)))
))) Lisa here: As someone who spent six years as a parent who was very involved
))) in my daughters' Waldorf school, I feel qualified to render informed
))) opinions on what occurred at the school.
))) DL, perhaps you have already made this clear, and I have missed it. If
))) so, pardon me and point me to the post involved. But until then, could you
))) answer the following for me: What is your experience/involvement with
))) Waldorf education?
)))
))
)) DL responds: My experience/involvement with Waldorf education is simple.
)) My wife and I have enrolled our daughter in a Waldorf school for
)) Kindegarten this fall. I am familiar with Steiner and Anthroposophy through
)) my work with the Michael Chekhov acting technique - Chekhov was greatly
)) influenced by Steiner. I also have several friends who went to Waldorf
)) schools. Without excpetion, they tell me they truly feel they benefitted
)) from the experience.
))
)
) I will be so intersted to talk to you dl when you have experienced waldorf
) education for 2/3years
) bea
Lisa here: I totally agree with you, Bea! DL, expertise in the actign
techniques of MichaelChekhov, however much he was influenced by Steiner, is
*not* the same as either experience with Steiner (in a scholarly way) or
direct experience with Waldorf.
I would urge you and your wife, DL, to go into the Waldorf experience
with your eyes wide open ... ie) read *everything* you can about Steiner and
Waldorf, including things critical. Almost without exception, the critics on
this list were enthusiastic supporters of Waldorf when we enrolled our
children.
Today, our attitudes are different, because we and our children have had
firsthand experience with the worst Waldorf has to offer.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:43:01 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Gardner vs. Waldorf
More on Jane Healey -
Some time ago, we discussed Healey's suggestions that reading "too early" is
to be avoided. I asked Waldorf supporters to show us where Healey says "too
early" means age 6, as Waldorf defines it. Obviously Healey didn't say
anything like that. (There's no way to deduce an actual chronological age
for reading readiness from where the brain research is at today; it probably
does support backing off on teaching much younger children - preschoolers -
to read.) Waldorf is happy to stick with vague suggestions that somebody
like Healey agrees with them. If I recall Healey suggests that the stages of
brain development that might indicate when a child was ready to read may be
genetic - from which I would conclude that it would be different for
different children. Of course Healey does not mention teeth falling out . .
.
Sarina wrote:
)And yet the College did really "work it" when it came to emphasizing
)the similarities between Dr. Healy's work and their Steiner-backed
)philosophy, saying her research on brain development backed them up.
)(Which it does, to a point - they all agree that TV and stupid
)computer games rot your brain. (grin) Unfortunately, when it comes to
)education there are other points!)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:19:25 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: tell us your Waldorf experience
Bea wrote to DL:
) ) I will be so intersted to talk to you dl when you have experienced
waldorf
) ) education for 2/3years
)
and Lisa agreed:
) Lisa here: I totally agree with you, Bea! DL, expertise in the actign
) techniques of MichaelChekhov, however much he was influenced by Steiner,
is
) *not* the same as either experience with Steiner (in a scholarly way) or
) direct experience with Waldorf.
David: I think that DL, who is careful enough and open enough to read this
list before his
family's waldorf experience has begun, is unlikely to be surprised in the
same way that some of this list's members were.
Lisa:
) I would urge you and your wife, DL, to go into the Waldorf experience
) with your eyes wide open ...
Excellent advice.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:20:13 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: (lost the thread, sorry)
Diana ridicules David's idea for critics to research their local schools:
) David, surely you don't think the schools would share this information
with
) us? Naturally many of us are in touch with people who've left as well as
) some people who've stayed, but no one who is still committed to the school
) is going to pass along information such as numbers of families departing
and
) their reasons for departure, if it is unfavorable to the school, and no
one
) who has left *has* such information. Do you think if I called our former
) Waldorf school and asked, "What are the traits of the teachers who lose a
) lot of kids?" they would be interested in discussing this with me? I do
pick
) up information on the grapevine (translate: at the swim club), but it
) couldn't be considered objective data, obviously.
Okay, okay. If it's too hard, it's too hard. Just an idea.
Diana, on David's suggestion that critics analyze main lesson books:
) The critics are certainly doing such things, but again, getting any kind
of
) sample that could be considered representative is difficult. If they're
all
) from children whose families left angry, then Waldorf supporters will
say -
) fairly - that this is biased; families who are still happy with the school
) won't turn over their kids' books to critics who have an "agenda" (as you
) know since you yourself have refused, understandably in my opinion).
Of course it's biased, but you would be trying to use the "law of large
numbers" to your advantage. If you could show how "x" main lesson books
(which, depending on the grade you're interested in, you might possibly
obtain from Dan, Newpaul, Sharon, Lisa, Debra, Bea, Michael Kopp, Alice,
Clara and/or any of your similarly outraged friends), shared factual errors
or way-below grade level writing levels, it might have a power to the
neutral (or waldorf-supportive but objective) observer that your individual
stories don't.
