return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By dan dandugan.com
Re:Re:Re:Re: Hitler & the occult
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: PLANS argument
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: reply to Sune on facelessness/was "For Lisa ...."
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By snell gv.net
Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By dan dandugan.com
Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re:Re:Re:Re: Hitler & the occult
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 17:40:21 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
) Is this one of the reasons you pay for public charter
) over public schools? You can try and get more control
) over the school system?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
) I think it is rather smart of this school to speak
) this honestly with you in regards to the places where
) your ideas of education do not meet with theirs.
I didn't actually complain to them about their education methods. The
question I had I asked the email list for parents and teachers of
children in Waldorf schools. My complaints have come up since then and
are regarding their treatment of parents. They were just as brutal to a
different mother who was actually more Waldorf than they. She was more
sensitive than I and has already left the school.
I have complained about lots of things Waldorf on this list, but that's
why I am on this list, so that I have an outlet for my complaints. I
don't find much of the discussion on this list to be of much interested
to me, but now and then you get a person with some interesting views,
like Kerr, and you find that you can learn something.
When it comes down to it the philosophical reasons for having longer
playtimes for children and more singing and art are irrelevant. If the
teacher is doing it for the sake of my child's astral body and I am
doing it for the social and physical development of my child those
differences of worldview don't really matter. If the teachers were
doing it because it would give the children better test scores that
would be fine with me also.
) They are trying to avoid a disaster which is totally
) understandable. Any smart business I believe would do
) the same thing.
Again you have no clue what they are trying to do. You merely assume
you do. You seem to have this picture in your head of these saintly
teachers calmly dealing with a recalcitrant parent. You can't believe
that a Waldorf teacher would say what I had ascribed to her, believe me
she did. Why do you think I am so upset at them, it was very
unprofessionally done.
They are most likely are worried because I am proposing that the school
have an ombudsperson or facilitator to mediate between parents and
teachers. The lead teachers are worried that such a person would mean
they no longer could call parents in and freely harass them as they now
do. They want to maintain their present situation of complete control
of the school.
No two people share the same world view. I am in many ways far closer
to the Waldorf view than many of the other parents at the school who
complain that the time the children spend playing outside before class
is just wasting time.
) And that would be great. WS has their certain
) methodology and you are well aware of what it is. If
) you do not like it why do you think the school should
) change to meet your personal needs.
Waldorf has whatever the teachers of the school feel like doing and
calling Waldorf. I have heard of many extremes, including a group who
are trying to incorporate ideas similar to mine into Waldorf methods.
Waldorf Ed. very much depends on who is in charge.
) WS is what it is in regards to methodology. You like
) it or you don't . If you don't why be so stubborn
You say this many times Dottie, what exactly do you think Waldorf is in
regards to methodology? Please clarify as I would like to know.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 22:22:36 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
I responded a while ago to NewPaul with regard to the Dan's "smoking guns
for Goodrick-Clarke 'The Occult Roots Of Nazism'". Dan now replies:
) You fail to identify the lecture. It's "The Occult Significance of
) Blood," Berlin, 1907. I believe it's out of print from official
) Anthroposophic sources, but is available in a reprint of a British
) edition from Kessinger Publishing Co.
The German title, "Blut ist ein ganz besonderer Saft", translates literally
as "Blood is a very special fluid", and this is the title under which the
lecture appears in the collection _Supersensible Knowledge_ (Anthroposophic
Pres, 1987). The phrase is from Goethe's _Faust_.
) In your effort to minimize Steiner's role you make it seem that this
) is the only mention of Steiner in -The Occult Roots of Nazism-.
) Steiner is mentioned eight times. He was a very minor player, but he
) was part of the picture.
Omitting the other seven mentions of Steiner in G-C could only be an effort
to "minimize Steiner's role" if those mentions suggested that Steiner *had*
a role. (Didn't this get hashed out several years ago?) Anyway, for those
who want to evaluate the rest of the smoking guns, here are the other seven
mentions:
1. In the chapter "The modern German occult revival, 1880-1910",
Goodrick-Clarke describes the various occult movements, and especially
periodicals, in Germany at that time. In a discussion of the German
Theosophical Society: "While these activities remained largely under the
sway of Franz Hartmann and Paul Zilleman, mention must be made of another
theosophical tendency in Germany. In 1902 Rudolf Steiner, a young scholar
who had studied in Vienna before writing in Weimar a study of Goethe's
scientific writings, was made general secretary of the German Theosophical
Society at Berlin, founded by London theosophists. Steiner published a
periodical, _Luzifer_, at Berlin from 1903 to 1908. However, his mystical
Christian interests increasingly estranged him from the theosophists under
Annie Besant's strongly Hindu persuasion, so that he finally broke away to
found his own Anthroposophical Society in 1912. It may have been a desire
to counter Steiner's influence in the occult subculture which led Hartmann
to encourage the publication of several new periodicals."
2. Two pages later, discussing Friedrich Eckstein: "Following a cordial
meeting with Blavatsky in 1886, Eckstein gathered a group of theosophists in
Vienna. During the late 1880s both Franz Hartmann and the young Rudolf
Steiner were _habitues_ of this circle."
3. Another two pages later, "A theosophical group had been active in
[Vienna] as early as 1887, but its members were initially inclined towards a
_Biedermeier_ tradition of pious 'inwardness' and self-cultivation under the
patronage of Marie Lang. Rudolf Steiner was a member of this group and his
account of its interests indicates how little sympathy there existed between
the 'factual' Buddhistic theosophy of Franz Hartmann, who was also in
attendance, and the more spiritual reflective attitude of the rest of the
circle."
4. In a discussion of Rosicrucianism: "In any event, literature about the
Rosicrucians was abundant at the beginning of the century in Germany. Both
Franz Hartmann and Rudolf Steiner had written about them, while a reprint of
a late eighteenth-century alchemical-rosicrucian text was published in
Zilleman's periodical during 1905.
5. In a chapter about the ariosophist Herbert Reichstein, Goodrick-Clarke
interjects a biography of Gregor Schwartz-Bostunitsch, one of Reichstein's
Contributors. "In 1923 he became an enthusiastic Anthroposophist, but by
1929 he had reviled Rudolf Steiner's movement as another agent of the
nefarious [Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik] conspiracy.
6 and 7. The last two references are from an appendix, "The Modern
Mythology of Nazi Occultism", where Goodrick-Clarke debunks Trevor
Ravenscroft's _Spear of Destiny_, in which Ravenscroft concocted an
elaborate anthrosophically inspired fantasy about occultism and Naziism.
In the interests of space, I won't re-quote my extracts from Steiner's
lecture, or quote all of Dan's comments on it. Dan thinks that Steiner's
ideas about blood are ridiculous; I agree. Dan thinks that Steiner's ideas
about blood had "social impact" (i.e., contributed to Nazi thinking); I
think that that is extremely unlikely, since the Nazi conclusions about race
relations were the diametric opposite of those that would arise from
Steiner's idea ("The mingling of blood ... enables humanity to reach a
higher stage of evolution"). On the other hand, Graevell apparently read
the lecture the same way that Dan does (not that I've every read Graevell's
_Ostara_ article), so obviously other readings are possible.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
Lisa
) Though I don't pretend to know much about
) educational funding and/or
) administration, I do think it seems ironic that more
) funding goes to schools
) that perform well! I mean, shouldn't it be the other
) way around? Don't
) schools who serve children who are socioeconomically
) disadvantaged need the
) funds more than the schools where children come from
) more expensive real
) estate?
Hey Lisa,
A really intersting thing happened in LA this summer.
The new school superintendant bipassed the regular
rules applied to new teachers and where they will
teach.
He mandated the top five percent of new teachers to
the inner city without the prior knowledge of the top
schools in the city. They were pissed.
So instead of the inner cities getting the lowest five
percent they have the top. The top schools said they
were worried that the new teachers would leave the
teaching profession instead of allowing themselves to
be sent to the poorer schoools. But there hasn't been
any sucking sound yet.
I think new teachers are well aware of the problems
facing the inner cities of Los Angeles and my hope is
that they would want to help uplift the kids that seem
to need it the most.
Dottie
p.s There was an earthquake today in Los Angeles and I
am living at the epicenter of that quake. What a tough
day for a girl from Philly :)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 16:22:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
Paula wrote,
)I have a friend who's child attends a local magnet school who asked that
)very question. She was told that would be the parent's decision and that
)nothing would happen except the child would not be tested. this mother was
)also told that most of the children look forward to the testing
)(interesting).
)
)) DL: I wonder what WOULD happen if a parent told a public school teacher
)that ) they were against testing of young children and then had their
)children stay at home on testing days
In Northern California the public Waldorf schools have used parental
waivers to boost their test scores by having all the
poorer-performing pupils stay at home on test days. This abuse of the
system will be reduced in 2002 when schools reporting higher numbers
of opt-outs will lose their ratings.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 18:16:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: Hitler & the occult
Tarjei Straume, you recommended
)"Hitler¥s Secret Sciences" by Nigel Pennick. (The best book on the subject.)
I don't rate it as highly as Goodrick-Clarke, because Pennick makes
it clear he is a believer in occultist pseudo-science. He writes
about things like ley lines as though they were factual. Of course it
is valuable to occultists to paint Hitler as an occultist, it makes
occultism seem powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.
I don't find his book all that sympathetic to the Anthroposophical
position. (pp. 89-90):
"In 1930, Rosenberg became editor of the Nationalsozialistiche
Monatshefte (Nazi Monthly) and published his most significant book
Der Mythus der 20 Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century).
This book is essential to the understanding of the occult history
which lies at the roots of Nazi racial theory. Like the
blood-and-soil theorist Walther Darre, Rosenberg claimed that all
civilization had issued from the efforts of Nordic man. From Ignatius
Donnelly and the Theosophists he took the idea that the Aryan race
had originated on the lost continent of Atlantis, and from there had
spread out through the world in their own 'swan' and 'dragon' ships
to found all of the ancient civilizations. Their religion had been
the one pure faith from which all others had descended. Naturally,
the only pure faith still extant was held by the only pure race, the
Nordic Aryans, of whom the Nazis were the guardians."
DarrÈ was a follower of Steiner. Note that Pennick gave "the
Theosophists" credit for the Atlantean fantasy, one that Steiner
embroidered and preached all his career. Pennick continues:
"This occult story of the Aryans' origin was made a justification for
Nazi theories about the German Herrenvolk - the Master Race. One of
the earliest continents settled by the refugee Atlanteans, claimed
Rosenberg, was Asia, especially the Indian subcontinent, where, as
the master race, the Aryans overran lesser indigenous peoples. There
they instituted the principle of Varna - the division of castes
according to colour, distinguishing between the white, Aryan, master
race, and the darker Dravidian subject-race. Rosenberg believed that
the "noble and superior Aryans" in India gradually interbred with the
Dravidians and thus their supreme culture was diluted and finally
destroyed."
To keep us connected, I interject a paragraph from a Waldorf teaching guide:
"Manu's people were of fairer skin, and they came into a country of
many races, some of them retrograde. Some mixing of the bloodlines
took place, but in order to preserve purity, the priests (Brahmins)
divided the people into four classes (castes), which really
represented social functions." [Wilkinson* p. 7]
Like Steiner, Wilkinson in his next paragraph says these divisions
"have no justification in the present age of humanity," but the idea
of races being retrograde is given as a fact, and it is implied that
racial discrimination was correct at that time. To continue with
Pennick paraphrasing Rosenberg:
"But before this happened, a branch of the Aryan race emigrated from
India to Iran, where a new civilization based on the worship of the
Divine Light in the form of Ahuramazda was instituted. Zoroaster, the
Zarathustra of Nietzsche's famous tract, there formulated an Aryan
religion which preached the eternal struggle between Ahuramazda,
light, and Ahriman, darkness. According to Rosenberg, the true Nordic
Aryan man should fight on the side of Ahuramazda just as the
Einherjar were to fight for Odin in Valhalla against the Fenris-Wolf
and the Midgard Serpent. This commitment to Mazdeanism meant that
Nordic man should not lose himself in world-shunning introspection or
asceticism. Rather, he should free himself to be the struggling
bearer of a world-preserving ideal, standing in the "immediate
service of the Highest".
That's Waldorf all over, echoing Rosenberg in fourth-grade Norse
mythology, and fifth-grade ancient history. Wilkinson tells the story
for Waldorf teachers:
"In ancient times Persia was inhabited by two different peoples, the
Aryans and the Turanians. The Turanians, yellow with small cunning
eyes, worshipped the god Ahriman, the prince of darkness. The Aryans
saw their god in the light of the sun, and named him Ahura Mazdao,
the Great Light. The Turanians had conquered the country, and the
Aryans lived as scattered tribes." [ibid. pp. 16-17]
"When it was time for Zarathustra to leave the earth, he climbed the
mountain...As he turned to look back at the earth, he had a vision of
things to happen in the future. He saw the Aryan peoples marching on
victoriously towards the west..." [ibid. pp. 17-18]
-Dan Dugan
*[Wilkinson, Roy. Teaching History: The Ancient Civilizations; India;
Persia; Egypt and Babylonia; The Fourth Cultural Epoch: Greece and
Rome. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1992.]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:24:20 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
SHARON
) ) )) Steiner never wrote a Waldorf "methodology" which is why many
)) )) Universities
) ) )) don't include Waldorf Education in their Education courses.
KERR
) ) )And many do...its studied in the same light as other alternative
)) )educational pedagogies like Montessori, Reggio Emilio, AS Neill and
)) )Summerhill, and Sudbury Schools. Steiner never wrote a methodology, but
)) )there IS a waldorf methodology that has been developed over the last 80
)) )years and it can be seperated from Anthroposophy, and it can be backed
)) )up by other educational philosophies as well...and utilized without
) ) )being religious in nature.
DAN DUGAN
) ) Please direct us to publications in which this methodology is described.
KERR
)The Enki Teacher Training Manuals - enkieducation (waldorf inspired)
See comments at the end.
)Putting the Heart Back Into Teaching - Maher and Bleach
From the South African Anthroposophists. Out of print
)Educational Tasks and Content of the Steiner Waldorf Curriculum - Rawson
)& Richter
I've been looking for this one for over a year since it was listed as
an attachment to the charter application in Hudson, NY. Do you have
any further information on it? Perhaps it was published in the U.S.A.
with a different title? Appears
Anthroposophical-pretending-to-be-academic from just reading the
title.
)Form Drawing - Neiderhauser and Frolich
Anthroposophical.
)Math Lessons for the Elementary Grades - Harrer
Anthroposophical.
)Teaching English - R Wilkinson
)Teaching History - R Wilkinson
Oops, you put your foot in it here, Kerr. Wilkinson says some
embarrassing things, and when I quote him in one of my lectures,
Waldorf people present usually deny his relevance "nobody reads him
anymore..." Here's some Anthroposophical doctrine from -Teaching
English-:
"The stories from ancient civilisations show that man and the gods
were in direct contact and that people were led as groups. That is to
say, the feeling for individuality was non-existent, but there was a
family or race-consciousness" [p. 43]
From -Teaching History- (I'll skip the racial stuff quoted recently
elsewhere):
"It is at this stage (age eleven) that the contents of this booklet
become relevant. The child now has an awareness of time, but no
logical faculty. Pictures in the mind are still the most potent form
of educational material, and since history has its beginnings in
mythology, the mythologies provide what is needed." [p. 5]
Eleven-year-olds have "no logical faculty"? That's bizarre Steiner
fundamentalism. Mythology -as- history, rather than mythology -and-
history.
)Drawing and Painting in Waldorf Schools - Junemann & Weitmann
Anthroposophical.
)Wide Horizons Educational Resources Kits - Ancient Civilizations - The
)Israelites - D Mollet (waldorf inspired)
)
)This is what I'm personally familiar with.
You've made my case, Kerr, that there is no "Waldorf Method" outside
of Anthroposophy. Enki may have improved on Waldorf but it is tied to
a different religious sect. Wide Horizons may be the closest thing to
it, but it's privately published and not available for review.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:33:31 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: PLANS argument
Dirtwitch
) ) When the group of public school teachers were trained in a special
)) program before the opening of the Waldorf charter school in San
)) Diego, two dropped out because the Anthroposophical content of the
)) training offended their personal spirituality.
)
)Kerr
)Hmmm...my personal spirituality is offended by the nutritional content
)of my state's mandated health curriculum and its place in the training
)of teachers,
You're being trivial there, that's a scientific, not a first-amendment issue.
)I have plenty of Christian friends who are personally
)spiritually offended by the science curriculum mandated by my state and
)the training they received as teachers...that doesn't mean its
)infringing on our religious rights.
The courts have ruled that teachers have to teach the mandated
secular curriculum even if it contradicts their religion. Also
students have to study it under the same circumstances.
)Dan
)One was told by the
)) director that her Jewish religion was incompatible with Waldorf
)) teaching.
)
)Kerr
)Yes and I have a MAJOR problem with this issue in waldorf education.
)But how different is it, really, from a Creationist Christian being told
)that their religion is incompatible with teaching science in a public
)school?
No one does that, if the teacher teaches the secular curriculum.
)Dan
)) When the group of public school teachers were trained by Rudolf
)) Steiner College in preparation for converting Oak Ridge Elementary in
)) Sacramento to "Waldorf Method," one third of the teachers applied for
)) transfers because of problems with the religious content of the
)) training and/or lack of confidence in the competence of the pedagogy.
)
)Kerr
)I don't think you can lump both complaints together...before I could
)comment I'd have to know the bias that those teachers brought into their
)problem with the "religious content".
I met with them, Kerr. Take any body of public elementary school
teachers and send them to lectures at Rudolf Steiner College, I
guarantee you a significant part of them are going to choke.
)Personally, I can't remove the
)HEART from Head Heart and Hands, and I know many people who think
)acknowledging children's needs beyond purely academic in school crosses
)a boundary they aren't comfortable with. Just as I know many Christian
)teachers who adamantly ascertain that their classroom santa displays and
)easter bunny displays are "not religious" but balk at including a
)menorrah in their "seasonal decorations" because THAT is religious,
)those same people could well find themselves having a problem with the
)"religious content" of any system that acknowleged cultures outside
)their own.
Santa Claus is a formerly religious tradition that has been
thoroughly secularized, as religious people often point out. Other
cultures can, and should be, taught objectively. Waldorf's immersion
method isn't objective, and beside that, it has a hidden agenda,
recapitulation of the supposed Aryan evolution.
)As to incompetant pedagogy, I don't think the pedagogy is perfect, I
)think a teacher needs to draw on MORE than waldorf training to teach
)effectively. I don't think pure waldorf schools are for me or my kids,
)and a pure publically funded waldorf school would be crossing the
)boundaries between sectarian/nonsectarian in my opinion.
We are in complete agreement here.
)But I still
)maintain that using elements of waldorf - using waldorf inspired
)approaches - is possible in public education. Complete with nature
)tables, morning verses, wet on wet painting as PART of the arts
)curriculum, main lesson books, block lessons, and class teachers that
)follow their classes through a number of grades.
Nature tables as done in public schools (not public Waldorf schools),
certainly. Patriotic exercises take the place of prayers.
)Kerr
)) )Well if they need to be trained according to state
)) )chosen methodologies to be able to teach in public schools are they
)) )being forced to accept those guiding principles?
)
)Dan
)) Yes, public schools are established by law. They have an education
) ) code that must be followed and a mandated curriculum that must be
)) followed. Public school teachers have to be certified to teach.
)
)kerr
)Sure you can be *certified* but does that mean you, as a teacher, need
)to accept the guiding principles behind public education as it stands?
)I don't think so. Have you read Gatto's writing? Every public school
)teacher I know agrees with his standpoint on what the state *wants*
)public education to accomplish.
I don't think so. In my opinion, Gatto is a cynical burn-out. That
happens, unfortunately.
)Have you read any of William Bennett's
)writing on what effective school reform would entail?
I have -The Educated Child- but have only skimmed it so far. I note
that Bennett endorses E.D. Hirsch strongly. Have you read -The
Schools We Need, and Why We Don't Have Them-? Bennett wants
kindergartners to be taught reading. What is Enki's position on this?
)As to "religious
)content" The reality is that teacher's colleges are teaching judeo
)christian standards as part of the curriculum that stands in
)america...it isn't even questioned. ANYONE who stands outside that
)cultural religious group recognizes that.
I stand outside it as a secular humanist, and I don't agree with you.
Outside of places where churches have inordinate influence on school
systems, and there are many all over the nation, U.S. public schools
are assiduously secular
)If you can dump that bias
)from public education, maybe I'd accept the idea that waldorf in
)inherently flawed because of anthroposophy's hand in its development.
Apples and organges, Kerr, it's ridiculous to claim that public
schools are just as religious as Waldorf.
)kerr
)) )There is an agenda in
)) )public education that goes beyond literacy.
)
)dan
)) Yes, it includes instilling ethics and good citizenship.
)
)kerr
)I don't believe that an education system conceived by western
)industrialists looking for a malleable workforce and based on prussian
)ideals around national unity provides a basis in either ethics or good
)citizenship.
It isn't that simple. I hope you watched the PBS series "School" last
week. Public-school bashing is one of the favorite occupations of
Waldorf promoters.
)dan
)) Centralized systems do make mistakes on a grand scale. I hope they're
)) not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though.
)
)kerr
)I agree, I hope you aren't throwing out the waldorf baby with the
)bathwater, though.
Fair enough.
) ) )kerr
)) )From my experience there is no pressure to accept the religion behind
)) )the methodology - as the courses are presented to public
)) )educators/homeschoolers.
)
)dan
)) One must go along with the program. If the program is based in
)) Anthroposophy, where does that leave you if you don't buy
)) Anthroposophy?
)
)WITH THE METHODOLOGY. Thats what I came looking for, and thats what I
)left with.
)
)) I am not aware of -any- teaching methodology that is based in a
)) particular culture. A system based on religious beliefs cannot be
)) supported by tax money in the United States.
)
)Then remove the judeo christian bias from public education. Its there,
)can't you see it? I certainly can!
You're fighting a straw man.
)As to cultural methodology - the entire concept of pushing academics
)earlier and earlier since WW II is culturally based - not based on any
)actual research into reading readiness. The push for 5 year old
)kindergarten as the age in which children leave their homes for
)schooling is culturally based not based in child development. Give me
)any class and I can pull out all the culturally relevant methodologies
)at work.
There is genuine scientific debate on this issue, and you should cite
authorities for your assertions.
)Dan
)) This argument is almost word-for-word what Anthroposophists say.
)) People in a sect or cult always believe that they are in possession
)) of universal knowledge, and that everybody else is narrow-minded.
)
)kerr
)Find me ANY evidence that shambhala centres portray themselves as having
)or believe they are in possession of ANY universal knowledge.
)
)Its a mode of meditation removed from buddhism.
)
)dan
)) That would be immoral, and illegal in the U.S. It's the
) ) Anthroposophically-based practices and Anthroposophical curriculum
)) content that's illegal, not the beliefs of the teachers.
)
)Kerr
)Yes I've seen talk about labelling the dandelion song as religious
)propaganda based on the fact a waldorf teacher somewhere used it in her
)classroom. If someone went to the school board and demanded its removal
)as a religious song because a fundamental christian teacher was using it
)and the complaintant was presupposing that the Sun in it was the SON of
)God would that be discriminating against the teacher based on their
)personal beliefs?
I'm not going to argue about that song. But saying Anthroposophical
verses in a public school is just as illegal as saying Christian or
Muslim prayers.
)What does it mean when a humanist leads their class in a morning verse
)
)good morning dear earth good morning dear sun, good morning dear trees
)and dear flowers every one, good morning dear beasts and birds in the
)tree good morning to you and good morning to me?
)
)a pagan? a buddhist? a ufoist? Does it matter? Is there anything wrong
)with having children recite poems? WHERE exactly does this cross the
)line between secular and nonsecular? From what I've seen here - when
)the individual using it has had contact with anthroposophy. THAT
)certainly seems discriminatory to me.
Where it can cross the line is in the content of the verse.
) ) )DAN
)) )) First of all it wasn't PLANS, it was me. I've learned the jargon and
)) )) it jumps out at me. It's part of a bigger picture, because in context
)) )) "a more balanced view of history" means the race-based theosophical
)) )) framework of history.
) ) )
)) )kerr
)) )Well in Enki it means exposing children to all the world's cultures -
)) )not just those that informed western thinking - over the course of their
)) )education in the first 8 grades. It means giving children a foundation
)) )in the indigenous cultures around them and focussing on three major
)) )world cultures a year and then moving out to explore similarities in
)) )other cultures stories, beliefs and customs from those main cultures.
)) )But how would you come to understand that without looking at the
)) )curriculum - simply reacting to the term "a more balanced view of
)) )history"
)
)Dan
)) Sounds better than Waldorf to me. In Waldorf, I know exactly what "a
) ) more balanced view" means, and it isn't.
)
)kerr
)So what does it mean when a school says "WE ARE NOT A WALDORF SCHOOL"
)and uses the term "a more balanced view"? WHY are you supposing it
)means they ARE a waldorf school, WHY are you supposing it means a
)eurocentric aryan based worldview is going to be taught?
Because the Theosophical/Anthroposophical framework for history was
in the charter for the fifth and sixth grades, just like any Waldorf
school, that's why. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but
"a more balanced view" was just one of many clues that an
Anthroposophist had written the charter. I quoted other, stronger
items in my dialogue with the board member, and I can find many more
if you want to reopen the discussion about Austin L. Carr Charter
School in Hudson, NY.
When a public school is organized by Waldorf supporters, claiming to
be "Waldorf Method" or "Waldorf-inspired," they often say that they
aren't a Waldorf school. (Of course, they'll tell prospective parents
that they really are a Waldorf school...) I've learned to take this
denial as a pious lie. Waldorf schools have been lying about the
Anthroposophical content of the curriculum for 80 years, so doing it
for the new public schools is easy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:56:44 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
DL, you wrote,
)Secondly, I'm curious - there's a lot of "in my experience Waldorf
)grads are good at...." with corresponding "Not the Waldorf grads I
)know...." - it seems that this is true about ANY school system. Are
)the Critics who bring up the negative examples making the case that
)the examples they know are indicative of all grads? Because that's
)the only explanation I can see for bringing up such examples. I can
)understand the rationale for bringing up the Waldorf grads who do
)succeed at "(whatever)" - they would act as evidence that this is
)not necessarily an across the board thing.
)
)Any of the Critics who bring up the negative examples, feel free to
)enlighten me as to the purpose of the negative examples.
Waldorf schools promote themselves with anecdotal evidence. Here we
hear the anecdotes they don't want you to hear.
)I fully support any Critic's attempt to keep religion out of school.
)And I support your wanting more information up front. I wouldn't
)want you (or anyone) teaching my child what to believe about
)spiritual matters without my consent.
Agreed.
)If the argument was simply "WE is a form of religious education and
)so therefore should not be supported with tax dollars" - I'd have no
)problem. I might disagree that all WE is religious education or
)that you can't pull the Anthro out of the WE, but we could actually
)discuss this. Or if the argument was "WE should be up front about
)what they will teach my child" - again - no problem having a
)discussion. Again, I would question if they are or aren't being up
)front, because as far as I can see - they've been up front in my
)situation.
That's good.
)However, the argument tends to slip into WE is weird/bad/evil and so
)should not be allowed at all. And the support for this argument has
)often been missing or lumped into - "because its a cult - that's
)why" sort of answers.
People have been hurt. Breaking up with a school is a family crisis.
Some people argue emotionally, some intellectually.
)There have been attempts to show that WE/Anthro is wrong because it
)doesn't (in the posters beliefe) co-incide with the bible or that
)which science can prove now or other. Using one belief system to
)prove that another belief system is wrong creates an unwinnable
)argument. "You belief system (i.e. Anthro) is wrong - and I know it
)is because my belief system (i.e Christianity) says so" can easily
)be flipped to say the opposite. It usually degrades to a "I'm
)right" - "No, I'M right" sort of exchange.
In the case of religion, it's important for families with strong
religious beliefs to give Anthroposophy a serious check-out for
compatibility. In the case of science, we're not talking about a
belief system. If you don't believe in gravity you're still gonna
fall down.
)Waldorf education does have some wonderful aspects to it.
It was very attractive to me till I learned more about it.
)The fact that they do not push the intellect as quickly as do
)schools such as Montessori was part of the reason we picked Waldorf.
)American society is way too quick to get people to pidgeon-hole
)thought. To become slaves of the intellect. That WE differs from
)conventional thought on this does not make it wrong. When thee
)Copernican view of the solar system was first introduced - the vast
)majority opposed the idea. And those who embraced it were
)ridiculed, imprisioned or killed. Who's to say that this will not
)happen with later development of the intellect?
Waldorf could be right about early childhood intellectual
development, but I doubt it. This is a scientific question, and
arguments should be based on something more than feelings.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:24:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
TARJEI STRAUME
)))It would, of course, be extraordinarily philistine to wish to say:
)))That was an incarnation of Lucifer, hence we must flee from it! Such
)))philistinism could make one also flee from the beauty and greatness
)))that has come to mankind from this Luciferic stream, for the fruits
)))of Greek culture with all their beauty, proceeded, as already said,
)))from this stream of evolution. The whole of Gnostic thought existing
)))at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, an impressive wisdom shedding
)))light deep into cosmic realities - this whole Gnostic knowledge was
)))inspired by the impulse coming from Luciferic forces. One must not
)))say that Gnostic thought is therefore false; one is merely
)))characterizing it by saying that it is permeated by Luciferic forces.
)
))Dan Dugan:
))OK, so the Luciferic stream of evolution produced Greek culture.
))And there was another stream, tell us about that, Tarjei.
TARJEI
)The Christ impulse. But we'd better not get into that, because
)Newpaul will quote the Bible and we'll be on the brink of theology
)again.
No, Tarjei, you're evading, that's not the proper Anthroposophical
answer. Steiner talked about two cultural streams. Tell us about the
other one.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:21:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
)Today my husband and I were called in for a meeting with the two
)education directors at the Waldorf charter school to the discus the
)'placement' of my son.
Dear Liz, this reminds me of the meeting I was summoned to at our
school. I wanted to confront the College of Teachers with the issues
I had with the school. That's the proper thing to do when you have a
problem with an organization, talk to the boss. The teachers said the
College was too busy to talk with me! Instead three teachers, two
solid Anthropops and my son's teacher, who was fairly new and not a
College member, were delegated to meet with me. I liked my son's
teacher, a sensible person, and had not involved her in my
controversy with the school. In Waldorf, class teachers are supposed
to handle all relations with the parents in their class, so they made
her part of the execution committee.
Instead of a discussion of my problems with the school, I was given
an ultimatum. I didn't have to believe what they believed, but I had
to keep quiet. If I was going to keep on making trouble with the
other parents, we would have to leave. We left.
I understand your stubborn desire to make your school live up to its
promises. I wouldn't quit; I wanted to fix the problems, too. Given
what they've said about being 100% Steiner and Waldorf, I think your
relationship is doomed. Do keep a journal and all school newsletters,
handouts, and correspondence.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:30:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
)DL wrote:
)))I don't know that the things that are described by individuals on the list
)))actually happened or happenned the way described. The integrity of
)))posts on this list is questionable - so it's foolish to take
)))anything posted here as truthful.
)
))Dan:
))It's certainly a valid argument to say that the experiences of the
))individuals who write here may or may not represent typical
))experiences in Waldorf. But to say that the people who relate their
))experiences here are being untruthful is quite another thing, David.
)
)DL: You're right, Dan. It is another thing. And I wasn't
)commenting on whether the experiences posted were typical. What I
)was commenting on was that if people's posts on this list regularly
)contain opinion stated as fact or don't support there arguments with
)evidence - the integrity of the list is in question and so to take
)what is posted as "true" - would be foolish. If you've watched the
)news recently - there have been a few different articles about the
)unreliability of eye-witness accounts. People usually see what they
)want to see. While they are speaking truthfully about what they
)"percieved" to have happened - it may not have happened that way.
)That's all I meant. So for both reasons - postings here have to be
)taken with a grain of sand. This should be no surprise - more than
)once Critics have questioned my purpose on this list - even though I
)have stated (truthfully) several times.
It's a discussion list, David. In my book it has integrity as long as
it stays on topic. Individuals are responsible for their own. This is
a phony and time-wasting topic.
)))DL wrote:
)))Even if you have a number of similar responses from different
)))places. It seems that Critics on this list think - well, if that's
)))what I though and you thopught the same thing - then it must be
)))true. Or if that's the way I saw it and you saw something similar -
)))then it must be true. Going back to scientific method - there's one
)))problem with the above approach - there are too many variables that
)))aren't considered. The similarity between experiences could also
)))be that the people observing had similar expectations - and
)))therefore
)))saw similar things.
I'll do anything I can to encourage scientific study of Waldorf
education. Any suggestions?
))Dan:
))Interesting. Scientific method is immoral, except when people claim
))there's something wrong with Waldorf, then they have to have
))scientific evidence...
))
)Dan - when have I ever called scientific method immoral?
I didn't say you did, and you didn't. I see how my mentioning that
oft-heard Anthropop theme in a reply to your post might make you
think I was referring to you, sorry.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:36:59 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: reply to Sune on facelessness/was "For Lisa ...."
Welcome to the discussion, Lubert!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:45:44 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
)--- Lisa Ercolano
)
)) Are we discussing parents who refuse to have
)) their children take any kind
)) of test, or just standardized tests?
)) It makes a difference.
)
)Dottie
)
)Hi Lisa,
)
)Yeah, what tests are we talking about? I thought we
)were speaking of everyday tests until Paula wrote
)about standardized testing?
)
)That would make a huge difference in many ways. In Los
)Angeles and across the nation tests are now being tied
)to monies allocated to various schools performances.
)Well at least that is what they have been pursuing.
)
)This is the position many school administrations have
)to deal with and it is a nightmare. Their money is
)also tied up to how many days their kids attend versus
)no shows. The higher daily attendance the more money
)is available.
Debra;
I just read in the Sacramento Bee that the Caifornia schools who are
performing in the bottom 40% will soon be receiving significant funding to
help out. Finally. We need to put swat teams of those schools.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:59:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
At 6:09 PM -0500 9/9/01, D L wrote:
))Dan wrote:
))Anthroposophical physicians teach Waldorf parents that fever is
))good, and that childhood diseases are a necessary part of
))development that
))shouldn't be hindered by immunizations. This theory is contradicted
))by a recent British study of infant cases of meningitis:
))
)
)DL asks: Dan, do Anthroposophical physicians say all fevers are
)good? If so, can you provide supporting evidence? And what do the
)after effects of Meningitis have to do with advocating fevers (if
)they indeed say this) and avoidance of immunizations (which not all
)Anthros support, by the way)?
DL, you're quibbling. If you have a substantial argument, please make it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:22:31 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Neil Faiman, thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply. You wrote,
)Dan thinks that Steiner's
)ideas about blood are ridiculous; I agree.
Thank you.
)Dan thinks that Steiner's ideas
)about blood had "social impact" (i.e., contributed to Nazi thinking); I
)think that that is extremely unlikely, since the Nazi conclusions about race
)relations were the diametric opposite of those that would arise from
)Steiner's idea ("The mingling of blood ... enables humanity to reach a
)higher stage of evolution").
I agree that Steiner disagreed with the Nazis on some ideas about
race, but they (e.g. Rosenberg) found support from him on others,
such as Aryan origin in Atlantis. My point is, there were all these
people preaching mythology about race, and Steiner was one of them.
The Nazis then put parts of the mythology that justified their fears
and desires into practice. What's unacceptable to me is that
Anthroposophy has yet to officially repudiate Steiner's racial
theories, though a few individuals have, here on this list, and
elsewhere.
)On the other hand, Graevell apparently read
)the lecture the same way that Dan does (not that I've every read Graevell's
)_Ostara_ article), so obviously other readings are possible.
I made a determined effort to get what I could on it. They have
Ostara on microfilm at Stanford; I got the reel sent up here on
inter-library loan. I scanned through a lot of black-letter German,
but I couldn't find it with the library's cranky reader. Later a
scholar copied it for me. I still can't read it, but at least it's in
the library here for future research.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:36:04 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Welcome back, Peter! We've missed you. Happy that you had a
productive summer.
For the lies by PS:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:44:12 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: Hitler & the occult
)Tarjei Straume, you recommended
)
))"Hitler¥s Secret Sciences" by Nigel Pennick. (The best book on the subject.)
Dan Dugan:
)I don't rate it as highly as Goodrick-Clarke, because Pennick makes
)it clear he is a believer in occultist pseudo-science.
That's your way of putting it. Pennick has a keen _understanding_ of
the occult forces at work. Without this understanding, no occultism
can be comprehended. This is part of the reason why Pennick's
approach is superior to the others.
)He writes
)about things like ley lines as though they were factual. Of course it
)is valuable to occultists to paint Hitler as an occultist, it makes
)occultism seem powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.
If it hadn't been factual, it would never have happened.
)I don't find his book all that sympathetic to the Anthroposophical
)position. (pp. 89-90):
Neither does Pennick blame Blavatsky or Steiner for Nazism or claim
that they paved the way to it, and I don't think Darwin or Nietzsche
paved the way to it either.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:52:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))))It would, of course, be extraordinarily philistine to wish to say:
))))That was an incarnation of Lucifer, hence we must flee from it! Such
))))philistinism could make one also flee from the beauty and greatness
))))that has come to mankind from this Luciferic stream, for the fruits
))))of Greek culture with all their beauty, proceeded, as already said,
))))from this stream of evolution. The whole of Gnostic thought existing
))))at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, an impressive wisdom shedding
))))light deep into cosmic realities - this whole Gnostic knowledge was
))))inspired by the impulse coming from Luciferic forces. One must not
))))say that Gnostic thought is therefore false; one is merely
))))characterizing it by saying that it is permeated by Luciferic forces.
))
)))Dan Dugan:
)))OK, so the Luciferic stream of evolution produced Greek culture.
)))And there was another stream, tell us about that, Tarjei.
)
)TARJEI
The Christ impulse. But we'd better not get into that, because
Newpaul will quote the Bible and we'll be on the brink of theology
again.
DD:
)No, Tarjei, you're evading, that's not the proper Anthroposophical
)answer. Steiner talked about two cultural streams. Tell us about the
)other one.
My "evasion" is your invention. I don't have time for this. It's in
the lectures. You can look it up as easily as anyone and quote all
you want. I'm working on articles that will put an end to the
"anthro-Nazi" nonsense. What you think about cultural streams, or
about RS' sculpture and architecture for that matter, is not
important.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:38:54 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) Welcome back, Peter! We've missed you. Happy that you had a
))productive summer.
Sune:
)For the lies by PS:
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
Cato Schi–tz mentions three factual errors in Staudenmaier's two
first sentences alone. Staudenmaier says that Steiner in 1910
travelled on a speaking tour of Norway for "a large and attentive
audience" in Oslo. The fact is that Steiner was not on any tour at
all - he was only visiting Christiania (Oslo). The lecture itself was
not held for "a large and attentive audience". It wasn't even a
public lecture, but an internal lecture for members with 68
Norwegians present in addition to the foreigners who came followed
Steiner. Thidrly, Staudenmaier did not even succeed in rendering the
title of the lecture correctly.
In the next main section with the heading "Who was Rudolf Steiner?",
Staudenmaier writes introductorily about Steiner's family and his
so-called formative years. Steiner's father is however mentiuoned as
a "mid-level civil servant" - which is of course wrong, and his real
formative years in Weimar are excluded completely.
No important errors - ok, but when one blunders with so easily
verifiable facts, it is understandable that when Staudenmaier comes
to the considerations and judgements, he goes from bad to worse.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 471
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Anthroposophy's deceptive ways
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Words of power /was to Sune on facelessness
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By dingman mindspring.com
credibility (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
hello
By waldocritic xtra.co.nz
RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf preschool/was "metholody without anthroposophy"
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf preschool/was "metholody without anthroposophy"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By theosopost hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 07:51:10 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy's deceptive ways
on 9/9/01 4:31 PM, dottie_z yahoo.com at dottie_z yahoo.com wrote:
)
) mysplum wrote:
))
))))
)))) Sharon:
)))) Yeah, but Steiner is referring to the end of the 7th
)))) epoch.
)))
))) Dottie
)))
))) I know.
))
)) Sharon:
)) Steiner says there will be a terrible apocalypse at the end of the 7th
)) Epoch, do you know what he predicted will happen? Anthro's are to be
)) plantlike spirits by that time, a homogenous being where sex will be no
)) more
)) and man will give birth by speaking....why will there be a terrible
)) apocalypse? It doesn't make sense because I thought everything would be
)) hunky dory when nothing but an Anthro spirit was living on this earth.
)) Perhaps you could fill me in.
)
) Dottie
)
)
) Sound a little familiar? Funny how I have heard about different possible
) incarnations of RS and when I begin reading this book I find such an
) amazing parallel to him. I mean it is stunning.
Sharon:
Ooh, ooh...be careful Dottie...Aquinas said some absolutely dreadful things
about women.
Dottie:
)
) So for me I would have to read the lecture you are speaking of in full.
) I would have to see how he was relating what you have written above.
) Maybe it is available to read on the RS page. Then I can answer you more
) fully as to what I perceive he is speaking of. And there may be many
) different perceptions than my own within the AP circle.
Sharon:
His lectures don't tell you much which is why I asked you, I came across
this concept in Steiner's "Occult History, Historical Personalities and
Events in the Light of Spiritual Science, Rudolf Steiner, Anthro. Publishing
Company, London, 1957" where he says:
Steiner p44-45: "In a sixth culture-epoch man will develop still further and
his soul-nature will grow in a certain way into Manas, the Spirit-Self; in a
seventh period - the last Post-Atlantean culture-epoch - man will grow into
Life-Spirit or Buddhi; and what has been able to grow into Atma will
actually unfold only after the great catastrophe by which the whole
Post-Atlantean epoch will be brought to an end. These things we know from
the Lecture-Course on the Apocalypse."
Sharon:
I was just wondering what was going to happen, that's all. I was under the
impression that in the Seventh Epoch all would be evolved Anthro larynxes I
guess I never thought us "subordinate gnomes" were going to meet a fiery
end, or some other apocalypse waiting to get us. I guess I'll have to find
Steiner's lectures on the Apocalypse.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:50:16 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Words of power /was to Sune on facelessness
Sharon:
Hi Lubert, welcome to W critics! You wrote:
) In at least one established Waldorf School (U.S.), the portrait of
) Steiner, by accident or intent, is hung as what can only be described as an
) altarpiece, surrounded on either side by velvet curtains and gold-braided
) cloth, curtains drawn at appropriate times (not evocative of enough
) religious ceremonies?).
Sharon:
At our ex-school, Steiner's photo hung in the faculty room. It was the only
photograph I would see during our time there. (No slides, no films....)
Strange that photographs were a "no no", yet they would display a photo of
their saint. I have heard that a photo of Steiner is now hanging in the
hall, not to be missed as you enter the school.
Lubert:
Meanwhile, in the same school, faceless
) representaions are made, hatching in a particular direction, fulfilling
) (negatively) 2 aesthetic constraints. 1) no outlining/defining of objects
) 2) no outlining/defining humans. "Seeing" is literally "taking in a view",
) ingesting, internalizing. Too much exposure of young minds and senses to
) Materiality will have disastrous (medical) consequences (premature
) hardening of organs, for example).
Sharon:
Perhaps we know each other? Sounds exactly like our ex-school!
Lubert:
) Children should only have access to controlled media (portrait of Steiner,
Sharon:
Laughing my head off so it can become my limbs in my next incarnation!
Lubert:
Icons are not JUST paintings; mere words have immense power when
) pronounced correctly (apparently some of us -not all- will be turning in
) our current too-human generative organs for the latest speech-procreative
) models, then you'll see how powerful they are)(can you say "ABRACADABRA",
) kids?);
Sharon:
Any idea where I can get a hold of Steiner's system of words and symbols of
power? I'm familiarizing myself with the Books of Jeu in the Bruce Codex at
the moment. I've found enough in Steiner to prove that Eurythmy has a set of
symbols and words of power, but am hoping to find a nice little publication
disclosing his specific magic system.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:10:35 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) )TARJEI STRAUME
) One must not
) ))))say that Gnostic thought is therefore false; one is merely
) ))))characterizing it by saying that it is permeated by Luciferic forces.
) ))
) )))Dan Dugan:
) )))OK, so the Luciferic stream of evolution produced Greek culture.
) )))And there was another stream, tell us about that, Tarjei.
) )
) )TARJEI
) The Christ impulse. But we'd better not get into that, because
) Newpaul will quote the Bible and we'll be on the brink of theology
) again.
Newpaul
Don't let me stand in your way Tarjei. I would like to know about the
other stream especially since you seem to unwilling to address the question.
)
) DD:
)
) )No, Tarjei, you're evading, that's not the proper Anthroposophical
) )answer. Steiner talked about two cultural streams. Tell us about the
) )other one.
Tarjei
) My "evasion" is your invention. I don't have time for this. It's in
) the lectures. You can look it up as easily as anyone and quote all
) you want. I'm working on articles that will put an end to the
) "anthro-Nazi" nonsense. What you think about cultural streams, or
) about RS' sculpture and architecture for that matter, is not
) important.
)
Newpaul
Respectfully Tarjei, I think that the list members can determine the
real nature of the "anthro-Nazi nonsense" for themselves. Your evasion
in answering the question of cultural streams does nothing to establish
your creditability.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 07:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: credibility (was no good thing)
) Newpaul
) Respectfully Tarjei, I think that the list members
) can determine the
) real nature of the "anthro-Nazi nonsense" for
) themselves. Your evasion
) in answering the question of cultural streams does
) nothing to establish
) your creditability.
)
Dottie
His credibility has already been established.
And unfortunately the one main area that I have seen a
major weakness with PLANS is their inability to gauge
Staudenmaiers credibility with the ridiuculous claims
in his and Zegers paper.
Time and time again it has been shown that he has
perverted the words of RS with a paragraph of two word
quotes followed by his interpretation. And time and
time again PLANS shows its hypocritical nature by not
checking verifably the truth of his paper.
I think the thinkers on this list are droned into
sleep with the way Staudenmaier and Zegers put the
paper together. Very circular and mostly inuendo and
very hard to confirm. I found many mistakes in his
paper including the small ones that Tarjei just
mentioned in his post to Dan.
Zegers and Staudenmaiers paper is a historical
revision and funny, not even based on any kind of
fact, which at least most revisionist papers are.
It is clear that Hitler perverted the occult
understandings in creating his ideology for the Nazi
regime.
Even Dan says that Hitler took the mythological
understandings of a few and made them into his ideals.
See Dans post.
Once again if RS can be held accountable for speaking
on his understandings of mythologies and have a crazy
man use the same mythologies and pervert their
understandings then the same can be true for the
Christ believers who killed in the name of God. Are we
to blame Jesus for peoples perverting his words?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:23:09 +0000
From: s a (waldocritic xtra.co.nz)
Subject: hello
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:36:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
Dottie:
)I do not believe Anthroposophy is a religion nor do I
)think it can be taught as one. It may be some people
)who treat it as one but I beliveve that was not RS's
)intention.
Do I decide where to send my child to school based on Rudolf Steiner's
intentions? Or based on what happens in the school? No offense to your
personal beliefs, Dottie, but I can't base a school decision on what you
believe that Steiner intended, or on what the teachers believe, but on how
the teachers *behave*. They behave as if anthroposophy is their religion.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:37:24 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf preschool/was "metholody without anthroposophy"
Lisa:
)Yes, pre-schools *are* a business.
) But I honestly do not believe that money is the main factor
) )motivating those in the Waldorf community to offer preschool (or Mom )and
)Tot groups, etc.) for children younger than kindergarten age.
No, they certainly aren't motivated by money. It's good works all the way.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:44:25 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
Liz:
)The parents at the school are there for a variety of reasons, hardly )any
)know much about Waldorf.
I would venture to say this is true at a great many Waldorf schools, public
or private!
)Most of us are there because it is the only school that has
)labeled itself developmental
And presumably you are catching on that "developmental" is another code
word?
It's sort of an adaptable, content-free word. I mean, who doesn't want their
child in a "developmental" school? Are other parents presumed to want their
children somewhere where children's development is *ignored*?
Depends on *what* the development theory is, don't you think?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:48:41 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Neil to Dan:
)Omitting the other seven mentions of Steiner in G-C could only be an
) )effort to "minimize Steiner's role" if those mentions suggested that
) )Steiner *had* a role
)1. In the chapter "The modern German occult revival, 1880-1910",
)Goodrick-Clarke describes the various occult movements, and especially
)periodicals, in Germany at that time. In a discussion of the German
)Theosophical Society: "While these activities remained largely under )the
)sway of Franz Hartmann and Paul Zilleman, mention must be made of )another
)theosophical tendency in Germany. In 1902 Rudolf Steiner, a )young scholar
)who had studied in Vienna before writing in Weimar a )study of Goethe's
)scientific writings, was made general secretary of )the German Theosophical
)Society at Berlin, founded by London )theosophists. Steiner published a
)periodical, _Luzifer_, at Berlin )from 1903 to 1908. However, his mystical
)Christian interests )increasingly estranged him from the theosophists under
)Annie Besant's )strongly Hindu persuasion, so that he finally broke away to
)found his )own Anthroposophical Society in 1912. It may have been a desire
)to )counter Steiner's influence in the occult subculture which led Hartmann
)to encourage the publication of several new periodicals."
Well, gosh, Neil. We have a book titled "The Occult Roots of Nazism." The
author describes the modern German occult revival and states that "mention
must be made of another theosophical tendency," namely Steiner, and
describes his role in these groups . . . whatever can the implication be? I
would think it is that Steiner is part of the modern German occult revival,
which is part of the occult roots of Nazism, per the author's thesis.
)Dan thinks that Steiner's ideas about blood had "social impact" (i.e.,
) )contributed to Nazi thinking); I think that that is extremely )unlikely,
Well then, I am quite at a loss as to why Goodrick-Clarke saw fit to discuss
them in his overview of the occult roots of Nazism.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:53:16 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf preschool/was "metholody without anthroposophy"
)
) Lisa:
)
))Yes, pre-schools *are* a business.
)) But I honestly do not believe that money is the main factor
)) )motivating those in the Waldorf community to offer preschool (or Mom )and
))Tot groups, etc.) for children younger than kindergarten age.
)
) No, they certainly aren't motivated by money. It's good works all the way.
) Diana
)
)
Lisa here: And you know what they say, dontcha? "The road to hell is paved
with good intentions ...." (g)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:59:03 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Tarjei:
)Cato Schi–tz mentions three factual errors in Staudenmaier's two
)first sentences alone. Staudenmaier says that Steiner in 1910
)travelled on a speaking tour of Norway for "a large and attentive
)audience" in Oslo. The fact is that Steiner was not on any tour at
)all - he was only visiting Christiania (Oslo). The lecture itself was not
)held for "a large and attentive audience". It wasn't even a
)public lecture, but an internal lecture for members with 68
)Norwegians present in addition to the foreigners who came followed
)Steiner.
Are you seriously arguing that 68 (in addition to an unspecified number of
foreigners) is not your idea of a "large" audience, and thus we should
question the content of the rest of the article? Or that memorizing which
cities he visited in which year is required for credible Steiner
scholarship?
)Steiner's father is however mentioned as a "mid-level civil servant" )-
)which is of course wrong,
Gilbert Childs' "Rudolf Steiner: His Life and Work" says Steiner's father
was a stationmaster employed by the South Austrian Railway. Sounds like a
mid-level civil servant to me. Of course I don't know if Childs is accurate,
but it's an Anthroposophic Press book, I assume they tried to get his basic
biographical data right.
Although, actually, the very second page of the book has a photo of Steiner
labeled "Rudolf Steiner in 1869 at the age of 18." He looks 18 in the
picture, and he was born in 1861, so I assume the correct date is 1879.
Well, that author has no more credibility with me then, gosh there's
actually an error in the book. (sarcasm)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:14:56 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
))DL wrote:
))Any of the Critics who bring up the negative examples, feel free to
))enlighten me as to the purpose of the negative examples.
)Dan wrote:
)Waldorf schools promote themselves with anecdotal evidence. Here we
)hear the anecdotes they don't want you to hear.
)
DL: To what purpose? THAT was the question.
))DL wrote:
))There have been attempts to show that WE/Anthro is wrong because it
))doesn't (in the posters beliefe) co-incide with the bible or that
))which science can prove now or other. Using one belief system to
))prove that another belief system is wrong creates an unwinnable
))argument. "You belief system (i.e. Anthro) is wrong - and I know it is
))because my belief system (i.e Christianity) says so" can easily
))be flipped to say the opposite. It usually degrades to a "I'm
))right" - "No, I'M right" sort of exchange.
)Dan wrote:
)In the case of religion, it's important for families with strong
)religious beliefs to give Anthroposophy a serious check-out for
)compatibility. In the case of science, we're not talking about a
)belief system. If you don't believe in gravity you're still gonna
)fall down.
)
DL: I didn't say science was a belief system - the belief system part of
what I'm referring to is the belief that science has all the answers. It
doesn't. And your response concerning religious differences doesn't address
the issue. I agree that if you have strong religious beliefs - you should
check out ANY school before enrolling your child - private or public.
However - the point of the post was that the discussions about WE tend to
break down into a "my belief system is better than yours" - there is NO WAY
to settle such disputes.
))DL wrote:
))The fact that they do not push the intellect as quickly as do
))schools such as Montessori was part of the reason we picked Waldorf.
))American society is way too quick to get people to pidgeon-hole
))thought. To become slaves of the intellect. That WE differs from
))conventional thought on this does not make it wrong. When thee
))Copernican view of the solar system was first introduced - the vast
))majority opposed the idea. And those who embraced it were
))ridiculed, imprisioned or killed. Who's to say that this will not
))happen with later development of the intellect?
)Dan wrote:
)Waldorf could be right about early childhood intellectual
)development, but I doubt it. This is a scientific question, and
)arguments should be based on something more than feelings.
)
DL: How is this a scientific question? Are you implying all child
development techniques/practices/etc should be evaluated scientifically?
How would you apply your "scientific question" to Piaget's theories? Do you
not see the riduclousness of the idea that we must use an intellectually
based approach to evaluate whether or not a focus on the intellect is good.
However, it was refreshing to hear a Critic actually admit that WE *could*
be right - even if they doubt it.
Science has its place - but it is not all powerful - no matter what you
personally believe.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:32:26 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
Dan wrote:
)Waldorf schools promote themselves with anecdotal evidence. Here we
)hear the anecdotes they don't want you to hear.
DL:
)To what purpose? THAT was the question.
I answered your question last week, and you seemed to think it satisfactory
at the time.
)discussions about WE tend to break down into a "my belief system is )better
)than yours" - there is NO WAY to settle such disputes.
The discussion seems to have two facets: 1) there is criticism of the belief
system here (that's one of the topics of the list, DL), and 2) Waldorf
should explain their belief system explicitly to prospective parents, so if
they think "theirs is better," they know this school isn't for them.
)Do you not see the riduclousness of the idea that we must use an
)intellectually based approach to evaluate whether or not a focus on )the
)intellect is good.
No, I, at least, do not see the ridiculousness. Even Waldorf educators would
not argue that *adults* should not use their intellect. Adults - researchers
- not children - would do the research, right?
The question of whether children should be educated according to an approach
which encourages intellectual development, or one which does not, would be
complicated to set up as a testing situation, since there would be quite a
few variables. But it is a quite reasonable scientific research question,
nothing "ridiculous" about it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:33:13 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
)TARJEI
))The Christ impulse. But we'd better not get into that, because
))Newpaul will quote the Bible and we'll be on the brink of theology
))again.
)
)No, Tarjei, you're evading, that's not the proper Anthroposophical
)answer. Steiner talked about two cultural streams. Tell us about the
)other one.
)
)-Dan
DL: Gosh Dan, perhaps Tarjei has a different take? Oh no, that's right -
all Antrhos think alike. I forgot.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:44:10 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
)))Dan wrote:
)))Anthroposophical physicians teach Waldorf parents that fever is
)))good, and that childhood diseases are a necessary part of
)))development that
)))shouldn't be hindered by immunizations. This theory is contradicted
)))by a recent British study of infant cases of meningitis:
)))
))
))DL asks: Dan, do Anthroposophical physicians say all fevers are
))good? If so, can you provide supporting evidence? And what do the
))after effects of Meningitis have to do with advocating fevers (if
))they indeed say this) and avoidance of immunizations (which not all
))Anthros support, by the way)?
)Dan wrote:
)DL, you're quibbling. If you have a substantial argument, please make it.
)
DL: No - I am not quibbling. I am asking an on topic question. How about
either answering it or bugging off? I asked a relevant question - are you
saying that AP physicians say all fevers are good? And I did not understand
the connection between AP physicians saying fevers are good and the
meningittis article.
Now, I could in tr8ue Critic style make my argument without understand what
it is you are talking about, but I chose to find out what you meant, first.
Perhaps I should just adhere to your "if it's on topic, there's integrity"
attitude and not have worried about the truth.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:04:57 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
dottie zold wrote:
)
) ) Newpaul
) ) Respectfully Tarjei, I think that the list members
) ) can determine the
) ) real nature of the "anthro-Nazi nonsense" for
) ) themselves. Your evasion
) ) in answering the question of cultural streams does
) ) nothing to establish
) ) your creditability.
) )
) Dottie
)
) His credibility has already been established.
Oh yes, the blood page
) http://uncletaz.com/bloods/index.html
My comments above Dottie have nothing to do with your comments about
hitler and nazism, Plans, and Peter Staudenmaier. The issue is the
other cultural stream.
Dottie Carries on ...blahblah
) And unfortunately the one main area that I have seen a
) major weakness with PLANS is their inability to gauge
) Staudenmaiers credibility with the ridiuculous claims
) in his and Zegers paper.
)
) Time and time again it has been shown that he has
) perverted the words of RS with a paragraph of two word
) quotes followed by his interpretation. And time and
) time again PLANS shows its hypocritical nature by not
) checking verifably the truth of his paper.
)
) I think the thinkers on this list are droned into
) sleep with the way Staudenmaier and Zegers put the
) paper together. Very circular and mostly inuendo and
) very hard to confirm. I found many mistakes in his
) paper including the small ones that Tarjei just
) mentioned in his post to Dan.
)
) Zegers and Staudenmaiers paper is a historical
) revision and funny, not even based on any kind of
) fact, which at least most revisionist papers are.
)
) It is clear that Hitler perverted the occult
) understandings in creating his ideology for the Nazi
) regime.
Newpaul
This is not clear to me. The evidence suggests that it is the occult
that perverted Hitler and directed his Nazi Ideology.
)
) Even Dan says that Hitler took the mythological
) understandings of a few and made them into his ideals.
) See Dans post.
Newpaul
Just like Steiner did! How coincidental.
)
) Once again if RS can be held accountable for speaking
) on his understandings of mythologies and have a crazy
) man use the same mythologies and pervert their
) understandings then the same can be true for the
) Christ believers who killed in the name of God. Are we
) to blame Jesus for peoples perverting his words?
Newpaul
for most sane people, mythologies are believed to be historical fact.
To look to a mythology for the explanation of human evolution and
development is to embrace a belief that cannot be verified. Therefore
it cannot be true. Steiner never said it was a theory, but that these
are the facts. After all it was verified by "Spiritual Science".
Dottie if you would rely on logic rather than hysteria, you might be
able to make a better argument.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:58:47 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
)Dan wrote:
))Waldorf schools promote themselves with anecdotal evidence. Here we
))hear the anecdotes they don't want you to hear.
)
)DL:
)
))To what purpose? THAT was the question.
)Diana wrote:
)I answered your question last week, and you seemed to think it satisfactory
)at the time.
DL: Diana - two things - the above was a response Dan - not you. I asked
Dan "To what purpose?" You (as you so kindly mentioned) already answered
the question. Dan, however, seemed to have felt a need to respond long
after others had - this led me to believe he haqd something to contribute
that was unique. Instead he makes makes an observation instead of answering
the question.
)DL wrote:
))discussions about WE tend to break down into a "my belief system is
)) )better
))than yours" - there is NO WAY to settle such disputes.
)
)The discussion seems to have two facets: 1) there is criticism of the
)belief
)system here (that's one of the topics of the list, DL), and 2) Waldorf
)should explain their belief system explicitly to prospective parents, so if
)they think "theirs is better," they know this school isn't for them.
)
DL: Diana, what's your point?
)
)
))Do you not see the riduclousness of the idea that we must use an
))intellectually based approach to evaluate whether or not a focus on )the
))intellect is good.
)
)No, I, at least, do not see the ridiculousness. Even Waldorf educators
)would
)not argue that *adults* should not use their intellect. Adults -
)researchers
)- not children - would do the research, right?
)
)The question of whether children should be educated according to an
)approach
)which encourages intellectual development, or one which does not, would be
)complicated to set up as a testing situation, since there would be quite a
)few variables. But it is a quite reasonable scientific research question,
)nothing "ridiculous" about it.
)Diana
DL: It seems as ridiculous as doing a scientific study abour aesthetics.
What would such a study try to show?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:02:39 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
DL replies to a fairly full of crap post.....
))DL wrote:
))))I don't know that the things that are described by individuals on the
))))list actually happened or happenned the way described. The integrity of
))))posts on this list is questionable - so it's foolish to take
))))anything posted here as truthful.
))
)))Dan:
)))It's certainly a valid argument to say that the experiences of the
)))individuals who write here may or may not represent typical
)))experiences in Waldorf. But to say that the people who relate their
)))experiences here are being untruthful is quite another thing, David.
))
))DL: You're right, Dan. It is another thing. And I wasn't
))commenting on whether the experiences posted were typical. What I
))was commenting on was that if people's posts on this list regularly
))contain opinion stated as fact or don't support there arguments with
))evidence - the integrity of the list is in question and so to take
))what is posted as "true" - would be foolish. If you've watched the
))news recently - there have been a few different articles about the
))unreliability of eye-witness accounts. People usually see what they want
))to see. While they are speaking truthfully about what they
))"percieved" to have happened - it may not have happened that way.
))That's all I meant. So for both reasons - postings here have to be
))taken with a grain of sand. This should be no surprise - more than
))once Critics have questioned my purpose on this list - even though I have
))stated (truthfully) several times.
)Dan wrote:
)It's a discussion list, David. In my book it has integrity as long as it
)stays on topic. Individuals are responsible for their own. This is a phony
)and time-wasting topic.
)
DL: Two things - so the list can have people lyiong left and right and as
long as they lie about WE or PLANS - the integrity is intact. Lurkers - be
aware of this belief that Dan has.. Very aware. And the topic is only
phony or time-wasting is you believe that honesty is irrelevant.
))))DL wrote:
))))Even if you have a number of similar responses from different
))))places. It seems that Critics on this list think - well, if that's what
))))I though and you thopught the same thing - then it must be
))))true. Or if that's the way I saw it and you saw something similar -
))))then it must be true. Going back to scientific method - there's one
))))problem with the above approach - there are too many variables that
))))aren't considered. The similarity between experiences could also
))))be that the people observing had similar expectations - and
))))therefore saw similar things.
)Dan wrote:
)I'll do anything I can to encourage scientific study of Waldorf
)education. Any suggestions?
)
DL: I don't beliebe you really wanty a scientific study as you seem very
willing to dismiss honesty as a part of integrity.
)))Dan:
)))Interesting. Scientific method is immoral, except when people claim
)))there's something wrong with Waldorf, then they have to have
)))scientific evidence...
)))
))DL wrote:
))Dan - when have I ever called scientific method immoral?
)Dan:
)I didn't say you did, and you didn't. I see how my mentioning that
)oft-heard Anthropop theme in a reply to your post might make you
)think I was referring to you, sorry.
)
DL: You really expect me to believe that? Then please explain the purpose
of the "off-heard Anthropop theme" in your reply. What exactly did you mean
by it?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:03:49 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
) ) Sune Nordwall wrote:
) )
) )) To my impression the dominant impression of 'critics' of WE that this
)list
) )) cultivates, is that it mainly is a group of shit cultivators and
)mongers.
) ))
) )) Is that really the way you think of yourself and want to present
)yourself
) )) as?
)
)Sharon: Activists draw attention to "shit". Would you rather we show up at
)the Goetheanum and throw rocks like fed up activists did in Seattle?
DL: Sharon - activists draw attention to whatever THEY don't agree with.
Are you implying that all activists are right? As far as your query
regarding throwing rocks - it would be as damaging as what you are doing,
merely in a different manner.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:17:31 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Newpaul
Opps
My last post should have read
"For most sane people, mythologies are *not* believed to be historical fact."
Please pardon my error.
) Newpaul
) for most sane people, mythologies are believed to be historical fact.
) To look to a mythology for the explanation of human evolution and
) development is to embrace a belief that cannot be verified. Therefore
) it cannot be true. Steiner never said it was a theory, but that these
) are the facts. After all it was verified by "Spiritual Science".
) Dottie if you would rely on logic rather than hysteria, you might be
) able to make a better argument.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:02:02 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Diana Winters wrote:
) Tarjei:
) )Cato Schi–tz mentions three factual errors in Staudenmaier's two
) )first sentences alone. Staudenmaier says that Steiner in 1910
) )travelled on a speaking tour of Norway for "a large and attentive
) )audience" in Oslo. The fact is that Steiner was not on any tour at
) )all - he was only visiting Christiania (Oslo). The lecture itself was not
) )held for "a large and attentive audience". It wasn't even a
) )public lecture, but an internal lecture for members with 68
) )Norwegians present in addition to the foreigners who came followed
) )Steiner.
Diana:
) Are you seriously arguing that 68 (in addition to an unspecified number of
) foreigners) is not your idea of a "large" audience, and thus we should
) question the content of the rest of the article? Or that memorizing which
) cities he visited in which year is required for credible Steiner
) scholarship?
'Large' is a relative term. PS gives the impression that RS went on a
extended public speeking tour of Norway, only beginning in Oslo, writing
'In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a
speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in
Oslo.'
Any normal public lecture hall for some sort of 'large' audience, would
probably have 3-500 seats. In such a lecture hall, an audience filling only
around 1/3 to 1/5 of the seats to most probably does not stand out as
'large'.
For some of the many details demonstrating the carelessness, twists,
untruths and halftruths in the article and in the comments by PS on this
list, who on this list refers to his work as 'scholarship', try:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/waagenglish1.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/waagenglish2.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Granly1-eng.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:25:12 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
)Newpaul
)Opps
)
)My last post should have read
)
)"For most sane people, mythologies are *not* believed to be historical
)fact."
)
)
)Please pardon my error.
)
)
) ) Newpaul
) ) for most sane people, mythologies are believed to be historical fact.
) ) To look to a mythology for the explanation of human evolution and
) ) development is to embrace a belief that cannot be verified. Therefore
) ) it cannot be true. Steiner never said it was a theory, but that these
) ) are the facts. After all it was verified by "Spiritual Science".
) ) Dottie if you would rely on logic rather than hysteria, you might be
) ) able to make a better argument.
) )
DL: Curious - couldn't the same be said about Chirtians who take the bible
literally? Are the insane because they take the bible's stories as fact?
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:48:15 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
)From: Dan Dugan:
)Neil Faiman, thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply. You wrote,
)
))Dan thinks that Steiner's
))ideas about blood are ridiculous; I agree.
)
)Thank you.
)
DL: I wonder if you would have been so gracious with Neil if he would have
been as thoughtful and informative - but not agreed with you and your
anti-WE views?
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:49:07 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
I wrote:
)The discussion seems to have two facets: 1) there is criticism of the
)belief system here (that's one of the topics of the list, DL), and 2)
)Waldorf should explain their belief system explicitly to prospective
))parents, so if they think "theirs is better," they know this school isn't
))for them.
)DL: Diana, what's your point?
DL, it is very difficult to talk to you. My point is stated above. Waldorf
should explain their belif system explicitly to prospective parents, so if
they think "theirs is better," they know this school isn't for them. I fear
this boring our listmates.
DL:
)Do you not see the riduclousness of the idea that we must use an
)intellectually based approach to evaluate whether or not a focus
(and I wrote that I did not see the ridiculousness).
DL:
)It seems as ridiculous as doing a scientific study abour aesthetics. What
)would such a study try to show?
I don't know what it is you really want to know, DL. I thought you were
asking, Why do a study on whether a "focus on the intellect" was a good
thing in educating children. So, such a study would try to show, I suppose,
whether focusing on the intellect was a good thing in educating children.
Waldorf makes the claim that it is not. So such research might attempt to
determine whether that was true.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:59:42 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Sune:
)'Large' is a relative term. (snip)
)Any normal public lecture hall for some sort of 'large' audience, would
)probably have 3-500 seats.
Ah. So we are in fact discussing how many people make a "large" audience,
and the size of the rooms Steiner gave lectures in in various cities. Just
wanted to be sure I understood your criticisms.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:05:27 +0000
From: (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
Actually, usually people describe everyone else's cultural stories as
myth and their own as "fact". For example, that tremendous work of
fiction, the bible, is held up as history by all sorts of people, but
the stories told by the Algonquin people of their creation , flood, and
rebuilding of the world are treated as "myth".
Newpaul wrote:
) Newpaul
) Opps
)
) My last post should have read
)
) "For most sane people, mythologies are *not* believed to be historical
) fact."
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:39:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
)Newpaul
)Don't let me stand in your way Tarjei. I would like to know about the
)other stream especially since you seem to unwilling to address the question.
What you would like to know is no concern of mine.
)Newpaul
)Respectfully Tarjei, I think that the list members can determine the
)real nature of the "anthro-Nazi nonsense" for themselves.
Exactly.
)Your evasion in answering the question of cultural streams does
)nothing to establish your creditability.
I decide what to discuss and what not to discuss, and I don't give a
hoot what you call it.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:45:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
diana:
)Are you seriously arguing that 68 (in addition to an unspecified
)number of foreigners) is not your idea of a "large" audience, and
)thus we should question the content of the rest of the article? Or
)that memorizing which cities he visited in which year is required
)for credible Steiner scholarship?
I am not arfuing anything at all. I am simply pointing out some facts
- discovered by CS and coming to a website near you - demonstrating
three errors in the opening sentences of PS' article. Sorry to burst
the bubble.
)Well, that author has no more credibility with me then, gosh there's
)actually an error in the book. (sarcasm)
I am not very interested in which books have credibility or not to
hardcore critics.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:01:16 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
)) ) Sune Nordwall wrote:
)) )
)) )) To my impression the dominant impression of 'critics' of WE that this
))list
)) )) cultivates, is that it mainly is a group of shit cultivators and
))mongers.
)) ))
)) )) Is that really the way you think of yourself and want to present
))yourself
)) )) as?
))
))Sharon: Activists draw attention to "shit". Would you rather we show up at
))the Goetheanum and throw rocks like fed up activists did in Seattle?
)
) DL: Sharon - activists draw attention to whatever THEY don't agree with.
) Are you implying that all activists are right? As far as your query
) regarding throwing rocks - it would be as damaging as what you are doing,
) merely in a different manner.
)
) Shalom
)
) DL
)
Lisa here: Nothing that I have read that was posted by Sharon Lombard
indicates that, in any way, she believes that *all* activists are correct in
their pursuits. I get the feeling that you cannot bear to let *any* critic
on this list make *any* point, no matter how small, without arguing about
it! (g)
It seems to me that Sharon mentioned "activists" and what they do --
which is to draw attention to what some wonderful wordsmith on this list
called, so eloquently, "shit" -- to explain WHY she and other critics of
Waldorf spend time on this list. When you questioned her as to why we
critics have come forth with our questions, our negative experiences, and
our demands that Waldorf own who they really are, she explained that we are,
simply, activists.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:01:16 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
)From: Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
)Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:49:07 +0000
)
)I wrote:
)
))The discussion seems to have two facets: 1) there is criticism of the
))belief system here (that's one of the topics of the list, DL), and 2)
))Waldorf should explain their belief system explicitly to prospective
))parents, so if they think "theirs is better," they know this
)))school isn't for them.
)
))DL: Diana, what's your point?
)
)DL, it is very difficult to talk to you.
DL: Now you know how critics of the Critics feel about talking with Critics.
)Diana wrote:
)My point is stated above. Waldorf should explain their belif system
)explicitly to prospective parents, so if they think "theirs is better,"
)they know this school isn't for them. I fear this boring our listmates.
)
DL: I didn't understand what you meant the first time - I think I know what
you mean, this time - that WE should explain their belief system to
prospective parents so that if the parent's disagree with the WE approach,
the parents can choose another school. Your prepositional usage made it a
little confusing to me - I didn't know who might be thinking "theirs is
better" - the parents or Waldorf.
But, I agree with you on this point. Always have. AND I think parents
should research the choices they make for their children beyond what the
providers of said services say about the service. Hence my participation in
this list.
(snip)
)Diana wrote:
)I don't know what it is you really want to know, DL. I thought you were
)asking, Why do a study on whether a "focus on the intellect" was a good
)thing in educating children. So, such a study would try to show, I suppose,
)whether focusing on the intellect was a good thing in educating children.
)Waldorf makes the claim that it is not. So such research might attempt to
)determine whether that was true.
)Diana
)
DL: True how? Better how? Maybe I'm not being clear. But how can a
scientific study show if focusing on the intellect is "better"? Whether or
not focusing on the intellect is better is a subjective opinion. How does a
scientific study evaluate the subjective nature of that question? A
scientific study might be able to show the "effects" of one versus the other
- but not without a lot of work to limit variables - and even then, it would
be iffy, imo. The point I'm trying to make is that while you can create a
scientific study to study almost anything - scientific studies can not
evaluate "better."
How would you define "better"? That's the main question. And it goes
directly to values. I want my child to be able to spend the first part of
her life without having her intellect be the leader. I want my child to
explore imagination much more than the intellect - at least until she's
older.
Can scientific studies measure values? I don't think they can. But I seem
to be in a minority here. If you think they can, please enlighten me.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 472
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Admin: ad hominem
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
By dan dandugan.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Att: Administration
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf as an entry to Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Moderator welcomes known EXPERT on Anthro Philosophy/Religion/Histor
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:13:13 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Diana wrote:
)Although, actually, the very second page of the book has a photo of Steiner
)labeled "Rudolf Steiner in 1869 at the age of 18." He looks 18 in the
)picture, and he was born in 1861, so I assume the correct date is 1879.
)
)Well, that author has no more credibility with me then, gosh there's
)actually an error in the book. (sarcasm)
)
DL: Perhaps you need a basic course in the difference between distortion of
facts and typographical errors? Was this inability something youi picked up
in a public school? (sarcasm)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:22:00 +0000
From: (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
) KERR
) ) ) )And many do...its studied in the same light as other alternative
) )) )educational pedagogies like Montessori, Reggio Emilio, AS Neill and
) )) )Summerhill, and Sudbury Schools. Steiner never wrote a methodology, but
) )) )there IS a waldorf methodology that has been developed over the last 80
) )) )years and it can be seperated from Anthroposophy, and it can be backed
) )) )up by other educational philosophies as well...and utilized without
) ) ) )being religious in nature.
)
) DAN DUGAN
) ) ) Please direct us to publications in which this methodology is described.
)
) KERR
) )The Enki Teacher Training Manuals - enkieducation (waldorf inspired)
DAN
) )Putting the Heart Back Into Teaching - Maher and Bleach
)
) From the South African Anthroposophists. Out of print
Kerr
So? Does that change the fact its presenting methodology divorced from
religion? Its between printing, it isn't hard to buy or find. But what
difference does that make?
Kerr
) )Educational Tasks and Content of the Steiner Waldorf Curriculum - Rawson
) )& Richter
Dan
) I've been looking for this one for over a year since it was listed as
) an attachment to the charter application in Hudson, NY. Do you have
) any further information on it? Perhaps it was published in the U.S.A.
) with a different title? Appears
) Anthroposophical-pretending-to-be-academic from just reading the
) title.
kerr
I have no idea what you're talking about - anthroposophical pretending
to be academic? Care to elaborate. Its a british book. You can get it
from the Rudolf Steiner College and numerous homeschool suppliers.
kerr
) )Form Drawing - Neiderhauser and Frolich
)
Dan
) Anthroposophical.
Kerr
So? It was written by anthroposophists sure, but its presenting
*methodology* for teaching form drawing throughout the grades, not
teaching religion, or how to engage children or teachers in anthropop
theories.
Kerr
)
) )Math Lessons for the Elementary Grades - Harrer
)
Dan
) Anthroposophical.
Again so? Same comment as before, I'm using it to learn methodology and
I'm not suddenly teaching anthroposophy. Its mumbo jumbo free.
Kerr
) )Teaching English - R Wilkinson
) )Teaching History - R Wilkinson
)
Dan
) Oops, you put your foot in it here, Kerr. Wilkinson says some
) embarrassing things, and when I quote him in one of my lectures,
) Waldorf people present usually deny his relevance "nobody reads him
) anymore..." Here's some Anthroposophical doctrine from -Teaching
) English-:
)
) "The stories from ancient civilisations show that man and the gods
) were in direct contact and that people were led as groups. That is to
) say, the feeling for individuality was non-existent, but there was a
) family or race-consciousness" [p. 43]
Kerr
Have you ever read Lenape creation stories? Stories from their "first
world" before their flood? That DOES describe their stories. From the
Lenape you get ALL the Algonquian tribal stories. What exactly are you
trying to prove with this ONE passage?
dan
) From -Teaching History- (I'll skip the racial stuff quoted recently
) elsewhere):
)
) "It is at this stage (age eleven) that the contents of this booklet
) become relevant. The child now has an awareness of time, but no
) logical faculty. Pictures in the mind are still the most potent form
) of educational material, and since history has its beginnings in
) mythology, the mythologies provide what is needed." [p. 5]
)
) Eleven-year-olds have "no logical faculty"? That's bizarre Steiner
) fundamentalism. Mythology -as- history, rather than mythology -and-
) history.
kerr
No logical faculty for *time lines* is how I read that, and from my
experience, its true, presenting facts and dates doesn't reach juniors.
It works much better if you approach them through stories, mythologies,
dramatic works...Dr. Ruth Beechick addresses this too. Its also a major
theme in the texts I gave to Diane (I think?) where she could find the
same methodology outside of WE. I don't know how much experience you
have with presenting history to children but they really don't relate to
dry timelines, engaging them in history comes through stories and while
you can interject facts in with that, allowing them to work with the
mythology (for example the myth and reality of Hiwatha) brings it alive
for them. You use these real life people as "containers" for presenting
the day to day life of the people and the mythology to flesh that out
and understand the point of view of the people you are studying. You
can't "see" life as an Algonquin without seeing the thunderbeings in the
clouds. Now I learned to do this from Wilkinson, my source material to
do it with comes from the Museum of Civilization, and the reading lists
created by Oyate (a group dedicated to seeing that Native Americans are
portrayed accurately, honestly, and that they are creditted
appropriately with their stories)NOT anthroposophical sources. So
again, I was learning METHODOLOGY - not anthropology in using these
books.
Kerr
)
) )Drawing and Painting in Waldorf Schools - Junemann & Weitmann
Dan
)
) Anthroposophical.
So?
)
) )Wide Horizons Educational Resources Kits - Ancient Civilizations - The
) )Israelites - D Mollet (waldorf inspired)
) )
) )This is what I'm personally familiar with.
Dan
) You've made my case, Kerr, that there is no "Waldorf Method" outside
) of Anthroposophy. Enki may have improved on Waldorf but it is tied to
) a different religious sect.
Have you actually read the Enki materials? Do you know what you're
talking about? What religious sect is in the classroom methodology? In
the classroom?
I really don't get your point, you asked for waldorf sources that
presented methodology - not anthroposophy, I gave them to you and you
don't want waldorf sources because they are waldorf? What exactly DO
you want?
Dan
Wide Horizons may be the closest thing to
) it, but it's privately published and not available for review.
Kerr
Well YOU could read it and give your own review Dan. So I don't see
your point, again.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:25:40 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...was cultivation of...
) )) ) Sune Nordwall wrote:
) )) )
) )) )) To my impression the dominant impression of 'critics' of WE that
)this
) ))list cultivates, is that it mainly is a group of shit cultivators and
)mongers.
) )) ))
) )) )) Is that really the way you think of yourself and want to present
) ))yourself as?
) ))
) ))Sharon: Activists draw attention to "shit". Would you rather we show up
)at
) ))the Goetheanum and throw rocks like fed up activists did in Seattle?
) )
) ) DL: Sharon - activists draw attention to whatever THEY don't agree with.
) ) Are you implying that all activists are right? As far as your query
) ) regarding throwing rocks - it would be as damaging as what you are
)doing,
) ) merely in a different manner.
) )
) ) Shalom
) )
) ) DL
)Lisa here: Nothing that I have read that was posted by Sharon Lombard
)indicates that, in any way, she believes that *all* activists are correct
)in
)their pursuits. I get the feeling that you cannot bear to let *any* critic
)on this list make *any* point, no matter how small, without arguing about
)it! (g)
DL (reflecting your cheshire-like grin right back at you) - I have let lots
of points be made. I have even agreed with points made by Critics. You
wouldn't happen to be ignoring that, would you? Might get in the way of
your misperception.
) It seems to me that Sharon mentioned "activists" and what they do --
)which is to draw attention to what some wonderful wordsmith on this list
)called, so eloquently, "shit" -- to explain WHY she and other critics of
)Waldorf spend time on this list. When you questioned her as to why we
)critics have come forth with our questions, our negative experiences, and
)our demands that Waldorf own who they really are, she explained that we
)are,
)simply, activists.
DL: And it seems to me that Sharon said what she said to imply that
activists call attention to shit - as if what an activists was against must
be "shit". The phrase in question is "Activists draw attention to shit" -
this is not a truthful statement, but feel free to defend it anyway. If she
meant that WE Critics call attention to shit - perhaps she should have said
that. Or more honestly - WE Critics call attention to that which they think
is shit.
But we wouldn't want to get hung up on the truth now, would we?
Before anyone starts whining about my harping on honesty - just remember
that WE's alleged dishonesty is one of the things Critics harp on. But
maybe Critics only mean that WE and Anthroposophy should be honest - not
Critics.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:40:59 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
) Diana wrote:
))Although, actually, the very second page of the book has a photo of Steiner
))labeled "Rudolf Steiner in 1869 at the age of 18." He looks 18 in the
))picture, and he was born in 1861, so I assume the correct date is 1879.
))
))Well, that author has no more credibility with me then, gosh there's
))actually an error in the book. (sarcasm)
))
)
) DL: Perhaps you need a basic course in the difference between distortion of
) facts and typographical errors? Was this inability something youi picked up
) in a public school? (sarcasm)
)
DL: You are *way,* way out of line here! If anyone on this list knows the
difference between a "distortion of facts" and a typo, it would be Diana.
After all, she is a professional editor and writer.
You're even more out of line in your backhanded dissing of public school
as a source for education. My daughter learned more in one year at our local
public school than she did in six years at a private, well-established
Waldorf school here in Baltimore. And I know that other critics here have
similar stories regarding their own children.
Watch out what you say, DL, as you may have to eat your words. Didn't
you say that your own child is now enrolled in a Waldorf kindergarten
program? (No, I am not wishing your child ill at all; I am just cautioning
you that you may one day need to rely on the experienced teachers at public
schools to fill the gap between your child's potential and actual
achievement.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:21:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: sune.nordwall home.se
Subject: Admin: ad hominem
Sune, I am unsubscribing you for the following ad-hominem:
Subject: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Previously you were unsubscribed on 2/25/00 for attempting to track a
subscriber, and on 7/31/01 for an ad hominem. You have shown yourself
incapable of carrying on a respectful two-way discussion. You'll have
to be satisfied with preaching to your own audience from your web
site.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:37:26 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
) ) Diana wrote:
) ))Although, actually, the very second page of the book has a photo of
)Steiner
) ))labeled "Rudolf Steiner in 1869 at the age of 18." He looks 18 in the
) ))picture, and he was born in 1861, so I assume the correct date is 1879.
) ))
) ))Well, that author has no more credibility with me then, gosh there's
) ))actually an error in the book. (sarcasm)
) ))
) )
) ) DL: Perhaps you need a basic course in the difference between distortion
)of
) ) facts and typographical errors? Was this inability something youi
)picked up
) ) in a public school? (sarcasm)
) )
)DL: You are *way,* way out of line here! If anyone on this list knows the
)difference between a "distortion of facts" and a typo, it would be Diana.
)After all, she is a professional editor and writer.
) You're even more out of line in your backhanded dissing of public
)school
)as a source for education. My daughter learned more in one year at our
)local
)public school than she did in six years at a private, well-established
)Waldorf school here in Baltimore. And I know that other critics here have
)similar stories regarding their own children.
) Watch out what you say, DL, as you may have to eat your words. Didn't
)you say that your own child is now enrolled in a Waldorf kindergarten
)program? (No, I am not wishing your child ill at all; I am just cautioning
)you that you may one day need to rely on the experienced teachers at public
)schools to fill the gap between your child's potential and actual
)achievement.)
)
DL: I am no more "*way,* way out of line" than many of the Critics on this
list. If Diana has the credentials you state, then why use such an obvious
typo to make such a poor jest?
As far as eating my words - what words? The "dissing" of the public school
system? I know the public school system as a student, visiting lecturer, am
a friend of several public school teachers, and so I cast aspersions where I
see fit (as is the wont on this list). If you mean to imply that I will
have to eat my words regarding WE, I ask - which words?
My wife and I are in agreement - there will be *no* public school in our
child's immediate future - I have seen the public school system and would
not wish it on anyone. I have as many concerns about the public schools in
my area as Critics have about WE. You make it seem like there are only two
options - WE and public education. There are also other private school as
well as homeschooling.
And if it happens that I am forced to eat my words, I will do it with grace.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:43:55 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
D L wrote:
)
) )Newpaul
) )Opps
) )
) )My last post should have read
) )
) )"For most sane people, mythologies are *not* believed to be historical
) )fact."
) )
) )
) )Please pardon my error.
) )
) )
) ) ) Newpaul
) ) ) for most sane people, mythologies are believed to be historical fact.
) ) ) To look to a mythology for the explanation of human evolution and
) ) ) development is to embrace a belief that cannot be verified. Therefore
) ) ) it cannot be true. Steiner never said it was a theory, but that these
) ) ) are the facts. After all it was verified by "Spiritual Science".
) ) ) Dottie if you would rely on logic rather than hysteria, you might be
) ) ) able to make a better argument.
) ) )
)
) DL: Curious - couldn't the same be said about Chirtians who take the bible
) literally? Are the insane because they take the bible's stories as fact?
)
Newpaul
No. The Bible has over 650 prophecies most of which have come true.
350 of the prophecies relate directly to Jesus. Again, most of these
have come true except that which is to be fulfilled in the end times.
The bible is a book based on provable factual history not mythology.
The establishment of the state of Israel is a biblical prophecy come
true and signifying that the end times have begun.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:53:09 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
) ) DL: Curious - couldn't the same be said about Chirtians who take the
)bible
) ) literally? Are the insane because they take the bible's stories as
)fact?
) )
)Newpaul
)
)No. The Bible has over 650 prophecies most of which have come true.
)350 of the prophecies relate directly to Jesus. Again, most of these
)have come true except that which is to be fulfilled in the end times.
)The bible is a book based on provable factual history not mythology.
)The establishment of the state of Israel is a biblical prophecy come
)true and signifying that the end times have begun.
)
DL: Not entirely true - in my opinion. And as to the story of creation - is
this historically accurate? And the only reason I'm continuing this thread
is to question the claim that "For most sane people, mythologies are *not*
believed to be historical fact."
As to the veracity of the statement that most of the prophecies have come
true - according to whom? If you say "biblical scholars" - then it seems no
different than Anthroposophists "verifying" their views through
self-knowledge.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:20:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
DL, cut it off. Critiques of other list members' religious beliefs
are off-topic, with the exception of Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:46:53 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
D L wrote:
)
) As to the veracity of the statement that most of the prophecies have come
) true - according to whom? If you say "biblical scholars" - then it seems no
) different than Anthroposophists "verifying" their views through
) self-knowledge.
)
Newpaul
I never said that Anthroposophists are rational, logical thinkers. I am
saying that there is historical and archeological evidence to support
most of what is written about in the bible. On the other hand,
anthroposophists can only accept what Steiner told them on an intuitive
basis. Is intuition scientific ? I have always wondered why anthros
can only verify Steiner's Anthropostulations. No one ever disagrees
with RS. No one ever gives us any hard evidence that Atlantis ever
existed. If you want me to believe Steiner, go find Atlantis and bring
me back an Atlantean hover craft. It should be fairly simple for you to
sail out into the ocean and let your "intuition" tell you just the right
place to drop anchor. After all we are talking about a lost continent
here. You should have a greater chance of finding Atlantis than pinning
the tail on the donkey.
On the other hand archeology has not proven that the biblical record is
in error. If anything, it supports the biblical record. Jericho was
found, Mt Sinai has been found, evidence of King David's kingdom has
been found, there is widespread evidence that supports the flood. A
detailed study of the bible supports empirical factual data and the
objective scientific examination of evidence. Anthroposophy cannot do
any of this because it is based on magic, intuition, and the occult.
It can only be *known* to other initiates.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:35:14 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
)DL, cut it off. Critiques of other list members' religious beliefs
)are off-topic, with the exception of Anthroposophy.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
DL: This was not a "Critique of other list members' religious beliefs" - it
was in direct relation to the assertion that only insane people would take
mythology as history. I questioned that statement, I did not critique other
members' religious beliefs. I only meant to address the
appropriateness/accuracy of the original comment in light of the fact that
there are members on this list who take the bible's stories as factual. If
this was seen as me critiquing any other member's belief - I apologize.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:57:05 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
on 9/10/01 11:25 AM, D L at theosopost hotmail.com wrote:
)))
))) DL: Sharon - activists draw attention to whatever THEY don't agree with.
))) Are you implying that all activists are right? As far as your query
))) regarding throwing rocks - it would be as damaging as what you are
)) doing,
))) merely in a different manner.
Sharon:
I was explaining to Sune, who called W critics "shit cultivators and
mongers", that we are activists pointing out a problem, (shit). Sune
initially employed the vulgarity "shit". I was not implying that activists
are right, just that activists make a lot of noise so that "higher ups" will
take note, and maybe....just maybe.....something might be done to rectify
the problem. In a pluralistic society, we all have a right to our views, not
just Anthroposophists, which is why Waldorf needs to be forthright to
parents. What's the big deal? So what...Waldorf is a school based on a
foundation of Rudolf Steiner's occult science called Anthroposophy, a
parochial school for Anthroposophists and anyone else wanting an
Anthroposophic school.
I think the pen is mightier than throwing rocks, I'm for non-violence.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:05:44 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
) ))) DL: Sharon - activists draw attention to whatever THEY don't agree
)with.
) ))) Are you implying that all activists are right? As far as your query
) ))) regarding throwing rocks - it would be as damaging as what you are
) )) doing,
) ))) merely in a different manner.
)
)Sharon:
)I was explaining to Sune, who called W critics "shit cultivators and
)mongers", that we are activists pointing out a problem, (shit). Sune
)initially employed the vulgarity "shit". I was not implying that activists
)are right, just that activists make a lot of noise so that "higher ups"
)will
)take note, and maybe....just maybe.....something might be done to rectify
)the problem. In a pluralistic society, we all have a right to our views,
)not
)just Anthroposophists, which is why Waldorf needs to be forthright to
)parents. What's the big deal? So what...Waldorf is a school based on a
)foundation of Rudolf Steiner's occult science called Anthroposophy, a
)parochial school for Anthroposophists and anyone else wanting an
)Anthroposophic school.
)
)I think the pen is mightier than throwing rocks, I'm for non-violence.
)
DL: Me too. I believe that violence only begets violence. And I agree that
WE schools should be upfront about their affiliation to
Steiner/Anthroposophy.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:02:21 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
(snipped)
Dan asks Neil:
What's the social impact of
) believing in "the occult significance of blood"?
charlie (butting in):
After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything racist
in it.
According to Steiner, humanity reaches a higher stage of evolution when
exogamy supercedes endogamy. Therefore if you believe that Steiner thought
of Aryans as a race; and that he thought that the only way they could
progress was to practice exogamy; then, logically, the act of exterminating
other races in order to breed pure Aryans would be totally against Steiner's
idea of progress.
So what I get from reading 'The Occult Significance of Blood' is that
the progress of humanity takes the following course:
1. We feel at one with our family.
2. We view ourselves as part of a nation.
3. We feel united with the whole of humankind.
4. We feel the unity of all life on earth.
In order to evolve towards freedom we need to overcome family and
racial/national ties.
What would the social impact be if everone in Northern Ireland, Israel and
the former Yugoslavia believed this?
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:14:46 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' draws attn. to shit...
Sharon wrote:
Sune initially employed the vulgarity "shit
charlie:
I could be wrong, but wasn't Sune quoting Debra when he first used this
word?
Debra said:
Shit happens, Nordwall.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Paul
) My comments above Dottie have nothing to do with
) your comments about
) hitler and nazism, Plans, and Peter Staudenmaier.
) The issue is the
) other cultural stream.
)
Dottie
Hey Paul why don't you stop trying to belittle every
chance you get. I see that once again Sune has been
kicked off this list and nothing ever seems to happen
with you and your personal attacks on others who
disagree with your world view.
Paul
) This is not clear to me. The evidence suggests that
) it is the occult
) that perverted Hitler and directed his Nazi
) Ideology.
) )
Dottie
Excuse me? The occult perverted Hitler? Actually in a
techinical way you may be right, but I don't think we
would be debating the same idea. However Hitler
perverted everything he touched in looking to make
himself king of all things physical. Steiner was into
the spiritual and hoped to shed light on that aspect.
) Newpaul
) for most sane people, mythologies are believed to be
) historical fact.
) To look to a mythology for the explanation of human
) evolution and
) development is to embrace a belief that cannot be
) verified.
Dottie
In your opinion.
Paul
Therefore
) it cannot be true.
Dottie
According to the Gospel of Newpaul.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Att: Administration
Dan,
I would like to protest Sune being kicked off this
list. I think it makes PLANS look really bad as well
as this list as it seems you are paving the way for
Staudenmaeir.
And in light of Newpauls constant personal attacks on
myself and also Tarjei where nothing is done I think
you should reconsider Sune's departure.
As you thanked me for ignoring Newpaul's attack on me
I would think you might consider that Staudenmaier did
not reply to Sune's comment.
Below is a post by Newpaul where once again he goes
againt the same rule that Sune was just kicked off
for.
Thanks Dottie
Paul
) Dottie if you would rely on logic rather than
) hysteria, you might be
) able to make a better argument.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Another Day in a Waldorf Charter
Diana,
Dottie, but I can't base a school
) decision on what you
) believe that Steiner intended, or on what the
) teachers believe, but on how
) the teachers *behave*. They behave as if
) anthroposophy is their religion.
) Diana
Dottie
Hi Diana,
I agree with you. And I believe this is what the good
aspects of this site were: getting WS in touch with
how they were being percieved by others who may not be
in agreement with how the school and teachers present
themselves.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
) Newpaul
)
) No. The Bible has over 650 prophecies most of which
) have come true.
) 350 of the prophecies relate directly to Jesus.
) Again, most of these
) have come true except that which is to be fulfilled
) in the end times.
Dottie
Paul once again all of this is according to your
personal opinion and that of the ministers that teach
you this.
Paul
) The bible is a book based on provable factual
) history not mythology.
) The establishment of the state of Israel is a
) biblical prophecy come
) true and signifying that the end times have begun.
)
Dottie
According to your interpretation once again. Do you
really think this is the worst it can get. You have
seen nothing yet.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: OT warning (Re: credibility (was no good thing))
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) DL, cut it off. Critiques of other list members'
) religious beliefs
) are off-topic, with the exception of Anthroposophy.
Dottie
Dan. What are you going to do about Newpaul and all of
his posts about Christianity, and how things truly are
according to Paul. I feel like I'm on a Christian
station or something the way this thing is allowed to
go on. Ridiculous.
And then you reprimand DL? Whew.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
) Newpaul
) I am
) saying that there is historical and archeological
) evidence to support
) most of what is written about in the bible.
Dottie
Bullcrap!!!
Paul
On the
) other hand,
) anthroposophists can only accept what Steiner told
) them on an intuitive
) basis.
Dottie
So that means you NEWPAUL or PAUL were actually there
at the scene of Golgotha when the cruxifiction went
down, right?
Paul
No
) one ever disagrees
) with RS. No one ever gives us any hard evidence
) that Atlantis ever
) existed.
Dottie
Are you given any hard evidence that Christ
resurrected Paul? Got anything that the aetheist might
be able to verify for themselves?
Paul
If you want me to believe Steiner, go find
) Atlantis and bring
) me back an Atlantean hover craft.
Dottie
Kind of reminds me of Doubting Thomas, what say ye?
Paul
After all we are talking
) about a lost continent
) here. You should have a greater chance of finding
) Atlantis than pinning
) the tail on the donkey.
Dottie
The same can be said about one seeing Christ in this
lifetime.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:05:31 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
DL to Dottie - ease up girl. You're going a little too far, methinks. Take
a breath. Your point will become lost if you go too far. And any other
points will be missed entirely if you get booted.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:25:54 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf as an entry to Anthroposophy
Hi Dan, and all I am back:
Dan Dugan wrote:
) In the September 2001 Anthroposophy Worldwide, there are two articles
) that mention Waldorf as an entry to Anthroposophy.
)
) From "South Korea: Waldorf Education Meets a Hunger for Renewal in
) Education" by Rita Taylor (p. 4):
)
) "In Korea, Waldorf education is the main approach to anthroposophy.
) One important reason for this is the perception that public education
) has to be reformed and alternatives found. However, the Waldorf
) method and its source, anthroposophy, stem from another culture.
) South Korea will need to find its own forms of expression in
) Anthroposophy."
) ***
) "There is a core group that devotes much time and energy, with
) extraordinary stamina, to the advancement of the association's goal:
) to implement Waldorf education and anthroposophy in Korea."
)
) Along with fanaticism comes the inevitable crankiness and factions:
It seems that oppressive regimes with strict pedagogical cultures do
best in adapting to cults.
Think: Sun Myung Moon....
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
--- D L (theosopost hotmail.com) wrote:
) DL to Dottie - ease up girl. You're going a little
) too far, methinks. Take
) a breath. Your point will become lost if you go too
) far. And any other
) points will be missed entirely if you get booted.
Dottie
Thanks DL.
I just always have such a hard time when people do not
see the hypocritical nature of their thoughts in
regards to RS.
But I am definitely in need of a breath break. Feeling
a little fiesty in the hypocracy of Sune being booted.
Thanks,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Sune, I am unsubscribing you for the following
) ad-hominem:
)
) Subject: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the
) WC-show
)
) Previously you were unsubscribed on 2/25/00 for
) attempting to track a
) subscriber, and on 7/31/01 for an ad hominem. You
) have shown yourself
) incapable of carrying on a respectful two-way
) discussion. You'll have
) to be satisfied with preaching to your own audience
) from your web
) site.
)
Dan,
I take issue with the untruth in reason number 1. Sune
was not trying to track the person down. He was
researching the name to find out whether the person
was male or female. And reported back to the list of
the various places he found the word taiwann(sp)...and
what he found in regards to male or female.
Whereas Gary, the moderator of this list and MK,
actually tracked down addresses, former addresses and
the ilk. Gary not only did it once he has done it
twice since I have been on this list.
There is a big difference in approaches don't you
think? And also punishements handed out.
Thoughtfully,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:02:38 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
Dottie I will not react to your taunts, but keep it up, you may be next.
Dan if you don't mind I would like to respond to Dottie's' taunt
) ) Dottie
) )
) ) Are you given any hard evidence that Christ
) ) resurrected Paul? Got anything that the aetheist might
) ) be able to verify for themselves?
) )
However my response will be of a religious nature, but one I think could
shed some light on the truth of religious beliefs. There is a truth
about Jesus which cannot be denied. I think if you compare this truth
with anthroposophy, you will see just how cultish anthroposophy really
is. My argument will have to do with the outward manifestation of the
inner work.
With respect for the list etiquette and non sectarian nature of the
debate, I will not reply unless you say to.
Paul Dingman
dottie zold wrote:
)
) ) Newpaul
) ) I am
) ) saying that there is historical and archeological
) ) evidence to support
) ) most of what is written about in the bible.
)
) Dottie
)
) Bullcrap!!!
)
) Paul
) On the
) ) other hand,
) ) anthroposophists can only accept what Steiner told
) ) them on an intuitive
) ) basis.
)
) Dottie
)
) So that means you NEWPAUL or PAUL were actually there
) at the scene of Golgotha when the cruxifiction went
) down, right?
)
) Paul
) No
) ) one ever disagrees
) ) with RS. No one ever gives us any hard evidence
) ) that Atlantis ever
) ) existed.
)
) Dottie
)
) Are you given any hard evidence that Christ
) resurrected Paul? Got anything that the aetheist might
) be able to verify for themselves?
)
) Paul
) If you want me to believe Steiner, go find
) ) Atlantis and bring
) ) me back an Atlantean hover craft.
)
) Dottie
)
) Kind of reminds me of Doubting Thomas, what say ye?
)
) Paul
) After all we are talking
) ) about a lost continent
) ) here. You should have a greater chance of finding
) ) Atlantis than pinning
) ) the tail on the donkey.
)
) Dottie
)
) The same can be said about one seeing Christ in this
) lifetime.
)
) Dottie
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
) http://im.yahoo.com
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
--- Newpaul
) Dottie I will not react to your taunts, but keep it
) up, you may be next.
) Dan if you don't mind I would like to respond to
) Dottie's' taunt
Dottie
It's a good thing you are a critic Paul or these kinds
of hypocritical comments would have been thrown out of
here a long time ago.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:57:13 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Moderator welcomes known EXPERT on Anthro
Philosophy/Religion/Histor
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) Welcome back, Peter! We've missed you. Happy that you had a productive
) ) summer.
)
) For the truth read Sune Nordwall's commentary, and you will see that it
) is nonsense to think that these are lies.
)
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
Please make sure you know from whence these websites come.
Anthroposophists are defending their right to Secret Occult Mystery
Schools where parents are not informed about what they are teaching
their children. They want public funding to teach your children about
the two evil forces, Lucifer and Ahriman, and the struggle St Michael
has with them.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:15:25 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
on 9/10/01 5:46 PM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
) On the other hand archeology has not proven that the biblical record is
) in error. If anything, it supports the biblical record. Jericho was
) found, Mt Sinai has been found, evidence of King David's kingdom has
) been found, there is widespread evidence that supports the flood. A
) detailed study of the bible supports empirical factual data and the
) objective scientific examination of evidence.
Please read any of the following books in their entirety, and report back to
us your discoveries in a couple weeks...
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks The Meaning Of
Scripture, by John Shelby Spong.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675187/qid=1000173148/sr=1-1/ref=
sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
Liberating the Gospels : Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes : Freeing Jesus
from 2,000 Years of Misunderstanding, by John Shelby Spong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675578/qid=1000173148/sr=1-5/ref=
sc_b_5/002-7598276-9953646
Born of a Woman : A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of
Women by a Male-Dominated Church, by John Shelby Spong.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675233/qid=1000173148/sr=1-4/ref=
sc_b_4/002-7598276-9953646
Rabbi Jesus : An Intimate Biography, by Bruce Chilton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038549792X/qid=1000173639/sr=1-1/ref=
sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:21:30 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
) on 9/10/01 5:46 PM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
)
)) On the other hand archeology has not proven that the biblical record is
)) in error. If anything, it supports the biblical record. Jericho was
)) found, Mt Sinai has been found, evidence of King David's kingdom has
)) been found, there is widespread evidence that supports the flood. A
)) detailed study of the bible supports empirical factual data and the
)) objective scientific examination of evidence.
)
)
) Please read any of the following books in their entirety, and report back to
) us your discoveries in a couple weeks...
)
)
) Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks The Meaning Of
) Scripture, by John Shelby Spong.
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675187/qid=1000173148/sr=1-1/ref=
) sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
)
)
) Liberating the Gospels : Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes : Freeing Jesus
) from 2,000 Years of Misunderstanding, by John Shelby Spong
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675578/qid=1000173148/sr=1-5/ref=
) sc_b_5/002-7598276-9953646
)
)
) Born of a Woman : A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of
) Women by a Male-Dominated Church, by John Shelby Spong.
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675233/qid=1000173148/sr=1-4/ref=
) sc_b_4/002-7598276-9953646
)
)
) Rabbi Jesus : An Intimate Biography, by Bruce Chilton
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038549792X/qid=1000173639/sr=1-1/ref=
) sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
)
)
) ...Gary
)
Lisa here: Gary, I absolutely adore John Shelby Spong! I began to read his
stuff back in the late 1980's, when I covered religion for my newspaper. I
found his work to be an amazing and compelling mixture of historical
research, great storytelling and common sense. I think his books should be
on the reading list of anyone who wants to learn more about this country's
Judeo-Christian roots and ideals. (BTW: Have you read "Resurrection: Myth or
Reality?" It was great.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 473
-- Topica Digest --
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By oracle acadia.net
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By pstaud hotmail.com
Are you an expert Peter S.? (was anthrophilosphyreligion)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Are you an expert Peter S.? (was anthrophilosphyreligion)
By pstaud hotmail.com
Admin: Bible discussion OT
By dan dandugan.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By Christopher yav.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By Christopher yav.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 23:05:08 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Dear Gary,
Why would I want to read a book by a rebellious bishop who has been
disowned by the Pope for ordaining and openly gay noncelibate man as a priest.
Why would I want to read books by a man who has never experienced a move
of God in his life and says that Christianity must change to accommodate
his inability to access the blessings and miracles of God.
Why would I want to read about faith from a guy who says in his latest
book, "Why Christianity Must Change of Die" that the idea of God as an
all-powerful being who sometimes intrudes on human activities must be
jettisoned.
Why would I want to read anything by a guy who clearly doesn't believe
the scriptures at all. He says the apostle Paul could have been gay and
that Jesus may have wed Mary Magdalene.
What creditability can a bishop have who does not believe in the work of
Jesus on the cross, the holy sacrament of communion, or that Jesus is
the messiah. Spong is a member of the Jesus Seminar as well.
This is comical. In my view it takes a lot more faith to believe Bishop
John Selby Spong's claims about the errancy of scripture than it does to
accept its truth.
No thanks. I do think I have a rather clear idea of why Mr. Spong is so
jaded in his relationship with the Jesus and his unbelief in the
scriptures. By faith, we believe every morning that the sun will come
up and that your clients will pay us, and that we can count on the
mailman to bring our mail. Why is it so hard for you to believe that
the bible might be true?
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)
) on 9/10/01 5:46 PM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
)
) ) On the other hand archeology has not proven that the biblical record is
) ) in error. If anything, it supports the biblical record. Jericho was
) ) found, Mt Sinai has been found, evidence of King David's kingdom has
) ) been found, there is widespread evidence that supports the flood. A
) ) detailed study of the bible supports empirical factual data and the
) ) objective scientific examination of evidence.
)
) Please read any of the following books in their entirety, and report back to
) us your discoveries in a couple weeks...
)
) Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks The Meaning Of
) Scripture, by John Shelby Spong.
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675187/qid=1000173148/sr=1-1/ref=
) sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
)
) Liberating the Gospels : Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes : Freeing Jesus
) from 2,000 Years of Misunderstanding, by John Shelby Spong
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675578/qid=1000173148/sr=1-5/ref=
) sc_b_5/002-7598276-9953646
)
) Born of a Woman : A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of
) Women by a Male-Dominated Church, by John Shelby Spong.
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675233/qid=1000173148/sr=1-4/ref=
) sc_b_4/002-7598276-9953646
)
) Rabbi Jesus : An Intimate Biography, by Bruce Chilton
)
) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038549792X/qid=1000173639/sr=1-1/ref=
) sc_b_1/002-7598276-9953646
)
) ...Gary
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:33:22 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Tarjei Straume writes:
)He never promoted ideals based upon blood, race, tribe, or
)nationality. On the contrary, he always warned against how dangerous
)such ideals were. Examples from his lectures are legion.
That's a non-sequitur. No-one denies that Steiner sometimes condemned said
ideals (for purposes of this discussion, I'll even stipulate that such
examples are "legion" within his collected writings). This obviously has
nothing to do with the question of whether Steiner on other occasions, in
other writings and speeches, swore fealty to such ideals. Unfortunately for
your argument, examples of the latter are legion as well. That is why it
makes no sense to pick out one of the remarks condemning ideals of race and
nation and declare that it represents Steiner's "summing up" on the matter,
as if this single remark -- or even all similar remarks taken as a whole --
somehow erased all the other remarks he made that celebrate ideals of race
and nation.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:37:54 -0400
From: Jose Acosta (oracle acadia.net)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Newpaul wrote:
) Dear Gary,
)
) Why would I want to read a book by a rebellious bishop who has been
) disowned by the Pope for ordaining and openly gay noncelibate man
as a priest.
)
) snip,snip, snip, blah blah blah.
Is this a bible discussion group or what?
What about setting up your own bible:
myth or truth discussion group and leaving
this to those who want to discuss Waldorf
ed. and Steiner and to (hopefully) lurk an
on topic discussion?
Thanks for your consideration.
Jose
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 23:08:30 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Hi Sune,
how nice to hear from you again. I see that you're still confused about what
the word "liar" means. In order for an assertion to count as a lie, it needs
to fulfill three criteria: 1) It must be untrue. 2) The person who expresses
it must know that it is untrue. 3) It must be expressed in a way such that
others could be deceived about its untruthfulness (in other words, if I say
"you're a big green toad," I'm not lying). None of your many complaints
about my arguments fulfills all three of these conditions. Indeed, as far as
I can see, you yourself only believe that my arguments fulfill the first
condition, in some cases perhaps the third. To say something that Sune
disagrees with is not the same thing as lying. Is that any clearer?
Peter S.
)From: Sune Nordwall (sune.nordwall home.se)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
)Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:36:04 +0200
)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) Welcome back, Peter! We've missed you. Happy that you had a productive
)summer.
)
)For the lies by PS:
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
)- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
)biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
)- some comments on PLANS
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Peter
That is why it
) makes no sense to pick out one of the remarks
) condemning ideals of race and
) nation and declare that it represents Steiner's
) "summing up" on the matter,
Dottie
Hi Peter :)
But isn't this what you do in regards to your claims
on RS's racial ideology? Of course though to prove he
was a racist...
Peter
) as if this single remark -- or even all similar
) remarks taken as a whole --
) somehow erased all the other remarks he made that
) celebrate ideals of race
) and nation.
Dottie
Bingo. This is exactly what you do in your comments of
RS. But of course to prove he is a racist who helped
the racist agenda of the Nazis flourish.
And at least Tarjei and Sune (who unfortunately
although fortunately for you) is no longer with us on
this site, show full comments in context.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Peter S.
) Hi Sune,
)
) how nice to hear from you again. I see that you're
) still confused about what
) the word "liar" means. In order for an assertion to
) count as a lie, it needs
) to fulfill three criteria: 1) It must be untrue. 2)
) The person who expresses
) it must know that it is untrue. 3) It must be
) expressed in a way such that
) others could be deceived about its untruthfulness
Dottie (not Sune)
Well Peter S., your comments on me believing that the
Holocaust never happend, can be shown to fit the above
three rules verifying whether something is a lie.
Just before you left this list for a summer vacation
we were in a discussion about you manipulating my
words to make it appear as if I thought there were
pictures that could prove the Holocaust never
happened.
And of course that came on the heels of you being a
little bit frustrated with my manner of disputing your
inuendos about RS and a Nazi connection.
So I would have to say Sune was correct in his post
although it did invite a little trouble to his house.
But given that you have handled it so well, as I would
expect, I think Sune should be reinstated on this
list. As a similar thing happened last week when Paul
attacked me and I responded pretty lightly. He was not
reprimanded and all continued on.
Maybe Dan will reconsider as it looks a little too
convenient for you to appear and Sune to be kicked out
so quickly. For fairness sake.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 23:28:53 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Hi Tarjei,
at least we've gotten past the silliness about "lying." You write:
)Cato Schi–tz mentions three factual errors in Staudenmaier's two
)first sentences alone. Staudenmaier says that Steiner in 1910
)travelled on a speaking tour of Norway for "a large and attentive
)audience" in Oslo. The fact is that Steiner was not on any tour at
)all - he was only visiting Christiania (Oslo).
I don't know what the difference between a "tour" and a "visit" is. I
therefore plead guilty on this count.
)The lecture itself was
)not held for "a large and attentive audience". It wasn't even a
)public lecture, but an internal lecture for members with 68
)Norwegians present in addition to the foreigners who came followed
)Steiner.
Another non-sequitur. Do you think that "large" and "public" mean the same
thing?
)Thidrly, Staudenmaier did not even succeed in rendering the
)title of the lecture correctly.
Since neither you nor I was present at the lecture, and since no transcript
of it has ever been published, it is impossible for either of us to
establish what its title was. The title I gave, as both I and Sune have
explained, comes from an anthroposophist source. I suggest you take up your
complaint with the spirit of Mr. Mandl.
)In the next main section with the heading "Who was Rudolf Steiner?",
)Staudenmaier writes introductorily about Steiner's family and his
)so-called formative years. Steiner's father is however mentiuoned as
)a "mid-level civil servant" -
You are perhaps unaware that the railroads were owned by the state in
Austria. Steiner senior was thus indeed a civil servant. (Or did you mean
that he wasn't "mid-level"?)
)which is of course wrong, and his real
)formative years in Weimar are excluded completely.
Yes, because they weren't formative of anything other than his annotations
to Goethe.
)No important errors - ok, but when one blunders with so easily
)verifiable facts, it is understandable that when Staudenmaier comes
)to the considerations and judgements, he goes from bad to worse.
Yet another non-sequitur. None of my considerations or judgements would
change in any way even if all of the above facts were different. More
important, you wouldn't like my considerations and judgements even if you
agreed with all of my factual claims.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Are you an expert Peter S.? (was anthrophilosphyreligion)
Dottie
Peter, Su calls you an expert on Anthro
Philosophy/Religion/History. Do you consider yourself
to be an expert on Anthro philosophy or Anthro
Religion or Anthro History?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:10:15 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Hi Dottie,
)Peter
) That is why it
) ) makes no sense to pick out one of the remarks
) ) condemning ideals of race and
) ) nation and declare that it represents Steiner's
) ) "summing up" on the matter,
)
)Dottie
)
)Hi Peter :)
)
)But isn't this what you do in regards to your claims
)on RS's racial ideology? Of course though to prove he
)was a racist...
No, that isn't what I do. Look at what I wrote about Steiner's attitude
toward Jews, for example. Steiner was a master of self-contradiction, and if
we want to figure out what he was getting at, we need to look at both sides
of what he said.
)Peter
) ) as if this single remark -- or even all similar
) ) remarks taken as a whole --
) ) somehow erased all the other remarks he made that
) ) celebrate ideals of race
) ) and nation.
)
)Dottie
)
)Bingo. This is exactly what you do in your comments of
)RS. But of course to prove he is a racist who helped
)the racist agenda of the Nazis flourish.
No again. I don't say that his racist statements erase his non-racist
statements, or that we should only consider the racist portions of his
teachings. I *do* say that we should take the racist elements seriously, and
I argue that these elements are at the center of anthroposophy's cosmology.
)And at least Tarjei and Sune (who unfortunately
)although fortunately for you) is no longer with us on
)this site, show full comments in context.
I don't think that Sune's absence is fortunate for me. I think you joined
the list too late to see this, but when I first began posting here Sune was
my favorite adversary. He knows a good deal more about anthroposophy than
most of the other anthros I've had to spar with. Last, your comment about
context is wide of the mark. It is precisely the fact that my articles put
Steiner's arguments into their historical and ideological context that so
enrages people like Tarjei and Sune.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:16:37 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Dottie writes:
)Well Peter S., your comments on me believing that the
)Holocaust never happend, can be shown to fit the above
)three rules verifying whether something is a lie.
)
)Just before you left this list for a summer vacation
)we were in a discussion about you manipulating my
)words to make it appear as if I thought there were
)pictures that could prove the Holocaust never
)happened.
Hi Dottie,
I didn't manipulate your words. You simply forgot what you had written a
month earlier. I think I can say with nearly complete confidence that you
are the only person who misunderstood my argument back then. If you really
want to, I suppose we could go over it again, but it might be better if you
just go back and re-read our exchange from May.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:27:39 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Are you an expert Peter S.? (was anthrophilosphyreligion)
)Dottie
)
)Peter, Su calls you an expert on Anthro
)Philosophy/Religion/History. Do you consider yourself
)to be an expert on Anthro philosophy or Anthro
)Religion or Anthro History?
I don't like the word "expert" any more than I like the word "academic". But
I do think that expertise is important. I know very little about
anthroposophy as a religion, and its philosophy (to the extent that it has
one) remains pretty murky to me. You've probably noticed that I only speak
up on this list regarding certain themes, and those themes center around the
political implications of anthropospophy. I think I have some expertise in
the area of anthroposophy's politics, particularly its relationship to
various currents within the German right. That relationship has been one of
the two main focuses of my research for the past two years. That doesn't
mean, of course, that you or anybody else should simply believe what I say
on the matter.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:20:24 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Bible discussion OT
Dottie, Newpaul, Gary, discussion of the Bible beyond Steiner's
interpretations of it is off-topic on this list. There are plenty of
other places available to do that.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:03:28 +0100
From: Christopher Yavelow (Christopher yav.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Dottie wrote (a couple of days ago):
)First of all I don't report back to no man. I report to Christ.
Christopher:
I'm curious. What did you mean by this statement, in light of your
recent posts?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:15:00 +0100
From: Christopher Yavelow (Christopher yav.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Regarding the current discussion on the credibility of the Bible as
it relates to Anthroposophy and the Anthroposoph's altering of the
meaning thereof.
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)Please read any of the following books in their entirety,
)and report back to us your discoveries
)in a couple weeks...
[snip]
Christopher responds:
Please read the following books in their entirety, and report back to
us your discoveries in a couple weeks...
The Bible
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310209307/qid=1000195356/sr=2-1/102-0217170-3175375
A Seasoned Journalist Chases Down the Biggest Story in History
The Project: Determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of
Nazareth really is the Son of God.
The Reporter: Lee Strobel, educated at Yale Law School, award-winning
former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune-with a background of
atheism.
The Experts: A dozen scholars, with doctorates from Cambridge,
Princeton, Brandeis, and other top-flight institutions, who are
recognized authorities on Jesus.
The Story: Retracing his own spiritual journey, Strobel
cross-examines the experts with tough, point-blank questions: How
reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence exist for Jesus outside
the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an
actual historical event? . . . Each interview is based on a simple
question, concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the
Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does
Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and
"psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the
Son of God?").
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 474
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Moderator welcomes known EXPERT on Anthro
Philosophy/Religion/Histor
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By faiman jlc.net
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By theosopost hotmail.com
today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
RE: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By canndw netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:37:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Moderator welcomes known EXPERT on Anthro
Philosophy/Religion/Histor
) ) Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) ) Welcome back, Peter! We've missed you. Happy that you had a productive
)) ) summer.
))
)) For the truth read Sune Nordwall's commentary, and you will see that it
)) is nonsense to think that these are lies.
))
)) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
)) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
)) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/nonhierarchy.htm
)) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm
Su:
)Please make sure you know from whence these websites come.
I see only one website above: Sune's own.
)Anthroposophists are defending their right to Secret Occult Mystery
)Schools where parents are not informed about what they are teaching
)their children.
The pages listed above have nothing to do with secret occult mystery
schools. Nothing at all. (Secret Occult mystery schools have nothing
to do with WE either, but that's beside the point.)
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:39:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Dottie' Taunts (was creditibility) (was no good thing)
)Dottie I will not react to your taunts, but keep it up, you may be next.
) Dan if you don't mind I would like to respond to Dottie's' taunt
Mommy!
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:03:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
)Tarjei Straume writes:
)
))He never promoted ideals based upon blood, race, tribe, or
))nationality. On the contrary, he always warned against how dangerous
))such ideals were. Examples from his lectures are legion.
Peter S:
)That's a non-sequitur.
It is a fact.
)No-one denies that Steiner sometimes condemned said ideals (for
)purposes of this discussion, I'll even stipulate that such examples
)are "legion" within his collected writings). This obviously has
)nothing to do with the question of whether Steiner on other
)occasions, in other writings and speeches, swore fealty to such
)ideals. Unfortunately for your argument, examples of the latter are
)legion as well.
That is fiction. On numrous occasions, RS explained how important and
powerful such ties were in the past, but when he spoke about the
evolution of the present and the future, he always emphasized the
significance of becoming a "homeless soul". A "homeless soul"
according to RS is a person who has completely outgrown all
identification with family, tribe, blood, race, and nationality. He
said this is a prerequisite for modern initiatiion, and that also
Goethe was such a homeless soul.
)That is why it makes no sense to pick out one of the remarks
)condemning ideals of race and nation and declare that it represents
)Steiner's "summing up" on the matter, as if this single remark -- or
)even all similar remarks taken as a whole -- somehow erased all the
)other remarks he made that celebrate ideals of race and nation.
The example does indeed make sense, because it sums up Steiner's view
on the matter. The notion that he celebrated or swore fealty to blood
relationships or heritage is fiction, because the opposite is true.
RS regarded the ideals in question as dangerous:
*********************************************************
And so, in order to create dissensions, Ahriman also makes use of
what develops from the old conditions of heredity which man has
really outgrown in the Fifth Post-Atlantean Epoch. The Ahrimanic
powers use all that is derived from old circumstances of heredity in
order to set men against each other in conflicting groups. All that
comes from old differences of family, race, tribe, peoples, is used
by Ahriman to create confusion.
***********************************************************
- "The Ahrimanic Deception", Zurich, 27th October, 1919. GA 193
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:09:59 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Peter S:
)Hi Sune,
is no longer a subscriber.
)how nice to hear from you again. I see that you're still confused
)about what the word "liar" means. In order for an assertion to count
)as a lie, it needs to fulfill three criteria: 1) It must be untrue.
)2) The person who expresses it must know that it is untrue. 3) It
)must be expressed in a way such that others could be deceived about
)its untruthfulness (in other words, if I say "you're a big green
)toad," I'm not lying). None of your many complaints about my
)arguments fulfills all three of these conditions.
The only condition that may be difficult to demonstrate is 2). So
we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really
believe those lies.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:51:39 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Moderator welcomes known liar back to the WC-show
Peter S:
)Hi Tarjei,
)
)at least we've gotten past the silliness about "lying." You write:
Tarjei:
))Cato Schi–tz mentions three factual errors in Staudenmaier's two
))first sentences alone. Staudenmaier says that Steiner in 1910
))travelled on a speaking tour of Norway for "a large and attentive
))audience" in Oslo. The fact is that Steiner was not on any tour at
))all - he was only visiting Christiania (Oslo).
Peter S:
)I don't know what the difference between a "tour" and a "visit" is.
)I therefore plead guilty on this count.
A tour is a scheduled travel from town to town.
Tarjei:
))The lecture itself was
))not held for "a large and attentive audience". It wasn't even a
))public lecture, but an internal lecture for members with 68
))Norwegians present in addition to the foreigners who came followed
))Steiner.
Peter S:
)Another non-sequitur. Do you think that "large" and "public" mean
)the same thing?
The audience was small, not large.
Tarjei:
))Thirdly, Staudenmaier did not even succeed in rendering the
))title of the lecture correctly.
Peter S:
)Since neither you nor I was present at the lecture, and since no
)transcript of it has ever been published, it is impossible for
)either of us to establish what its title was. The title I gave, as
)both I and Sune have explained, comes from an anthroposophist
)source. I suggest you take up your complaint with the spirit of Mr.
)Mandl.
It is not something I am complaining about. Cato Schi–tz is simply
showing how a distorted picture can also be reflected in sloppiness
with details.
Tarjei:
))In the next main section with the heading "Who was Rudolf Steiner?",
))Staudenmaier writes introductorily about Steiner's family and his
))so-called formative years. Steiner's father is however mentiuoned as
))a "mid-level civil servant" -
Peter S:
)You are perhaps unaware that the railroads were owned by the state
)in Austria. Steiner senior was thus indeed a civil servant. (Or did
)you mean that he wasn't "mid-level"?)
It may be semantic nit-picking, and because it's Schi–tz' argument,
it may be Humanist's tranalation, but to use a critic's argument, I
would add that because the editors of Humanist apparently share your
worldview as well as your opinion about RS, they must have gotten
every word exactly right.
Peter S:
))which is of course wrong, and his real
))formative years in Weimar are excluded completely.
Peter S:
)Yes, because they weren't formative of anything other than his
)annotations to Goethe.
They are hie formative years because this was when RS began to
discover the future course of his life.
Tarjei:
))No important errors - ok, but when one blunders with so easily
))verifiable facts, it is understandable that when Staudenmaier comes
))to the considerations and judgements, he goes from bad to worse.
Peter S:
)Yet another non-sequitur.
On the contrary: The sequitor here is very obvious.
Peter S:
)None of my considerations or judgements would change in any way even
)if all of the above facts were different. More important, you
)wouldn't like my considerations and judgements even if you agreed
)with all of my factual claims.
If your claims were all factual, the distortions you present would be
self-evident also to the alert readers who know little or nothing
about the subject.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:05:12 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
Peter S (to Dottie):
)I don't think that Sune's absence is fortunate for me. I think you
)joined the list too late to see this, but when I first began posting
)here Sune was my favorite adversary. He knows a good deal more about
)anthroposophy than most of the other anthros I've had to spar with.
You're giving me the distinct impression that this is a sport you
enjoy, that you're having fun with. Your favorite sparring partner
and all that. You also seem to enjoy engendering debates.
Frankly, I don't think this is fun, and neither does Sune. I will
only publish another handful of articles and rest my case.
)Last, your comment about context is wide of the mark. It is
)precisely the fact that my articles put Steiner's arguments into
)their historical and ideological context that so enrages people like
)Tarjei and Sune.
On the contrary, Peter. The reason why people like Sune and myself
react to this, is that you are actually changing and distorting the
historical and ideological contexts to your own liking; you are
falsifying it. This is why Sune calls you a liar, not a favorite
sparring partner.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:13:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Newpaul:
)Why would I want to read anything by a guy who clearly doesn't believe
)the scriptures at all.
Why are you reading posts by your fellow critics, Newpaul?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:55:43 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) Newpaul:
)
) )Why would I want to read anything by a guy who clearly doesn't believe
) )the scriptures at all.
)
Tarjei
) Why are you reading posts by your fellow critics, Newpaul?
)
Newpaul
You have taken my out of the context of the discussion. Why would I
want to read and study Jesus and Christianity from a guy who doesn't
believe the scriptures at all?
I read the posts of critics because interesting enough Waldorf Education
is so offensive that it can unite fundamentalist Christians and hard
core Secular Humanists together in opposition to its lies and its
deceptions. This is a struggle where religion and science can agree
that the cult of Anthroposophy and its sectarian Waldorf Schools are
deceptive, unscientific, occult, and perpetuate the spirit of the
anti-christ. This strange coop of seemingly opposite groups makes an
interesting statement about just how offensive Waldorf really is.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:03:00 +0000
From: (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
Newpaul wrote:
) I read the posts of critics because interesting enough Waldorf Education
) is so offensive that it can unite fundamentalist Christians and hard
) core Secular Humanists together in opposition to its lies and its
) deceptions. This is a struggle where religion and science can agree
) that the cult of Anthroposophy and its sectarian Waldorf Schools are
) deceptive, unscientific, occult, and perpetuate the spirit of the
) anti-christ. This strange coop of seemingly opposite groups makes an
) interesting statement about just how offensive Waldorf really is.
And with this I'm unsubscribing from the WC discussion list.
I know not ALL critics are such intolerant bigots, but if you align
yourself with those who wish to deny other people their religious
FREEDOMS you end up looking just as bad. The concept that all
anthroposophists have some secret EVIL agenda that is being perpetuated
on this list (and unfortunately voices like Newpaul and Su's ring out
more loudly than those of Lisa and Diane) is no different than the
antisemetic views put forth by neonazis. Unfortunately, the very real
concerns about waldorf schools religious orientation are lost in what
can only be read as those concerns being a smokescreen for a bigotted
campaign against anthroposophy. All I can see right now are the caring
women I know who went into teaching in waldorf schools because of their
love of children, out of their own attachment parenting, who came to
waldorf through reading Elkind, and Gardner, and found in waldorf the
best chance to nurture children's love of learning. Not a perfect
system, but the only one that was developmental in design. If anything,
participating here has convinced me to work with my local waldorf
schools more.
Now, I live two blocks from the US Embassy here in Ottawa, and I'm
getting my kids out of the city.
Kerr
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:43:06 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
)
) Newpaul wrote:
)
) ) I read the posts of critics because interesting enough Waldorf Education
) ) is so offensive that it can unite fundamentalist Christians and hard
) ) core Secular Humanists together in opposition to its lies and its
) ) deceptions. This is a struggle where religion and science can agree
) ) that the cult of Anthroposophy and its sectarian Waldorf Schools are
) ) deceptive, unscientific, occult, and perpetuate the spirit of the
) ) anti-christ. This strange coop of seemingly opposite groups makes an
) ) interesting statement about just how offensive Waldorf really is.
dirtwitch, Kerr writes
) And with this I'm unsubscribing from the WC discussion list.
)
) I know not ALL critics are such intolerant bigots, but if you align
) yourself with those who wish to deny other people their religious
) FREEDOMS you end up looking just as bad. The concept that all
)anthroposophists have some secret EVIL agenda that is being perpetuated
)on this list (and unfortunately voices like Newpaul and Su's ring out
)more loudly than those of Lisa and Diane) is no different than the
)antisemetic views put forth by neonazis. )
I think you read a lot into my statement which I did not say. I never
denied Anthroposophists the right to exist. I do deny them the right to
secretly indoctrinate my children with their occult religion. I never
said Anthros are evil, I said that the activities of Anthros and WE
perpetuate the spirit of the anti christ. With regards to what a bigot
really acts like, I think your response and blanket condemnation is far
more illustrative of the intolerance that a real bigot exhibits than my
own statements. If you will go to the Plans site, you will see this
same sentiment expressed by Dan Dugan. (although his does not discuss
the spirit of the anti christ.)
Dirtwitch, Kerr
) Now, I live two blocks from the US Embassy here in Ottawa, and I'm
) getting my kids out of the city.
)
I am real curious about this statement. Could you help me understand
the relevance ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:06:51 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
)Dirtwitch, Kerr
) ) Now, I live two blocks from the US Embassy here in Ottawa, and I'm
) ) getting my kids out of the city.
) )
)
)Newpaul:
)I am real curious about this statement. Could you help me understand
)the relevance ?
)
DL: Most likely it is due to the apparent terroristic attacks in the U.S.
today. There are many people high-tailing it out of high profile potential
target areas.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:46:26 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
Newpaul wrote:
) I never said Anthros are evil, I said that the activities of
) Anthros and WE perpetuate the spirit of the anti christ.
Magnificent! I think I may print this one out and put it on my wall!
- Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:13:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
))TARJEI STRAUME quoted Steiner:
)))))It would, of course, be extraordinarily philistine to wish to say:
)))))That was an incarnation of Lucifer, hence we must flee from it! Such
)))))philistinism could make one also flee from the beauty and greatness
)))))that has come to mankind from this Luciferic stream, for the fruits
)))))of Greek culture with all their beauty, proceeded, as already said,
)))))from this stream of evolution. The whole of Gnostic thought existing
)))))at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, an impressive wisdom shedding
)))))light deep into cosmic realities - this whole Gnostic knowledge was
)))))inspired by the impulse coming from Luciferic forces. One must not
)))))say that Gnostic thought is therefore false; one is merely
)))))characterizing it by saying that it is permeated by Luciferic forces.
)))
))))Dan Dugan:
))))OK, so the Luciferic stream of evolution produced Greek culture.
))))And there was another stream, tell us about that, Tarjei.
))
))TARJEI
)The Christ impulse. But we'd better not get into that, because
)Newpaul will quote the Bible and we'll be on the brink of theology
)again.
)
))DD:
))No, Tarjei, you're evading, that's not the proper Anthroposophical
))answer. Steiner talked about two cultural streams. Tell us about
))the other one.
TARJEI
)My "evasion" is your invention. I don't have time for this. It's in
)the lectures. You can look it up as easily as anyone and quote all
)you want. I'm working on articles that will put an end to the
)"anthro-Nazi" nonsense. What you think about cultural streams, or
)about RS' sculpture and architecture for that matter, is not
)important.
I didn't think you'd be willing, Tarjei, to explain that Steiner
taught about Aryan and Jewish cultural streams being opposing
polarities. Steiner's listeners would recognize his reference to
Heinrich Heine (below) as typifying a Jewish author. And if the Greek
stream was Luciferic, as Tarjei expounds above, the Jewish stream
would be Ahrimanic.
"Now everything artistic that comes towards mankind is divided into
two streams, the sculptural, pictorial stream and the musical, poetic
stream. These two streams of art, the sculptural and pictorial and
the musical and poetic, are indeed polar opposites, though just
because of their polarity they are also especially capable of a
higher synthesis, a higher union. You obviously know that this
duality in the artistic realm even finds expression racially in world
evolution. You need only remind yourselves of certain writings of
Heinrich Heine and your attention will be drawn to this duality: All
that emanates from the Greek peoples or is related to them, all that
has grown from the being of the Greek peoples in a manner suited to
their race is in the most exalted sense directed towards the
sculptural, pictorial formation of the world; and all that emanates
from the Jewish element is disposed towards the musical element of
the world. Thus we find these two streams divided even racially and
those who are receptive to such things will have no difficulty in
tracing this in the history of art. Naturally and quite justifiably
there are always efforts to unite the musical with the sculptural and
pictorial. However, they may only be entirely united in eurythmy when
it is fully developed so that the musical and the visible can become
one."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Practical Advice to Teachers: Fourteen lectures
given at the foundation of the Waldorf School, Stuttgart, from 21
August to 5 September 1919. Trans. Johanna Collis. New York:
Anthroposophic Press, 1988. pp. 40-41]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:19:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
At 10:14 AM -0500 9/10/01, D L wrote:
)))DL wrote:
)))Any of the Critics who bring up the negative examples, feel free to
)))enlighten me as to the purpose of the negative examples.
)
))Dan wrote:
))Waldorf schools promote themselves with anecdotal evidence. Here we
))hear the anecdotes they don't want you to hear.
))
)DL: To what purpose? THAT was the question.
So people interested in Waldorf will have "a broader view."
)))DL wrote:
)))There have been attempts to show that WE/Anthro is wrong because it
)))doesn't (in the posters beliefe) co-incide with the bible or that
)))which science can prove now or other. Using one belief system to
)))prove that another belief system is wrong creates an unwinnable
)))argument. "You belief system (i.e. Anthro) is wrong - and I know
)))it is because my belief system (i.e Christianity) says so" can
)))easily
)))be flipped to say the opposite. It usually degrades to a "I'm
)))right" - "No, I'M right" sort of exchange.
)
))Dan wrote:
))In the case of religion, it's important for families with strong
))religious beliefs to give Anthroposophy a serious check-out for
))compatibility. In the case of science, we're not talking about a
))belief system. If you don't believe in gravity you're still gonna
))fall down.
)
)DL: I didn't say science was a belief system - the belief system
)part of what I'm referring to is the belief that science has all the
)answers. It doesn't.
Of course not. Matters of purpose and meaning are in the realm of
philosophy and religion.
) And your response concerning religious differences doesn't address
)the issue. I agree that if you have strong religious beliefs - you
)should check out ANY school before enrolling your child - private or
)public. However - the point of the post was that the discussions
)about WE tend to break down into a "my belief system is better than
)yours" - there is NO WAY to settle such disputes.
)
)))DL wrote:
)))The fact that they do not push the intellect as quickly as do
)))schools such as Montessori was part of the reason we picked
)))Waldorf. American society is way too quick to get people to
)))pidgeon-hole
)))thought. To become slaves of the intellect. That WE differs from
)))conventional thought on this does not make it wrong. When thee
)))Copernican view of the solar system was first introduced - the vast
)))majority opposed the idea. And those who embraced it were
)))ridiculed, imprisioned or killed. Who's to say that this will not
)))happen with later development of the intellect?
)
))Dan wrote:
))Waldorf could be right about early childhood intellectual
))development, but I doubt it. This is a scientific question, and
))arguments should be based on something more than feelings.
))
)DL: How is this a scientific question? Are you implying all child
)development techniques/practices/etc should be evaluated
)scientifically?
Yes. That is the best way to compare them.
)How would you apply your "scientific question" to Piaget's theories?
)Do you not see the riduclousness of the idea that we must use an
)intellectually based approach to evaluate whether or not a focus on
)the intellect is good.
Ridiculous? This is just the kind of question that scientific
research can answer.
)However, it was refreshing to hear a Critic actually admit that WE
)*could* be right - even if they doubt it.
)
)Science has its place - but it is not all powerful - no matter what
)you personally believe.
Forget about that science straw man, David. The real world is more
complex, and more interesting.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:26:36 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: infant meningitis infection increases disabilities
At 10:44 AM -0500 9/10/01, D L wrote:
))))Dan wrote:
))))Anthroposophical physicians teach Waldorf parents that fever is
))))good, and that childhood diseases are a necessary part of
))))development that
))))shouldn't be hindered by immunizations. This theory is contradicted
))))by a recent British study of infant cases of meningitis:
)))
)))DL asks: Dan, do Anthroposophical physicians say all fevers are
)))good? If so, can you provide supporting evidence? And what do the
)))after effects of Meningitis have to do with advocating fevers (if
)))they indeed say this) and avoidance of immunizations (which not all
)))Anthros support, by the way)?
)
))Dan wrote:
))DL, you're quibbling. If you have a substantial argument, please make it.
)
)DL: No - I am not quibbling. I am asking an on topic question. How
)about either answering it or bugging off? I asked a relevant
)question - are you saying that AP physicians say all fevers are
)good? And I did not understand the connection between AP physicians
)saying fevers are good and the meningittis article.
They preach that fever is good and should not be treated per se, and
that surviving childhood diseases makes children stronger. The
British study shows that that advice to be dangerous; a meningal
fever can be very damaging. A Waldorf parent who's just heard an
Anthropop physician lecture at the school about how good it is to let
childhood illnesses run their course would be less likely to take the
endangered child to a hospital, don't you think? And the Anthropops
are tragically wrong about the consequences of following their advice.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:44:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
Kerr, to make a long argument shorter, you wrote,
)I really don't get your point, you asked for waldorf sources that
)presented methodology - not anthroposophy, I gave them to you and you
)don't want waldorf sources because they are waldorf? What exactly DO
)you want?
You claimed that there was a "Waldorf method" separate from
Anthroposophy. I challenged you to show me its literature. You came
back with mostly Anthroposophical publications, claiming that they
didn't contain Anthroposophy. That isn't true for those that I am
familiar with. Perhaps you don't recognize Anthroposophy when you see
it. Something that was preached by Steiner and is believed only by
Anthroposophists is Anthroposophical doctrine. For example, the
doctrine that children can't (or rather shouldn't) think logically
until puberty.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:08:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
))Dan wrote:
))It's a discussion list, David. In my book it has integrity as long
))as it stays on topic. Individuals are responsible for their own.
))This is a phony and time-wasting topic.
))
)DL: Two things - so the list can have people lyiong left and right
)and as long as they lie about WE or PLANS - the integrity is intact.
)Lurkers - be aware of this belief that Dan has.. Very aware. And
)the topic is only phony or time-wasting is you believe that honesty
)is irrelevant.
(snip)
))Dan wrote:
))I'll do anything I can to encourage scientific study of Waldorf
))education. Any suggestions?
))
)DL: I don't beliebe you really wanty a scientific study as you seem
)very willing to dismiss honesty as a part of integrity.
David, I take this insulting ad hominem language personally, and I
will not tolerate it. You have been warned.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:11:51 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Interesting, Kerry (if you are still here to read), in this area I have yet
to meet a Waldorf teacher with children of her own. Maybe that makes a
major difference.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:20:28 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
Dan Dugan:
)I didn't think you'd be willing, Tarjei, to explain that Steiner
)taught about Aryan and Jewish cultural streams being opposing
)polarities. Steiner's listeners would recognize his reference to
)Heinrich Heine (below) as typifying a Jewish author. And if the
)Greek stream was Luciferic, as Tarjei expounds above, the Jewish
)stream would be Ahrimanic.
This is an error. All pre-Christian wisdom is Luciferic. The errors
that have gradually developed in the old cultures regarding the power
of judgement is ahrimanic. The Hebrew sages and seers were
reincarnated spiritual leaders from various old civilizations.
Your endeavor to paint anthroposophy as an anti-Semitic philosophy
will never bear fruit.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:46:37 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Believed which?
----- Original Message -----
From: "charlie morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
) (snipped)
) Dan asks Neil:
) What's the social impact of
) ) believing in "the occult significance of blood"?
)
) charlie (butting in):
) After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything
racist
) in it.
) According to Steiner, humanity reaches a higher stage of evolution when
) exogamy supercedes endogamy. Therefore if you believe that Steiner thought
) of Aryans as a race; and that he thought that the only way they could
) progress was to practice exogamy; then, logically, the act of
exterminating
) other races in order to breed pure Aryans would be totally against
Steiner's
) idea of progress.
)
) So what I get from reading 'The Occult Significance of Blood' is that
) the progress of humanity takes the following course:
) 1. We feel at one with our family.
) 2. We view ourselves as part of a nation.
) 3. We feel united with the whole of humankind.
) 4. We feel the unity of all life on earth.
)
) In order to evolve towards freedom we need to overcome family and
) racial/national ties.
)
) What would the social impact be if everone in Northern Ireland, Israel and
) the former Yugoslavia believed this?
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:50:28 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
))))Dan:
))))Interesting. Scientific method is immoral, except when people claim
))))there's something wrong with Waldorf, then they have to have
))))scientific evidence...
))))
)))DL wrote:
)))Dan - when have I ever called scientific method immoral?
)
))Dan:
))I didn't say you did, and you didn't. I see how my mentioning that
))oft-heard Anthropop theme in a reply to your post might make you
))think I was referring to you, sorry.
))
)DL: You really expect me to believe that? Then please explain the purpose
)of the "off-heard Anthropop theme" in your reply. What exactly did you
)mean
)by it?
)
)
DL writes: Dan - in your (apparent) rush to warn me about what you
considered an ad hom attack, it seems you missed the last part of the email.
There's a question pending and I'd love to hear the answer.
What exactly did you mean by it?
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:03:23 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
on 9/10/01 4:54 PM, dottie zold at dottie_z yahoo.com wrote:
)) Newpaul
)) I am
)) saying that there is historical and archeological
)) evidence to support
)) most of what is written about in the bible.
)
) Dottie
)
) Bullcrap!!!
)
)
) Paul
) On the
)) other hand,
)) anthroposophists can only accept what Steiner told
)) them on an intuitive
)) basis.
)
) Dottie
)
) So that means you NEWPAUL or PAUL were actually there
) at the scene of Golgotha when the cruxifiction went
) down, right?
Sharon:
This list time and time again, reinforces the wisdom of separation of church
and state! This list is a perfect example of the nature of beliefs and
believers. Fortunately we are all entitled to our own views, (US Civil Code
(Civil Rights) Article 42, section 1983).
Dottie, what do you believe happened at the scene of Golgotha? As you know,
the mystery of Golgotha is quite significant in Anthroposophical Theology.
Steiner often spoke of the mystery of Golgotha and I notice that the
Templars, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, along with orthodox Christians, also
place a significance on the mystery of Golgotha. Templars believed that
Christ was beheaded at Golgotha. Orthodox Christians say that Christ
transcended in his perfect body to heaven, Freemasons conclude that at the
place called Golgotha, (meaning "the place of a skull" in Hebrew) the
Passion of the great Master terminated, it ended in the head or seat of
intelligence and in a mystery of spiritual consciousness. (Evidently, the
sprig of acacia planted at the head of a Masonic Grand Master's grave, is a
veiled symbol for the mystery of Golgotha, and when the acacia blooms at the
head of the soul's sepulchre, he will understand many mysteries, including
the meaning of the Royal Arch.) The cranium or skull is given prominence in
the Master Mason's Degree which has to do with understanding the Universal
mind.
The following paragraph has stayed with me in my studies as it offers a
glimpse into the meaning of heads in occult literature, and perhaps a clue
as to the significance of heads in Anthroposophy. Isabel Wyatt writes in
John Fletcher's book "Painted Churches of Romania" (New Knowledge Books,
London):
"Such a painting as the one of John the Baptist at Sucevita startles us into
certainty that either the anonymous artist had deep esoteric knowledge or
else that he painted out of a deep esoteric tradition, even if he no longer
altogether understood it. St. John carried his head on a platter; this is
something much more than a conventional attribute by which a saint can be
identified. It points to a significant secret which Rudolf Steiner has
revealed to us. For Herodias demanded the Baptist's head on a dish for use
in degenerate black magic Mysteries; but what she actually did in bringing
about his beheading was to free his being, first to overshadow and
strengthen the Twelve around Christ, and then to unite its own greatness
with that of St. John the Divine" pgs. 11-12.
Sharon:
After reading quite a bit about the mystery of Golgotha from Steiner, and
learning about the Baphomet, the head of Christ in Templar beliefs, (Christ
was supposedly beheaded and his mummified head used as a chalice for secret
religious ceremonies ) I started to wonder if a similar interpretation lies
deep within Anthroposophy. At first I suspected that the head was just a
reference to transcendence or reincarnation, ( Steiner often refers to the
head and skull being significant (for example it becomes the limbs in the
next reincarnation)....but I would love to know what you think Dotty, (or
Tarjei who features heads on his web site!) Just curious if Anthroposophists
believe Christ was beheaded and if this is a secret mystery in
Anthroposophy, or one we can all have knowledge of.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:44:02 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: No Good Thing in Waldorf Ed.? (was any)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)I didn't think you'd be willing, Tarjei, to explain that Steiner
)taught about Aryan and Jewish cultural streams being opposing
)polarities.
I have already commented on this, but a fuller response may be in
order. This is found in the seventh lecture of the cycle "The Mission
of single Folk Souls in relation to Germanic-Nordic Mythology" -
published on Sune's website at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits-7.htm -
where we can read the following words by RS:
****************************************************
He who, surveying the Universe, persisted in explaining the phenomena of
the Cosmos by a single ultimate principle, a monon, would remain prisoner
of his limitations. Monism or monotheism in itself can only represent an
ultimate ideal; it could never lead to a real understanding of the world,
to a comprehensive, concrete view of the world. Nevertheless, in the
post-Atlantean age the current of monotheism also had to be represented, so
that the urge, the impulse towards monotheism devolved upon a single
people, the Semitic people. The monistic principle is reflected in this
people by a certain rigidity or inflexibility, whilst all the other
peoples, in so far as their different divinities are comprehended in a
unity, receive the impulse towards monism from them. The monistic impulse
has always come from the Semitic people. The other peoples are inclined to
pluralism.
It is extremely important that this should be borne in mind and whoever is
concerned with the continuance of the old Hebraic impulse will find the
extremes of monotheism at the present day amongst the learned Rabbis, in
Rabbinism. The task of this particular people is to propagate the doctrine
that a single ultimate principle underlies the world. The task of all other
nations, peoples and Time Spirits was analytic, to represent the one
World-Principle as articulated into different Beings. In India, for
example, the ultimate abstraction of the Unity underlying all things was
divided into a tri-unity, just as the one God of Christianity is divided
into Three Persons. The task of the other nations was to 'analyse' ultimate
Reality and so to furnish particular aspects of it with plentiful content,
to fill themselves with rich material for those representations which can
apprehend phenomena with sympathetic understanding. The task of the Semitic
people was to eschew all pluralism and to devote itself to synthesis, to
the doctrine of one substance. Hence the power of speculation, the power of
synthetic thought which is illustrated by Cabbalism is unsurpassed
precisely because it stems from this impulse.
Everything that could possibly be distilled from the unitary principle by
the synthesizing activity of the 'I' has been distilled by the Semitic
spirit in the course of thousands of years. This is the significance of the
Semitic influence in the world and illustrates the polarity between
pluralism and monism. Monism is not possible without pluralism. Pluralism
is not possible without monism. We must recognize the necessity for both.
****************************************************
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:09:15 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
)))))Dan:
)))))Interesting. Scientific method is immoral, except when people claim
)))))there's something wrong with Waldorf, then they have to have
)))))scientific evidence...
)))))
))))DL wrote:
))))Dan - when have I ever called scientific method immoral?
))
)))Dan:
)))I didn't say you did, and you didn't. I see how my mentioning that
)))oft-heard Anthropop theme in a reply to your post might make you
)))think I was referring to you, sorry.
)))
))DL: You really expect me to believe that? Then please explain the
))purpose
))of the "off-heard Anthropop theme" in your reply. What exactly did you
))mean
))by it?
))
))
)DL writes: Dan - in your (apparent) rush to warn me about what you
)considered an ad hom attack, it seems you missed the last part of the
)email.
) There's a question pending and I'd love to hear the answer.
)
)What exactly did you mean by it?
)
)Shalom
)
)DL
)
Dan, you don't need to respond to the above post. In the light of the awful
tragedy that happened today - I've been doing some major soul searching. I
have at times been very antagonistic on this site. Mostly in response to
what I perceived as antagonism and hypsocrisy from individuals on this site.
Regardless of the reasons for my actions - I am not pleased with them.
I respectfully request that all members of this list take a minute and
consider their actions on this list. Privately. Just between you and your
God or other deity or if you don't believe in such, your conscience.
Consider if your actions are making the world a better place - a more
peaceful, loving place. It is easy to get caught up in our agendas and then
use the agenda to justify our actions. Well, I'm only giving back what they
sent/said/did - but this only prolongs/continues the problem. It doesn't
solve the problem.
I originally signed up on this list to find out information about WE as my
child would be attending one. But beyond that apparent reason, I discovered
another. I actually discovered it a while ago with MK, but managed to
justify my actions despite my realization. The real reason I think I came
upon this list and signed up was to learn a lesson about love. About
judgement. About acceptance.
It's easy to cast your enemy in a negative light and then use that image to
fuel your fight/anger/anguish - but in doing so, we lose sight of who this
person we see as our enemy TRULY is. I know I've done that with members of
this list and I'm relatively sure that others have done this with me.
To those I have treated less than compassionately or lovingly - I apologize.
The fact that I might disagree with what you say or how you say it does
not give me the right to treat you in a manner I would not want others to
treat me.
Two quotes that I have found to be helpful in my journeys....
"Resist ye not Evil"
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
The first one is difficult to get by many people. I'm not going to presume
to tell any of you what it means - but for me it relates to the idea that
(as the French say) "That which you resist, persists" (okay, so not as the
French would say - they probably would have said it in French)
The second one has a double edge. I think most of us do love our neighbors
as we love ourselves. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of
"self-love" out there.
Wishing peace (shalom) upon all who read these words.
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:13:40 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
)Tarjei Straume wrote:
))
)) Newpaul:
))
)) )Why would I want to read anything by a guy who clearly doesn't believe
)) )the scriptures at all.
))
)
)Tarjei
)) Why are you reading posts by your fellow critics, Newpaul?
))
)Newpaul
)You have taken my out of the context of the discussion.
True, but you did wrtite that you would not read _anything _ written
by non-believers.
)Why would I want to read and study Jesus and Christianity from a guy
)who doesn't believe the scriptures at all?
Perhaps you're more interested in reading an article about WE by
someone who does. If you are, I would recommend the article "Is
Waldorf Education Christian?" By William Ward at
http://www.awsna.org/publications-renewal-christian.html.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:22:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
DL wrote:
)In the light of the awful tragedy that happened today - I've been
)doing some major soul searching. I have at times been very
)antagonistic on this site. Mostly in response to what I perceived
)as antagonism and hypsocrisy from individuals on this site.
)Regardless of the reasons for my actions - I am not pleased with
)them.
At the risk of annoying the moderator with an off-topic post, here
are a few words about how the tragedy is perceived from Europe:
I've been watching Norwegian and Swedish coverage, plus BBC World and
Deutsche Welte this evening. Shock, shock ,shock. This is an attack
not only on the U.S., but on the civilized world. In Germany and in
Norway, security is stepped up, also military security. At the
military installations, a protective ring is closed around the
American soldiers and personnel, and every effort is made to help
them get in touch with loved ones in America, but there have been
communication problems. As security is also stepped up around the
U.S. embassy here in Oslo, people are expressing their sympathy by
placing flowers and candles around the embassy property.
The world is rallying behind America. There are NATO meetings, and we
are reminded that an attack against one member of the alliance is an
attack upon all the members, Who would have thought that the
strongest member of the alliance would be attacked like this? When it
can happen in America, it can happen everywhere. This risk is the
price we pay for having open democratic societies.
If America retaliates in a way that looks bad, and that creates new
innocent victims in another country, it could lose the unprecedented
support that it enjoys the world over at this moment. So the best
thing America can do is to show restraint. It will pay off in the
long run.
All domestic flights in the U.S. have been cancelled until Wednesday.
All international flights to the U.S. the world over have also been
cancelled. Flights from Scandinavia to the U.S. have been cancelled
for a week.
Let us hope that at least _some_ of the international solidarity
awakened by this tragic act of madness will have a lasting effect and
bring the world a little closer. Just a thought, which is not very
clear, because I am also in shock.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:56:42 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
Tarjei - thank you for what you shared.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:06:46 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
Thank you, Tarjei.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:40:05 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
Tarjei,
Thank you from me as well.
Paula K.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:50:39 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned on this list that I'm an employee of the
US Defense Department; what I probably haven't said is that I have been
"helping" a friend by working in the Pentagon a few days a week over the
course of the summer.
I'm afraid the area I work in appears to have been among the areas most
heavily damaged today, so I would appreciate thoughts and prayers for my
co-workers, friends, and acquaintances.
Had the attack occurred twenty-four hours later, I would have been in
the middle of it. I doubt I'll sleep tonight.
David
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) DL wrote:
)
) )In the light of the awful tragedy that happened today - I've been
) )doing some major soul searching. I have at times been very
) )antagonistic on this site. Mostly in response to what I perceived
) )as antagonism and hypsocrisy from individuals on this site.
) )Regardless of the reasons for my actions - I am not pleased with
) )them.
)
) At the risk of annoying the moderator with an off-topic post, here
) are a few words about how the tragedy is perceived from Europe:
)
) I've been watching Norwegian and Swedish coverage, plus BBC World and
) Deutsche Welte this evening. Shock, shock ,shock. This is an attack
) not only on the U.S., but on the civilized world. In Germany and in
) Norway, security is stepped up, also military security. At the
) military installations, a protective ring is closed around the
) American soldiers and personnel, and every effort is made to help
) them get in touch with loved ones in America, but there have been
) communication problems. As security is also stepped up around the
) U.S. embassy here in Oslo, people are expressing their sympathy by
) placing flowers and candles around the embassy property.
)
) The world is rallying behind America. There are NATO meetings, and we
) are reminded that an attack against one member of the alliance is an
) attack upon all the members, Who would have thought that the
) strongest member of the alliance would be attacked like this? When it
) can happen in America, it can happen everywhere. This risk is the
) price we pay for having open democratic societies.
)
) If America retaliates in a way that looks bad, and that creates new
) innocent victims in another country, it could lose the unprecedented
) support that it enjoys the world over at this moment. So the best
) thing America can do is to show restraint. It will pay off in the
) long run.
)
) All domestic flights in the U.S. have been cancelled until Wednesday.
) All international flights to the U.S. the world over have also been
) cancelled. Flights from Scandinavia to the U.S. have been cancelled
) for a week.
)
) Let us hope that at least _some_ of the international solidarity
) awakened by this tragic act of madness will have a lasting effect and
) bring the world a little closer. Just a thought, which is not very
) clear, because I am also in shock.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 475
-- Topica Digest --
America Attacked
By snell gv.net
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By dingman mindspring.com
NYC
By Gary GoodWinter.com
David
By snell gv.net
Re: NYC
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: David
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:59:30 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: America Attacked
Tarjei:.
)
)Let us hope that at least _some_ of the international solidarity
)awakened by this tragic act of madness will have a lasting effect and
)bring the world a little closer. Just a thought, which is not very
)clear, because I am also in shock.
Debra:
Yes indeed. It has been an incomprehensible day. I am not a TV fan, but
today I was rivited. Tears running and hand over open mouth. Thanks for
your support. Indeed it is an attack on freedom.
I'd like to think that we'd all have a ball over a drink with the only
subject off topic would be Waldorf and Anthroposophy. Just yesterday I was
interviewed by a writer for a "new Anthroposophical publication." The
interviewer didn't identify himself as an Anthro until I asked him who he
was writing the article for (after the interview).
After he told me, I asked him if he thought I had dissed on his belief
system. He said no. He said he was impressed with my depth of understanding
of Anthroposophy and actually agreed with most of my points. We had a very
friendly conversation and I hung up feeling like we had connected on a
human level.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:36:29 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
D L wrote:
)
)
) Dan, you don't need to respond to the above post. In the light of the awful
) tragedy that happened today - I've been doing some major soul searching. I
) have at times been very antagonistic on this site. Mostly in response to
) what I perceived as antagonism and hypsocrisy from individuals on this site.
) Regardless of the reasons for my actions - I am not pleased with them.
)
) I respectfully request that all members of this list take a minute and
) consider their actions on this list. Privately. Just between you and your
) God or other deity or if you don't believe in such, your conscience.
)
) Consider if your actions are making the world a better place - a more
) peaceful, loving place. It is easy to get caught up in our agendas and then
) use the agenda to justify our actions. Well, I'm only giving back what they
) sent/said/did - but this only prolongs/continues the problem. It doesn't
) solve the problem.
)
) I originally signed up on this list to find out information about WE as my
) child would be attending one. But beyond that apparent reason, I discovered
) another. I actually discovered it a while ago with MK, but managed to
) justify my actions despite my realization. The real reason I think I came
) upon this list and signed up was to learn a lesson about love. About
) judgement. About acceptance.
)
) It's easy to cast your enemy in a negative light and then use that image to
) fuel your fight/anger/anguish - but in doing so, we lose sight of who this
) person we see as our enemy TRULY is. I know I've done that with members of
) this list and I'm relatively sure that others have done this with me.
)
) To those I have treated less than compassionately or lovingly - I apologize.
) The fact that I might disagree with what you say or how you say it does
) not give me the right to treat you in a manner I would not want others to
) treat me.
)
) Two quotes that I have found to be helpful in my journeys....
)
) "Resist ye not Evil"
) "Love your neighbor as yourself"
)
) The first one is difficult to get by many people. I'm not going to presume
) to tell any of you what it means - but for me it relates to the idea that
) (as the French say) "That which you resist, persists" (okay, so not as the
) French would say - they probably would have said it in French)
)
) The second one has a double edge. I think most of us do love our neighbors
) as we love ourselves. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of
) "self-love" out there.
)
) Wishing peace (shalom) upon all who read these words.
)
DL
I appreciate your heart felt admissions, and I am guilty also of placing
my beliefs above my love for my brothers and sisters with whom I
disagree. When you get down to it, we can love each other and come
together or we can antagonize each other and create more division. Each
of us has a right to believe what we like and to educate our kids as we
wish. We are all precious to God, even if we don't know it. I
appreciate your honesty and your willingness to look at yourself. I am
touched by your by apology. I know that I have also judged and hurt
others on this list. I would like to apologize to any I have offended
and to ask that you forgive my over zealous and at times antagonistic
remarks. Especially you Dottie, and Gary (I hope you are home with
your family tonight) and Tarjei and Kerr.
Here are a couple of quotes that I find helpful.
James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he
will flee from you.
Mathew 5:43-45 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye
may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust.
For my 2 cents we are all too narcisistic I need a greater love for
those I disagree with. We are all God's children.
1 Samuel 25:6 And thus shall ye say to him that liveth [in
prosperity], Peace [be] both to thee, and peace [be] to thine house, and
peace [be] unto all that thou hast. This is the biblical definition of
Shalom may it be with all of you and yours tonight.
Paul Dingman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:44:18 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: NYC
Friends,
My Credit Suisse First Boston office is at 23rd & Park Ave South, in lower
mid-town, which is several miles from the World Trade Center. We could see
the smoke, hear the explosions, and see the collapse of the towers. The
terrible reality of what was happening became even more apparent as Park
Avenue in front of our office became filled with dazed people walking
uptown, many covered with ash and dust, all stunned, scared, confused.
Remembering my experience in downtown San Francisco after the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake, I realized I was probably going to be staying in NYC for
a couple days due to bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation being shut
down, and because of a very real fear of more attacks around town,
especially at well-traveled, well-known major transportation centers such as
Grand Central Station. I got extra cash before the ATMs ran out, bought a
bunch of food at a corner deli, bought a hand-held TV from a nearby Radio
Shack, and hunkered down in my office with my CSFB associates to
watch/listen to the news. But after talking to my wife and daughter on the
phone (who was hysterical), I became determined to get out ASAP.
I made it out of NYC through quite an adventure. 2 other Connecticut
residents and I decided to make our way uptown to the northern tip of
Manhattan, where we planned to walk across one of several bridges to get off
the island...once there, we knew we could get picked up by loved ones
waiting in cars. After much hand-waving, whistling and yelling in the
street, no taxis or town cars would stop for us. So when a bunch of cars
and trucks were stopped at a red light next to us, I offered a driver of a
delivery van $100 to take us to upper Manhattan. He accepted, and we piled
into his truck for a 150-block crawl through traffic. After over an hour of
stop-and-go (mostly stop), we came to an absolute standstill at 175th
avenue. We decided to walk the remaining 50 blocks, which took us another
hour. Finally, across the bridge, we flagged down an empty town car and for
$60 he drove us to a nearby Metro North train station, where we were able to
catch a very crowded train into Connecticut. We each departed at our
respective stations, and Barbara & Emma picked me up in South Norwalk (not
my normal station) in a frantic reunion of hugs and kisses.
I'm grateful to be home in the New England countryside with my family, and
will remain here for at least this week, perhaps much longer, depending upon
how world events unfold. The very real possibility of follow-up terrorist
attacks involving Anthrax, biological weapons, and other more "portable"
means of killing people have me wondering if I will ever feel safe enough to
return to NYC.
I'm stunned, deeply saddened, and getting my priorities in order.
Love to all,
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:46:58 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: David
David:
)I'm pretty sure I've mentioned on this list that I'm an employee of the
)US Defense Department; what I probably haven't said is that I have been
)"helping" a friend by working in the Pentagon a few days a week over the
)course of the summer.
)
)I'm afraid the area I work in appears to have been among the areas most
)heavily damaged today, so I would appreciate thoughts and prayers for my
)co-workers, friends, and acquaintances.
)
)Had the attack occurred twenty-four hours later, I would have been in
)the middle of it. I doubt I'll sleep tonight.
Debra:
I'm so sorry, David. I just had a dark feeling that some of us here would
be very deeply affected. I escaped this time. Max's best friend's brother
lives two blocks from the World Trade Center. He happened to be in
Baltimore for a seminar scheduled for today.
My sister's Mother-in-law died yesterday in Iowa. My planned trip to take
them to Sacramento airport was affected, but luckily the airports closed
_before_ we even left. Her sister in law wasn't so lucky. She left this
morning for her mother's funeral from one of the airports whose plane was
used. (Dulling, Virginia.) It took a few hours, but we learned that she was
grounded in Michigan, and not on the ill-fated flight.
My sister's family are still hoping to make the funeral by air, (CA to
Iowa) but we're not sure if they will be able to. It is a sad day when
terrorists can keep Americans from attending our mother's funeral. Freedom
was indeed attacked.
David, I am so sorry for all the victims and their friends and families.
This is surely the work of skilled mad men. My husband said "Interesting
that it happened on 9/11." (911 is America's universal emergency phone
number.)
Wonder what Steiner would have thought about the souls of the suicide
hijackers. (Does that statement qualify for being on topic?)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:13:08 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: NYC
Great to hear you are safe and home tonight. Shalom be to you and
yours.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:35:35 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: David
Debra wrote:
)Wonder what Steiner would have thought about the souls of the suicide
)hijackers.
Well, in his first speech early in the day, president Bush missed the
mark when he called these acts "cowardly". On the contrary, we're
dealing with with tremendous guts, fearlessness, determination, iron
will. Reprehensible, yes. Cold-blooded, yes. Unconscionable, yes. But
cowardly? Not by a long shot. Conventional "deterrants" won't work.
The peoples of the West will need to find a matching level of
fearlessness first, and then take it from there. RS would probably
agree with that. And so would FDR.
Like the president said in his praiseworthy Oval Office speech, they
can crush the steel of buildings but not the steel of American
resolve. I believe that. It was proven on D-day 1944 - a day for
which all true Europeans are still deeply grateful.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 07:59:29 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Paula asks:
) Believed which?
charlie:
What I was trying to say was that if people in these troubled places could
feel the same love for the whole of life and the whole of humankind as they
do for their own race or group, then they wouldn't perpetrate the atrocities
that they do, and that would be a social impact worth seeing.
From what has just happened, it seems we have a long way to go. My heart
goes out to all those affected by these tragic events.
warm regards,
charlie.
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "charlie morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:02 PM
) Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
)
)
) ) (snipped)
) ) Dan asks Neil:
) ) What's the social impact of
) ) ) believing in "the occult significance of blood"?
) )
) ) charlie (butting in):
) ) After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything
) racist
) ) in it.
) ) According to Steiner, humanity reaches a higher stage of evolution when
) ) exogamy supercedes endogamy. Therefore if you believe that Steiner
thought
) ) of Aryans as a race; and that he thought that the only way they could
) ) progress was to practice exogamy; then, logically, the act of
) exterminating
) ) other races in order to breed pure Aryans would be totally against
) Steiner's
) ) idea of progress.
) )
) ) So what I get from reading 'The Occult Significance of Blood' is that
) ) the progress of humanity takes the following course:
) ) 1. We feel at one with our family.
) ) 2. We view ourselves as part of a nation.
) ) 3. We feel united with the whole of humankind.
) ) 4. We feel the unity of all life on earth.
) )
) ) In order to evolve towards freedom we need to overcome family and
) ) racial/national ties.
) )
) ) What would the social impact be if everone in Northern Ireland, Israel
and
) ) the former Yugoslavia believed this?
) )
) ) warm regards,
) ) charlie.
) )
) )
) )
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:07:41 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
Newpaul:
)Here are a couple of quotes that I find helpful.
)
)James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he
)will flee from you.
Debra:
Newpaul, this seems like a good example as any of what you still don't
understand in this debate. The "devil" (also known as Lucifer) isn't the
same character to Anthroposophy as he is to mainstrean Christians. To make
a valid point, you must turn to science and acknowledge this difference.
Anthroposophists are more liberal in some ways. They make room for Lucifer.
(Call it new age psychology.) They acknowledge his presence like you do,
they even accomodate him to a certain extent. (They aim for balance.) When
you cast stone on Lucifer by calling him the devil, it is offensive to
Anthroposophy, and actually shows that you *still* don't get where they are
coming from. You will be accused (and judged) of looking too shallow.
Academically speaking, Anthroposophy has a place to lead you from where you
are. (There are deeper levels of Christianity, and they depend on your
willingness to explore...)
Personally, I've decided that one can't fight religion with religion. It
just doesn't work. Look at NYC tonight. This terrorism is a religious war
where both sides will claim victory.
Religion can be very dangerous to innocent people who aren't even involved
with the coversation. Personally I'd rather communicate with outspoken
people who expect outspoken exchange. I can deal with differences, once I
know where they are. It's the not knowing that I disagree with. It can be
dangerous to our children. Anthroposophy beware.
Paul:
(snip the rest)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 476
-- Topica Digest --
Re: David
By mysplum earthlink.net
Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: David
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: David
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: David
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: David
By tastraum uncletaz.com
David!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: David
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: David
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: David!
By canndw netzero.net
Re: David
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: David!
By snell gv.net
Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
my Waldorf parents' meeting
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: my Waldorf parents' meeting
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: my Waldorf parents' meeting
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 07:28:31 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: David
on 9/11/01 11:35 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
) Well, in his first speech early in the day, president Bush missed the
) mark when he called these acts "cowardly".
Sharon:
I think he was referring to the fact that they haven't announced who they
are, that is how I understood that remark. A coward would act in secret.
Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get out
of the public system and write a standardized introduction for prospective
parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform Waldorf
so we can declare a truce?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:32:07 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) Newpaul:
)
) )Here are a couple of quotes that I find helpful.
) )
) )James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he
) )will flee from you.
)
) Debra:
)
) When
) you cast stone on Lucifer by calling him the devil, it is offensive to
) Anthroposophy, and actually shows that you *still* don't get where they are
) coming from. You will be accused (and judged) of looking too shallow.
) Academically speaking, Anthroposophy has a place to lead you from where you
) are. (There are deeper levels of Christianity, and they depend on your
) willingness to explore...)
)
) Personally, I've decided that one can't fight religion with religion. It
) just doesn't work. Look at NYC tonight. This terrorism is a religious war
) where both sides will claim victory.
)
) Religion can be very dangerous to innocent people who aren't even involved
) with the coversation. Personally I'd rather communicate with outspoken
) people who expect outspoken exchange. I can deal with differences, once I
) know where they are. It's the not knowing that I disagree with. It can be
) dangerous to our children. Anthroposophy beware.
)
Newpaul
In fairness to you, the bible called Lucifer the devil long before
Rodolf Steiner and the New Agers and Luciferians came along. I used the
quote above because DL used his quote
"Resist ye not Evil"
DL comments
)
) The first one is difficult to get by many people. I'm not going to presume
) to tell any of you what it means - but for me it relates to the idea that
) (as the French say) "That which you resist, persists" (okay, so not as the
) French would say - they probably would have said it in French)
Newpaul
I don't know where this quote came from. Anyway, in my view accepting
Lucifer and making a place for him at your table is the heart of the
matter. Lucifer has demonstrated that he is "practiced at the art of
deception." His ultimate goal is to entice us to exalt ourselves above
the most high. It scares me to no end to think that the teachers in the
Waldorf Schools all accept this. It is the greatest deception of all.
And it blinds its believers from understanding the greater truths of
the gospel.
I will agree with you that we can't fight religion with religion. But
interestingly, IMO it is Lucifer who deceives the Anthroposophists from
understanding that they are expounding their own New Age Religion in
Waldorf Schools. It is Lucifer who suggests that Anthroposophy is not a
religion. That karma and reincarnation were left out of the bible, that
Steiner uncovered a greater cosmic truth at Golgotha, that we should not
resist evil etc.
I have probably said more than I should. I think that we and the other
critics on this list all have experienced a certain level of deception
from our experiences in waldorf and from the Anthroposophists who
administer the schools. I think it would be an appropriate topic to
discuss how this deception became apparent to each of us. For me the
religious aspect of Waldorf and its denial of that Anthroporophy is a
religion and its foundation is at the very center of the issue of deception.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:53:49 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: David
)on 9/11/01 11:35 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
))
)) Well, in his first speech early in the day, president Bush missed the
)) mark when he called these acts "cowardly".
)
)Sharon:
)I think he was referring to the fact that they haven't announced who they
)are, that is how I understood that remark. A coward would act in secret.
)
)Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get out
)of the public system and write a standardized introduction for prospective
)parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform Waldorf
)so we can declare a truce?
I'm attending that Waldorf parents' meeting this evening that I
mentioned earlier. I intend to bring up the issues we have been
talking about at some point, about grievances in American Waldorf
schools like yours - but I don't know if I'll be up to it tonight,
because I haven't prepared myself. I may give a short introduction to
the topics in order to discuss them at some later meeting.
I am devastated by this. America has always been a safe haven to us.
When the world was aflame in the forties, the United States and
Canada opened its arms to the persecuted and fought back. When King
Harald of Norway was a little boy, he and and his mother were invited
to stay at the White House by president Rosevelt, and when the frail
FDR was re-inaugurated for the last time in the Oval Office in
January 1945 - the only president to be doing this ceremony in the
Oval Office - eight year old prince Harald was standing right behind
him.
I would have preferred that the hippies had succeeded in the late
1960's when they held hands in a ring around the entire Pentagon and
tried to make it levitate. It was part of the endeavor to stop the
Vietnam War.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 07:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: David
Dear David,
I am very glad David, that you are okay. And I am very
sorry to hear about your friends.
Warmly,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:24:54 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
)DL wrote concerning the quote "Resist ye not Evil":
) )
) ) The first one is difficult to get by many people. I'm not going to
)presume
) ) to tell any of you what it means - but for me it relates to the idea
)that
) ) (as the French say) "That which you resist, persists" (okay, so not as
)the
) ) French would say - they probably would have said it in French)
)
)Newpaul
)I don't know where this quote came from. Anyway, in my view accepting
)Lucifer and making a place for him at your table is the heart of the
)matter. Lucifer has demonstrated that he is "practiced at the art of
)deception." His ultimate goal is to entice us to exalt ourselves above
)the most high. It scares me to no end to think that the teachers in the
)Waldorf Schools all accept this. It is the greatest deception of all.
)And it blinds its believers from understanding the greater truths of the
)gospel.
)
DL: It may surprise you, but it comes from the Bible.
Matthew 5:39 - But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any
one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;
I didn't realize til after I sent the email that I didn't attribute the
source of the quotes.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:56:34 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: David
)Debra asked:
)Wonder what Steiner would have thought about the souls of the suicide
)hijackers. (Does that statement qualify for being on topic?)
DL: My guess from what I know about Steiner is that he would have believed
that they created for themselves a huge karmic debt and will come back and
need to work that debt off. However, there are Muslims who believe that the
terrorists, by striking a blow against the U.S. have secured for themselves
a place in heaven. There are Christians who believe they will go to hell
for murdering innocents.
The above is why I on't think you can use one religion to
fight/justify/evaluate another.
Shalom
DL
Let us continue to keep the discussion civil.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:04:01 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: David
))Debra asked:
))Wonder what Steiner would have thought about the souls of the suicide
))hijackers. (Does that statement qualify for being on topic?)
)
)DL: My guess from what I know about Steiner is that he would have
)believed that they created for themselves a huge karmic debt and
)will come back and need to work that debt off. However, there are
)Muslims who believe that the terrorists, by striking a blow against
)the U.S. have secured for themselves a place in heaven.
The reward for heroic suicide deeds is seventy virgins in paradise,
as far as I remember. A harem in the sky.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:11:46 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: David!
Dear David,
Let my voice join the chorus of others who are saying how happy they are
that you happened NOT to be in the Pentagon during yesterday's horrible,
horrible attack.
I know that others have already said this, but I want to say it again: as
angry and annoyed as the folks on this list can get with each other over our
disparate views of Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy, we have formed a
wacky sort of (dysfunctional!) family of our own here over the months and
years. And that means that, despite our personal disagreements, we *do* care
about each other.
Now, back to arguing! (Just kidding! (g))
Love to you and your family,
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:13:31 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: today (was Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
) Tarjei,
)
) Thank you from me as well.
)
) Paula K.
)
Tarjei,
I humbly thank you, as well. Your words inspired me. I appreciate it.
xoxo Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:14:40 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: David
)))Debra asked:
)))Wonder what Steiner would have thought about the souls of the suicide
)))hijackers. (Does that statement qualify for being on topic?)
))
))DL: My guess from what I know about Steiner is that he would have
))believed that they created for themselves a huge karmic debt and
))will come back and need to work that debt off. However, there are
))Muslims who believe that the terrorists, by striking a blow against
))the U.S. have secured for themselves a place in heaven.
)
) The reward for heroic suicide deeds is seventy virgins in paradise,
) as far as I remember. A harem in the sky.
Lisa here: Not worth it. Nothing could be worth this.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:13:20 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: David
)Sharon:
)Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get
)out
)of the public system and write a standardized introduction for prospective
)parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform Waldorf
)so we can declare a truce?
)
DL: Sharon, I don't want you to see the following as an attack in any way
shape or form - it's not. But it seems that what you would like is not so
much a truce as a surrender by WE. I agree with you that WE should be
upfront with parents about WE's approach to education. In my personal
experience, they have been very clear with us. But it seems clear that not
everyone feels WE was upfront with them.
As far as getting out of the public school system - I think there can be a
Waldorf-inspired school that would not violate the establishment clause.
Just as our public school system is Judeo-Christian influenced (at this time
in history, I say influenced, but I believe originally they were J-C
"inspired") and now is fairly religion free, perhaps Waldorf inspired
schools could do the same. I believe it's possible. Kerr seemed to think
it's possible. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
Bottom line is (as my Grandma used to say) - You can catch more flies with
honey than vinegar - it seems to me that if Critics really want the changes
they say they do, attacking Waldorf Education may not be the best way to go
about it. I would support any Critic's attempt to get WE to consider such a
plan that would place more infoprmation in parent's hands. I wouldn't
however, get involved if such a plan involved attacking WE.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:15:44 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: David!
Thanks to all for your kind thoughts.
This morning, I learned that the persons with whom I work routinely got out
of the building okay. It was a very close call, though, and likely by now
their offices have been consumed by fire.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
To: "waldorf-critics" (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:11 AM
Subject: David!
) Dear David,
)
) Let my voice join the chorus of others who are saying how happy they are
) that you happened NOT to be in the Pentagon during yesterday's horrible,
) horrible attack.
)
) I know that others have already said this, but I want to say it again: as
) angry and annoyed as the folks on this list can get with each other over
our
) disparate views of Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy, we have formed a
) wacky sort of (dysfunctional!) family of our own here over the months and
) years. And that means that, despite our personal disagreements, we *do*
care
) about each other.
)
) Now, back to arguing! (Just kidding! (g))
)
)
) Love to you and your family,
)
) Lisa
)
)
)
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:19:34 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: David
Sharon:
) Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get
out
) of the public system and write a standardized introduction for prospective
) parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform
Waldorf
) so we can declare a truce?
I am not in the public school system.
I doubt that any introduction that would satisfy you would be acceptable to
me.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:39:48 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
) DL: It may surprise you, but it comes from the Bible.
)
Newpaul I think you might review what you wrote. You changed the meaning.
Would you not say there is a big difference between your original
) "Resist ye not Evil"
and your follow-up
) Matthew 5:39 - But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any
) one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;
Believers are instructed to resist the devil but not to resist those who
are deceived by him and under his influence. Don't let that Luciferic
influence blind you DL
Shalom
Newpaul
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:22:22 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: David!
)Thanks to all for your kind thoughts.
)
)This morning, I learned that the persons with whom I work routinely got out
)of the building okay. It was a very close call, though, and likely by now
)their offices have been consumed by fire.
Debra:
Great news, David. I'm just amazed that this happened. Someone knew
immediately when the airplanes went off course, and after two of the planes
hit the World trade center, the Pentagon must have had some awareness that
an arant airplane was heading their way. Perhaps they did, and that is why
the fourth airplane convieniently crashed in a rural area where no one else
could get hurt instead of into the Capitol. . . The people in the plane
were dead ducks anyway. The military would be justified shooting out the
motor of the plane, preventing more deaths. We have to get better than
this. A 75% terrorist success rate is too high. We have to get a faster
response time.
Take my concerns to the Pentagon, OK David? :+)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:57:08 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Deception of WE was (Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?)
) ) DL: It may surprise you, but it comes from the Bible.
)Newpaul I think you might review what you wrote. You changed the meaning.
)Would you not say there is a big difference between your original
)
) ) "Resist ye not Evil"
)
)and your follow-up
)
) ) Matthew 5:39 - But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if
)any
) ) one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;
)
)Believers are instructed to resist the devil but not to resist those who
)are deceived by him and under his influence. Don't let that Luciferic
)influence blind you DL
)
)Shalom
)
)Newpaul
DL: I'll do my best. I did review what I wrote and I realized that I cut
and pasted the wrong version of the biblical quote. One version says "one
who is evil" - all of the others I've found have all said either "resist not
evil" or "not to resist evil" (see below)
But, I am not posting this to get into a religious quoting match with you,
but for two reasons - one is to back up my original quote and second is to
show how interpretation of any text can vary between translations. Just
something to think about.
Shalom
DL
Matthew 5:39 - But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall
strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; (Darby
Translation)
Matthew 5:39 -But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (King
James Version)
Matthew 5:39 - But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any
one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; (Revised
Standard Version)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:49:33 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Thanks for the clarification, Charlie. The way I read it (at least one way
I read it) was that people should break their connections to family and
nation, transferring to the other two you mentioned. I think feelings of
connection should be maintained and expanded. You can still feel connected
with your family (for example) while expanding your feelings of
connectedness in my opinion.
Paula
----- Original Message -----
From: "charlie morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
)
)
) Paula asks:
) ) Believed which?
)
) charlie:
) What I was trying to say was that if people in these troubled places could
) feel the same love for the whole of life and the whole of humankind as
they
) do for their own race or group, then they wouldn't perpetrate the
atrocities
) that they do, and that would be a social impact worth seeing.
)
) From what has just happened, it seems we have a long way to go. My heart
) goes out to all those affected by these tragic events.
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
)
)
) ) ----- Original Message -----
) ) From: "charlie morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
) ) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) ) Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:02 PM
) ) Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
) )
) )
) ) ) (snipped)
) ) ) Dan asks Neil:
) ) ) What's the social impact of
) ) ) ) believing in "the occult significance of blood"?
) ) )
) ) ) charlie (butting in):
) ) ) After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything
) ) racist
) ) ) in it.
) ) ) According to Steiner, humanity reaches a higher stage of evolution
when
) ) ) exogamy supercedes endogamy. Therefore if you believe that Steiner
) thought
) ) ) of Aryans as a race; and that he thought that the only way they could
) ) ) progress was to practice exogamy; then, logically, the act of
) ) exterminating
) ) ) other races in order to breed pure Aryans would be totally against
) ) Steiner's
) ) ) idea of progress.
) ) )
) ) ) So what I get from reading 'The Occult Significance of Blood' is that
) ) ) the progress of humanity takes the following course:
) ) ) 1. We feel at one with our family.
) ) ) 2. We view ourselves as part of a nation.
) ) ) 3. We feel united with the whole of humankind.
) ) ) 4. We feel the unity of all life on earth.
) ) )
) ) ) In order to evolve towards freedom we need to overcome family and
) ) ) racial/national ties.
) ) )
) ) ) What would the social impact be if everone in Northern Ireland, Israel
) and
) ) ) the former Yugoslavia believed this?
) ) )
) ) ) warm regards,
) ) ) charlie.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) )
) )
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:27:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: my Waldorf parents' meeting
Yes, I attended the meeting this evening, but it was packed, and the
agenda was full, and I realize I may have to arrange a special
meeting to bring up these issues. It's a brand new school, just
opened, a Waldorf high school (three years). My stepson is sixteen.
I had a few words with an American teacher in English language and
literature and briefed him a little, 30 seconds at the time. But
yesterday's events made it awkward for both of us to pursue it at
this point. I'll get back to it on this list later on, when we've had
time to talk.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:11:08 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: my Waldorf parents' meeting
Best of luck. Will be interested to see how things go.
Paula
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:56:13 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: my Waldorf parents' meeting
) Yes, I attended the meeting this evening, but it was packed, and the
) agenda was full, and I realize I may have to arrange a special
) meeting to bring up these issues. It's a brand new school, just
) opened, a Waldorf high school (three years). My stepson is sixteen.
)
) I had a few words with an American teacher in English language and
) literature and briefed him a little, 30 seconds at the time. But
) yesterday's events made it awkward for both of us to pursue it at
) this point. I'll get back to it on this list later on, when we've had
) time to talk.
Lisa here: I appreciate that you are at least trying to bring the critics'
issues to the fore, Tarjei.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 477
-- Topica Digest --
Re: David
By mysplum earthlink.net
Basic introduction (was "David")
By faiman jlc.net
Admin: web counter 69,340
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Basic introduction (was "David")
By faiman jlc.net
Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
By snell gv.net
RE: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
By snell gv.net
Re: Basic introduction (was "David")
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Admin: web counter 69,340
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Admin: web counter 69,340
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Basic introduction (was "David")
By canndw netzero.net
OT- Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: OT- Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 07:15:14 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: David
on 9/12/01 9:19 AM, David Cann at canndw netzero.net wrote:
David:
) I am not in the public school system.
Sharon:
Neither was I. Whether public or private, I still have a right to know,
upfront, what religion informs a school.
)
David:
) I doubt that any introduction that would satisfy you would be acceptable to
) me.
Sharon:
Oh?! A basic statement informing parents that Waldorf is based on occultism
developed by the mystic Rudolf Steiner and called Anthroposophy? Perhaps
fellow American you have forgotten the commands " That the minds of men
always be wholly free" or that "compelling a man to furnish contributions of
money for the propagation of opinions which he *disbelieves* is sinful and
tyrannical".
A refresher for you from Justice David Souter:
"....compelling an individual to support religion violates the fundamental
principle of freedom of conscience. Madison's and Jefferson's now familiar
words establish clearly that liberty of personal conviction requires freedom
from coercion to support religion, and this means that the government can
compel no aid to fund it. Madison put it simply: "[T]he same authority which
can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the
support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other
establishment." Memorial and Remonstrance 13, reprinted in Everson v. Board
of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 64, 65-66 (1947). Any tax to establish
religion is antithetical to the command "that the minds of men always be
wholly free". Id., at 12 (discussing Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance);
id., at 13 (noting Jefferson's belief that "compel[ling] a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves,
is sinful and tyrannical;...even the forcing him to support this or that
teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable
liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals
he would make his pattern." (Excerpt from Justice Souter's dissent. Guy
Mitchell, et al., Petitioners v. Mary L. Helms et al. June 28, 2000)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:44:04 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Basic introduction (was "David")
Sharon asked:
) Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get
) out
) of the public system and write a standardized introduction for
) prospective
) parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform
) Waldorf
) so we can declare a truce?
David Cann replied (in part):
) I doubt that any introduction that would satisfy you would be acceptable
) to
) me.
and Sharon replied:
) Oh?! A basic statement informing parents that Waldorf is based on
) occultism
) developed by the mystic Rudolf Steiner and called Anthroposophy?
Please forgive my interjection here, but I believe that David's point
may have been (or at any rate my point would have been, had I been
writing David's reply) that many critics appear to hold a picture of
Waldorf Education that is unrecognizable to many of us whose Waldorf
experiences have been more satisfactory. Thus, an introduction that
presented the Critics' version of Waldorf Education would probably
appear to me (and, I suspect, to David) to be distorted or actively
misleading at best.
A "basic statement" is one of those ideas that is more easily proposed
than achieved. For example, the summary from the Pine Hill parent
handbook, which I regard as a well-nigh perfect "basic statement" of
what Waldorf education is about -- including Rudolf Steiner,
Anthroposophy, reincarnation, and spiritual evolution -- has been
regarded as woefully by critics on this list.
I don't think David's pessimism about the prospects for a generally
acceptable standardized introduction is unwarranted.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:02:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 69,340
On September 12, 2001, the PLANS web site had registered 69,340
visitors since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits, repeats on the
same day are not counted.)
We had 2006 visitors in the last 30 days, averaging 67 per day.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:48:31 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: Basic introduction (was "David")
A small correction. I wrote, "For example, the summary from the Pine
Hill parent handbook, which I regard as a well-nigh perfect 'basic
statement' of what Waldorf education is about -- including Rudolf
Steiner, Anthroposophy, reincarnation, and spiritual evolution -- has
been regarded as woefully by critics on this list."
Of course, "woefully" should have been "woefully inadequate".
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:14:29 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
Has anybody heard from Bob Tolz Lately? I know he's been off the list
for a while, but he was a part of our discussions for a long time. I
also know he works in Manhattan...
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:03:32 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Cc: RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM
Subject: Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
)Has anybody heard from Bob Tolz Lately? I know he's been off the list
)for a while, but he was a part of our discussions for a long time. I
)also know he works in Manhattan...
)
)Sarina
Debra:
Oh my Gawd. I'm sending him a copy of your concern and adding mine. Bob,
are you OK?!! Please respond!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:02:03 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: RE: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
Sarina,
Bob is fine!
-ds
***
)Dear Debra,
) Thanks for your concern. I work on Park Avenue, near 55th Street,
)in midtown, 3 to 4 miles away from the attack. The most I've seen is the
)plume of smoke when looking south down Lexington Avenue. I do have friends
)who were quite "up close and personal," but they've thankfully suffered no
)(physical) damage.
) Bob
)
)
)-----Original Message-----
)From: Debra Snell [mailto:snell gv.net]
)Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:04 PM
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Cc: RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM
)Subject: Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
)
)
))Has anybody heard from Bob Tolz Lately? I know he's been off the list
))for a while, but he was a part of our discussions for a long time. I
))also know he works in Manhattan...
))
))Sarina
)
)Debra:
)
)Oh my Gawd. I'm sending him a copy of your concern and adding mine. Bob,
)are you OK?!! Please respond!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:00:03 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Basic introduction (was "David")
Perhaps we critics should review your "nigh perfect basic statement".
If we could see it, we could discuss it and develop an "even more
perfect response". Could you post it again?
Newpaul
Neil Faiman wrote:
) A "basic statement" is one of those ideas that is more easily proposed
) than achieved. For example, the summary from the Pine Hill parent
) handbook, which I regard as a well-nigh perfect "basic statement" of
) what Waldorf education is about -- including Rudolf Steiner,
) Anthroposophy, reincarnation, and spiritual evolution -- has been
) regarded as woefully by critics on this list.
)
) I don't think David's pessimism about the prospects for a generally
) acceptable standardized introduction is unwarranted.
)
) Regards,
)
) Neil Faiman
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:04:39 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: web counter 69,340
Is this a record # or just the same old average? ARe you going to start
selling banners on the posts? Just kidding. Is the list growing? what
about the web site. Do you have a counter over there?
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) On September 12, 2001, the PLANS web site had registered 69,340
) visitors since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits, repeats on the
) same day are not counted.)
)
) We had 2006 visitors in the last 30 days, averaging 67 per day.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:27:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: web counter 69,340
Newpaul, you wrote,
)Is this a record # or just the same old average?
A small increase over last month.
)ARe you going to start
)selling banners on the posts? Just kidding.
We pay Topica so that we don't have advertising.
)Is the list growing?
I don't pay much attention to the number of w-c list subscriptions.
We currently have 123.
)what
)about the web site. Do you have a counter over there?
That's where the counter is, read the text below again.
)Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) On September 12, 2001, the PLANS web site had registered 69,340
)) visitors since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits, repeats on the
)) same day are not counted.)
))
)) We had 2006 visitors in the last 30 days, averaging 67 per day.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
))
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:20:35 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Basic introduction (was "David")
Neil writes far better than I do, and he expresses very nicely a portion of
my view. Past attempts to develop "disclosure statements" on this list
created monstrosities that bear no resemblance to anything that I see in my
waldorf school. It assumes everybody is either "on the anthroposophic bus"
or "off the bus". This view doesn't allow for any middle ground, of the
sort Kerr has expressed recently, and many others in the past.
As I have said many, many times before, we have not, over the past four
years, had a "anti-anthroposophic" reaction from a parent. Perhaps that
means our disclosure is okay, perhaps that means that nobody cares, perhaps
that means that other elements of the enrollment process are catching those
who might object, perhaps we've just been lucky.
I just can't see "fixing" a problem that hasn't occurred yet, because I know
the "fix" will create new, unforeseen, and unpredictable problems that may
well outstrip the problem we "fix". It is in our interest to have happy,
committed parents. Why try to deceive anybody? It always fails anyway.
David
Neil:
) Please forgive my interjection here, but I believe that David's point
) may have been (or at any rate my point would have been, had I been
) writing David's reply) that many critics appear to hold a picture of
) Waldorf Education that is unrecognizable to many of us whose Waldorf
) experiences have been more satisfactory. Thus, an introduction that
) presented the Critics' version of Waldorf Education would probably
) appear to me (and, I suspect, to David) to be distorted or actively
) misleading at best.
)
) A "basic statement" is one of those ideas that is more easily proposed
) than achieved. For example, the summary from the Pine Hill parent
) handbook, which I regard as a well-nigh perfect "basic statement" of
) what Waldorf education is about -- including Rudolf Steiner,
) Anthroposophy, reincarnation, and spiritual evolution -- has been
) regarded as woefully by critics on this list.
)
) I don't think David's pessimism about the prospects for a generally
) acceptable standardized introduction is unwarranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:13:04 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: OT- Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
)Bob is fine!
Yeah, I know. Silly me, I sent that mail to the list right before it
occurred to me that I could just ask Bob himself...
You don't want to know what other stupid things I've done this week in
my sleep-deprived state! At least it was my husband who locked the
keys in the car this week - and he gets to sleep all night 'cause he's
working awful hours - so I really can't complain, overall. (Except for
the being locked out of my car part. I had a complaint or two about
that.)
Glad everyone's okay,
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:45:52 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: OT- Re: Bob Tolz (WAS Re: David!)
))Bob is fine!
)
)Yeah, I know. Silly me, I sent that mail to the list right before it
)occurred to me that I could just ask Bob himself...
)
)You don't want to know what other stupid things I've done this week in
)my sleep-deprived state! At least it was my husband who locked the
)keys in the car this week - and he gets to sleep all night 'cause he's
)working awful hours - so I really can't complain, overall. (Except for
)the being locked out of my car part. I had a complaint or two about
)that.)
Debra:
I can relate.
Sabrina:
)Glad everyone's okay,
Debra:
Me too.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 478
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Quote from Colin Wilson
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: David
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: David
By theosopost hotmail.com
FW: (aerolist) Letter to Editor, Seattle Times
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: David
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: (aerolist) Letter to Editor, Seattle Times
By sarina bainbridge.net
RE: David
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:05:03 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Quote from Colin Wilson
Sharon:
Wandering around the library's section on religious studies, a book sort of
"called to me" (Ahriman at work G), I looked up and saw the title
"Afterlife" by Colin Wilson. Took it down and my, my....my! A whole chapter
on Rudolf Steiner called "Dr. Steiner and the Problem of Reincarnation".
Here's a quote from the book first published by Harrap Limited in Great
Britain 1985, (before the W critics started to point out Steiner's racist
ideology / root races!) Wilson is telling the story of Steiner's first
lecture that he gave at the Theosophical Society, before anyone knew him.
Wilson describes the mystic's monotonous voice and abstract and involved
sentences, and Marie von Siever's infatuation with him, despite the fact
that he was married to a 'peasent woman'.....
"And then- it seemed to happen over night - Dr.Steiner had become head of
the Berlin Lodge of the Theosophical Society, and was being accepted by an
increasing number of people as a kind of messiah. Its membership increased
remarkably. Mrs. Bessant had met Steiner, and been impressed. She had seemed
a little concerned about the strange, mystical Christianity preached by
Steiner - but then, Madame Blavatsky had taught that all religions are roads
to the same truth, so that was no cause for alarm. Steiner certainly seemed
to accept Madame Blavatsk's basic teaching - that the present human race is
the fifth 'root race' (the fourth were the inhabitants of Atlantis) - and
that we all go through many reincarnations. He also professed to be able to
read the 'Akashic records' - those invisible records of history that have
been stored up on the cosmic ether - and talked with staggering authority
about the childhood of Christ and the various spiritual movements in Western
history.
......By the year 1912, many of Steiner's followers believed that he was an
avatar - an incarnation of the God principle, like Buddha and Christ, sent
to earth to bring enlightenment - and that Anthroposophy would one day
become the new world religion, replacing all those that had gone
before...Steiner himself spoke of building a new mystical centre, a
magnificent temple, perhaps in Munich.
The hopes of a great new religious revival came to nothing. Just as it
seemed to be coming about, the Great War burst like a storm, and for the
next four years, Europe had other things to think about besides
Anthroposophy. There were even unpleasant rumours that Steiner had paved the
way for Germany's defeat by giving bad advice to General von Moltke, whose
wife was a Steiner disciple. Steiner built his 'temple' - at Dornach, in
Switzerland - but it never became more than a cult-centre."
(Afterlife, by Colin Wilson. A Dolphin book, Garden City New York, 1987).
Sharon:
Wilson then goes on to present Steiner as a messiah, one of the most
remarkable spiritual teachers of the 20th C.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:00:16 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: David
D L wrote:
) )Sharon:
) )Hard for me to discuss Waldorf after the attack, can't you guys just get
) )
) )out
) )of the public system and write a standardized introduction for
) )prospective
) )parents introducing them to the religious underpinnings that inform
) )Waldorf
) )so we can declare a truce?
) )
)
) DL: Sharon, I don't want you to see the following as an attack in any
) way
) shape or form - it's not. But it seems that what you would like is not
) so
) much a truce as a surrender by WE.
Surrender to what? To telling the truth? What is it that is so unique to
WE that they have to "surrender??"
I agree with you that WE should be
) upfront with parents about WE's approach to education. In my personal
) experience, they have been very clear with us. But it seems clear that
) not
) everyone feels WE was upfront with them.
Understatement. I can tell you that Waldorf educators are not even up
front with colleagues in child development and education fields, about
what they do. It's eery and rather strange--and secretive!
)
) As far as getting out of the public school system - I think there can be
) a
) Waldorf-inspired school that would not violate the establishment clause.
I wonder what it would be if you sanitized WE? Just another school with
ideas that have been recycled from other educational systems. Nothing
really different about it that you can't find elsewhere!
In fact, please if you could, give me a description of a sanitized,
non-anthroposophical Waldorf school. How would that be done? Steiners
Calendar of the soul would be eliminated, the child development theory
would be ditched, the rituals would be disposed of?
How would it be different?
) Just as our public school system is Judeo-Christian influenced (at this
) time
) in history, I say influenced, but I believe originally they were J-C
) "inspired") and now is fairly religion free, perhaps Waldorf inspired
) schools could do the same.
So you *are* saying it is a "religion?"
I believe it's possible. Kerr seemed to think
) it's possible. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
Hmmmmm.
)
) Bottom line is (as my Grandma used to say) - You can catch more flies
) with
) honey than vinegar - it seems to me that if Critics really want the
) changes
) they say they do, attacking Waldorf Education may not be the best way to
) go
) about it.
Catching flies?
I would support any Critic's attempt to get WE to consider such a
) plan that would place more infoprmation in parent's hands. I wouldn't
) however, get involved if such a plan involved attacking WE.
Interesting that you are so fearful of criticism, calling it "attacks".
)
) Shalom
)
) DL
Pace,
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:13:20 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: David
Su, I am not going to get into an argument with you. I am willing to
discuss, but not argue. If you would like to discuss any of the points
made in my email to Sharon, please respond in a less attacking manner and I
will be willing to discuss - but not argue. If you do not wish to
rationally discuss, no response is needed. Thank you.
Shalom,
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:50:17 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: FW: (aerolist) Letter to Editor, Seattle Times
) -----Original Message-----
) From: owner-aerolist pscs.org
) [mailto:owner-aerolist pscs.org]On Behalf
) Of Andrew Smallman
) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:49 PM
) To: AERO Discussion List
) Subject: (aerolist) Letter to Editor, Seattle Times
)
)
) Heya,
)
) I don't send this along to simply toot our horn, but to give
) an example of
) what a school can do. This opportunity was presented as an option to
) students yesterday. Those interested in participating, did.
) Those that
) weren't, didn't. Later in the day, in the evening, 14 members of our
) extended school family had dinner in the restaurant referenced below,
) constituting approximately half of the restaurant's business (an
) estimate).
)
) ---Andy
)
) =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
) Andrew Smallman - Puget Sound Community School
) andy pscs.org || http://www.pscs.org
) 1310 N 45th Street
) PO Box 31014 Seattle, WA 98103
) 206-524-0916
) =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
)
) ---------- Forwarded message ----------
) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
) From: Andrew Smallman (andy pscs.org)
) To: PSCS Community
)
) I thought you all should see this Letter to the Editor of The Seattle
) Times, written by PSCS parent David Spangler. --Andy
)
)
) I want to laud the Puget Sound Community School, located in the
) Wallingford Boy's and Girl's Club building on 45th.
) Yesterday, a group of
) teachers and students (mostly teenagers) went to Kabul, a
) restaurant on
) 45th that specializes in the cuisine of Afganistan. There
) they offered to
) the owner simply to sweep the entryway and the street in
) front as an act
) of kindness and a show of solidarity with an Arab-American
) member of our
) community. The owner, Wally, was born in Afganistan but lived
) in New York
) for 30 years before moving to Seattle. Like all other
) Americans, he had
) watched with horror the destruction of the World Trade Center and the
) attack on the Pentagon. But unlike many Americans, he had
) been the target
) on Tuesday and Wednesday of threatening and hateful phone calls simply
) because of his ancestry. He was very moved by the gift of
) community and
) support these kids and their teachers gave him.
)
) The unselfish and kind act of the PSCS students and teachers to
) counterbalance for this man the stupidity and mindlessness of other
) citizens is a powerful example of why no terrorist attack can damage
) America. The spirit of our great country, in which nearly all
) of us are
) immigrants from other lands, is not in buildings but in the
) open heart we
) extend to our neighbors and our willingness to build
) community with those
) who are different from ourselves.
)
) Also, this was a wonderful exercise in education for the students,
) teaching them through experience to deal with differences, with
) intolerance, and with the values that make the heart of America great.
) Teachers such as these who seize such opportunities are a
) treasure in our
) community.
)
) By contrast, my father called from Dayton, Ohio, to say that a grade
) school near his home was being picketed by parents and others
) yesterday
) and today demanding that all arab-american children in the school be
) dismissed. "No Arabs allowed in our schools" was what one of
) the signs
) said. How refreshing it is to discover here in Seattle a
) school willing
) to set the opposite example. Three cheers for the Puget
) Sound Community
) School, its teenagers and younger students, its staff, and
) its teachers.
) They set an example for all of us of what good education is
) about and what
) being an American is about and give us hope in these trying days.
)
) David Spangler
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:32:51 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: David
) I agree with you that WE should be
) ) upfront with parents about WE's approach to education. In
) my personal
) ) experience, they have been very clear with us. But it
) seems clear that
) ) not
) ) everyone feels WE was upfront with them.
)
)
) Understatement. I can tell you that Waldorf educators are not even up
) front with colleagues in child development and education
) fields, about
) what they do. It's eery and rather strange--and secretive!
It's an interesting question. I think also that the teachers at our
school try to be upfront. I have always found that the problem is that
they don't think through what they are saying. And most parents don't
seem to want to think it through either. For example, at our parent
orientation last night one of the teachers claimed that when children
watch a lot of tv, or wear clothes with labels on them, they become that
label, they are that character in their minds. That when children play
cartoon character games, they are not using their imagination, that
pretending to be a cartoon character is not imaginative play.
Even though this seems logically impossible, as any time a child plays
they are using imagination, most parents are in agreement that
pretending to be Pokemon is somehow inferior in the imagination league
tables to pretending to be King Winter, or Brother Wind, or a troll. In
a few years when Pokemon has achieved sentimental value he will seem
much less threatening. And the attachment of value to nature stories is
directly related to the degree that nature is removed from our lives.
I don't think that the teachers are deliberately misleading the parents.
They, like many parents, are not thinking these things through and they
sound good. One teacher explained the need to not have recorded music
during the week as then the children found the songs that they sing at
school to be not as good as the ones they learn on TV, or on tapes and
CD's. The assumption is that because the Waldorf songs are about things
like seasons and nature that they are therefore of more value, even if
musically they are obviously inferior, which they must be or the kids
wouldn't find them boring.
Another teacher explained the need to cut recorded music from our lives
as the fact that the human voice is better than a recording. This
totally ignores the fact that a good recording can be indistinguishable
from the real thing. I know this teacher personally and know that she
has no belief in some kind of arimanic force. But she is one of those
people who finds computers and other electronic technology to be
intimidating and it is validating in a way to try and get people to stop
using it. It makes her own unwillingness to learn about it seem
justified and even superior to those who do bother to learn about it.
The teachers at our school are basically quite simple people, they are
not particularly deep thinkers and become quite angry if you try and ask
them a difficult question. They feel justified in their endeavors
because they have enough interest in their school to have a waiting list
and that is validating enough for them, thinking things through just
seems like a waste of time.
I have also found that the whole TV issue always crops up whenever
parents come forward with complaints regarding the behaviour of the
children in the school, i.e. bullying or teasing. The teachers'
response has consistently been to require the parents to sign another
contract to limit access to TV and other electronic media, and to not
send sugary snacks to the school. Media has become a convenient scape
goat for all the evils in the world.
) I would support any Critic's attempt to get WE to consider such a
) ) plan that would place more information in parent's hands.
) I wouldn't
) ) however, get involved if such a plan involved attacking WE.
I was speaking to my neighbor today who actually attended a Waldorf
school and he loved it. From what I could gather, it was a parent co-op
Waldorf school, where the parents came in and taught two-week block
lessons. They also had lots and lots of play time and huge woods to run
free in and build in. This is so different from what happens at our
school. And yet both call themselves Waldorf.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:28:43 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: (aerolist) Letter to Editor, Seattle Times
) Yesterday, a group of
) teachers and students (mostly teenagers) went to Kabul, a
) restaurant on
) 45th that specializes in the cuisine of Afghanistan. There
) they offered to
) the owner simply to sweep the entryway and the street in
) front as an act
) of kindness and a show of solidarity with an Arab-American
) member of our
) community.
Hey, I've heard of that restaurant! Maybe we will go there for dinner
this weekend. Thanks for forwarding this, Liz.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:01:38 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: David
D L wrote:
) Su, I am not going to get into an argument with you. I am willing to
) discuss, but not argue. If you would like to discuss any of the points
)
) made in my email to Sharon, please respond in a less attacking manner
) and I
) will be willing to discuss - but not argue. If you do not wish to
) rationally discuss, no response is needed. Thank you.
)
) Shalom,
)
) DL
Again DL, I feel you are not in the frame of mind for telling the truth.
I still want to know what a sanitized Waldorf Education would look like.
You cannot provide that data, because it would be impossible. Just not
possible.
I think you are using words like "argument" in the same way that you use
the word attack. Any form of criticism to a cultic group is an "attack"
or an "argument". Period.
I would like to see you describe a Waldorf school without Anthroposophy,
without Lemuria and Atlantis, without "spiritual science".
Unfortunately the problem is that criticism and debate for you "equal"
"attack". Why tiptoe around the fact that you are promoting the idea of
reincarnation? Why dance around the issue of promoting to children each
time they have a birthday, the idea that they are the reincarnated soul
of someone else,crossing the Rainbow Bridge, and and that they then
"choose" their parents? These are all beliefs that are part of a belief
system, that many may not desire for their children.
You are being evasive, and promoting the covert behavior that is so
distinctive of Anthroposophists and Waldorf Education. Covert behavior
is the hallmark of Anthroposophy. A belief system for troubled souls. I
have met many of them. Including many who visit this board,to defend it.
Why beat around the bush?
It is a trojan horse mentality, in which one plants themselves within a
community and others don't realize what they are about. This type of
covert behavior is well known to Americans for many reasons. It is the
most effective, and it works now as it did for Odysseus. Very well, very
effectively. And it is clever of you to continue doing it, because you
can maintain your high and mighty posture of "above it all". It is very
clever, very astute. And you may continue to operate as you do, for a
long long time, but unfortunately, many have caught on to you, enough to
be questioning your motives. Which is why this board exists. And why
almost 70,000 people have visited it.
It's not that *I* can't discuss rationally; I can.
It's that *you* cannot discuss the truth openly because it is not part
of your belief system to discuss things openly. This is the hallmark of
Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education. Everything must be discovered or
revealed, "little by little", because otherwise you would scare people
away. I have heard that said by very high-level WE people.
It is not I who cannot discuss. It is you. You are projecting your own
inability to openly discuss the doctrines and methodology of
Anthroposophy. It is you who have limitations on the discussion. Because
Dornach does not permit it. You are a member of a belief system, which
limits your freedom and behavior. You are quite bound by that system of
beliefs, and by the covert way in which you operate, in order to spread
your beliefs.
Quite simply and plainly.
Try hard as you can to make *me* look like the impediment. But everyone
here who has called into question the premises of WE or A will agree
with me. You and your cronies are the ones who are playing cat and mouse
regarding all the important issues that concern this board.
No problem; we all know this and as much as you try, you are very
obvious.
Shalom, DL, and we've got your game.
All the best,
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 479
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Symbols, was David
By mysplum earthlink.net
Diana?
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Diana?
By sarina bainbridge.net
Germany loves you
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
engendering factual errors
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Diana?
By snell gv.net
Re: RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: engendering factual errors
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Symbols, was David
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Diana?
By sarina bainbridge.net
RE: Symbols, was David
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Germany loves you
By snell gv.net
Re: Symbols, was David
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Diana?
By snell gv.net
RE: Symbols, was David
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:45:03 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
on 9/14/01 8:32 PM, Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff at lizanderrol home.com
wrote:
For example, at our parent
) orientation last night one of the teachers claimed that when children
) watch a lot of tv, or wear clothes with labels on them, they become that
) label, they are that character in their minds. That when children play
) cartoon character games, they are not using their imagination, that
) pretending to be a cartoon character is not imaginative play.
Sharon:
But brother wind is a real spiritual being, so it's ok to take him in. My
child wore a really cute T-shirt with an early rendition of Felix the cat on
it to school. The teachers made her turn it inside out and wear it all day
that way. (Reminds me of a dunce hat.) It's a form of discrimination and
humiliation.
) Even though this seems logically impossible, as any time a child plays
) they are using imagination, most parents are in agreement that
) pretending to be Pokemon is somehow inferior in the imagination league
) tables to pretending to be King Winter, or Brother Wind, or a troll. In
) a few years when Pokemon has achieved sentimental value he will seem
) much less threatening. And the attachment of value to nature stories is
) directly related to the degree that nature is removed from our lives.
Sharon:
No, Pokemon will always threaten Waldorf teachers, good grief, even "Mahatma
Gumby" was a threat. ( I'm sure you know the cute little green guy from the
fifties with a red horse called Pokie? "If you've got a heart then Gumby's a
part of you!") My child and I just love some of the cute cartoon characters
out there, of course they were not "kosher" in Waldorf, a real no no.
Imagination is a veiled word which means "spiritual sight" in Waldorf,
here's the real reason why no non-Waldorf images can make their way into the
closed system of Anthroposophy:
Steiner:
"If you bring children as many living pictures as possible, if you educate
them by speaking in pictures, then you sow the seed for a continuous
retention of oxygen, for continuous development, because you direct children
toward the future, toward life after death....." (The Foundations of Human
Experience, Foundations of Waldorf Education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophic
Press c 1996.)
Sharon: This symbol inculcation is of course a preparation for the
afterlife, symbol impregnation is in the magic tradition. The
Anthroposophical thoughts that the children take in will crystallize a
substance that they can take with them when they die. This substance will
help them see and hear in the dark to recognize those that they worked with
on earth. It's the old notion of the Philosopher's Stone. Give me Gumby any
day over a Magic Cabin Doll or fuzzy woolen angel.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:45:17 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Diana?
I just realized Diana hasn't posted here since the tenth. I don't know
exactly where she lives, but since she said she's in the mid-Atlantic region
(includes both Washington and NYC, by my reckoning), I suddenly got
concerned this morning.
Hoping this just being alarmist on my part, David
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:25:37 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Diana?
Diana's in Philly, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't live out in the
middle of a field. I sent her a direct mail just now, I hope she
reponds.
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:34:24 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Germany loves you
I was watching the channel Deutsche Welte again the other evening,
and the love among Germans for America and Americans is truly
overwhelming. One might think that this had been compromized by the
fact that Germans and Americans were once killing each other, but the
opposite is the case: The Germans say they have everything to thank
the Americans for: How they stood by them throughout the Cold War and
especially during the Berlin air lift, and they are also very
grateful for the Americans _liberating_ them _from_ the Nazi regime.
There was an enormous ceremony in Berlin, where people carried signs
saying "Ich bin ein amerikaner!" in remembrance of John F. Kennedy's
famous punch line forty years ago when the infamous wall was raised,
"Ich bin ein Berliner" - which they called an unbelievable show of
solidarity.
An American diplomat, deeply moved by this show of genuine affection
from the massive crowds in the streets, said from the podium:
"America will never forget _this_!"
Germany loves you, America!
(I'll get back to business with translating and publishing on-topic
articles, but the world is not, and will never be, what it was a week
ago. We need a little time to adjust.)
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:21:52 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Neil Faiman wrote:
)Omitting the other seven mentions of Steiner in G-C could only be an effort
)to "minimize Steiner's role" if those mentions suggested that Steiner *had*
)a role. (Didn't this get hashed out several years ago?) Anyway, for those
)who want to evaluate the rest of the smoking guns, here are the other seven
)mentions:
)
)3. Another two pages later, "A theosophical group had been active in
)[Vienna] as early as 1887, but its members were initially inclined towards
)a
)_Biedermeier_ tradition of pious 'inwardness' and self-cultivation under
)the
)patronage of Marie Lang. Rudolf Steiner was a member of this group and his
)account of its interests indicates how little sympathy there existed