I hear the word "evidence" quite a lot on this list. I consider most of the
evidence presented here as argumentation, or "spin", in the US vernacular.
It would become evidence when one can predict an outcome based on data, or
when you can show cause and effect.
I'll drop this whole subject now, but I've been asked many times in the past
why I don't accept the "evidence" presented on the list as true, so I
thought I'd say.
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 02:31:39 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lying ?
DL responds to the variety of posts sent towards him....
)From Dan (in response to the question whether he was willing to acknowledge
potential bias):
))I went into Waldorf as an enthusiastic supporter. I changed my opinion
))based on my experience and knowledge. A considered opinion isn't a bias.
DL: Can you see that even if you go into something with open eyes, that what
we see with our eyes (as hard as we try to have them see objectively) is
filtered through many life expeiences and that what you see and what someone
else sees in the same interaction may result in different opinions of what
happened? A "considered opinion" may be skewed by a filter we are not even
aware of.
Also, I find it interesting that while two other people have defended Dan's
lack of response to Michael's recent posts, Dan has not responded to my
questions (either privately or on the list). This seems to be a tacit
approval of what appear to be attacks from Michael directed towards two
individuals (as opposed to what the two individuals said).
Notice - I say APPEARS to be - I don't know that it IS. This again is the
point I am trying to make. I could easily have ASSUMED that by not
responding to my questions, Dan is supporting the idea that the attacks are
appropriate. Instead, I have asked. And asked again. And still without an
answer - I choose to say it APPEARS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS - I DON'T KNOW WHAT
DAN THINKS. But I am sure I could find people that if I shared the posts
I'm referring to would say that he must be supprting the attacks as he
hasn't responded to my questions. AND IT WOULDN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE I
GOT TO AGREE WITH ME - IT WOULDN'T MAKE IT SO.
Bea wrote:
)I will be so intersted to talk to you dl when you have experienced waldorf
)education for 2/3years
)bea
DL responds: That'd be great. Who knows? Perhaps in 2-3 years I will not
want my daughter in the Waldorf school setting. I've never said I was an do
or die Waldorf supporter. We chose the school for many reasons. That I
have good feedback from former students and it seems a good match for our
family are but two. I don't have the issues that many of the critics on
this site seem to have, but then again, my daughter is not yet in the
school. Only time will tell.
Lisa wrote in response to : I totally agree with you, Bea! DL, expertise in
the actign
techniques of MichaelChekhov, however much he was influenced by Steiner, is
*not* the same as either experience with Steiner (in a scholarly way) or
direct experience with Waldorf.
DL writes: You're right. It's not. But I didn't say it was and I didn't
say it was my only experience with Steiner.
Lisa also wrote:ÝÝÝ I would urge you and your wife, DL, to go into the
Waldorf experience
with your eyes wide open ... ie) read *everything* you can about Steiner and
Waldorf, including things critical. Almost without exception, the critics on
this list were enthusiastic supporters of Waldorf when we enrolled our
children.
Today, our attitudes are different, because we and our children have had
firsthand experience with the worst Waldorf has to offer.
DL writes: And almost without exception, people who divorce were
enthusiastic supporters of their spouses when they got married. Yet
somehow, most people I know who get divorce are anything but when they get
divorced. This is not as simple as people growing apart - or I don't think
there'd be such animosity. Little things are allowed to pile up and the
combined weight of the undealt with or incompletely dealt with issues breaks
the back of the relationship. It is possible that families who began with
positive views of WE became jaded over unresolved issues. And like most
failed marriages (imo) - the responsibility for the issues being unresolved
rests with both parties. However, there seems to be a tendancy in human
beings to want to find blame (and usually with the other person - not
ourselves).
David:Ý I think that DL, who is careful enough and open enough to read this
list before his
family's waldorf experience has begun, is unlikely to be surprised in the
same way that some of this list's members were.
DL writes: and not just unlikely to be surprised, but willing to see that in
any relationship
(husband/wife.....friends....employer/employee....organization/member) -
BOTH parties are responsible for what happens - no one is free of
responsibility. I don't think it is ever black and white or that one person
is totally at responsible or totally innocent. And I don't subscribe to the
idea of "blame" of "fault" - I think responsibility and blame are different.
My only purpose posting here is not to get anyone here to change their mind
about Waldorf - it is to ask you all to consider that while it may seem like
the knowledge you have is solid - it's possible (POSSIBLE) that the
knowledge is incomplete or is skewed by hidden biases or filters. I may be
pounding my head against a brick wall, but it's important to me that people
at leasst consider possibilities they might have overlooked before. I get a
general feeling (which could be wrong) that many people on this list are in
a "my mind's made up - period" frame of mind.
That's all for now
I wish you all a healthy and prosperous weekend
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:21:21 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: more on lying
--part1_e1.18d18ee0.28a67d41_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer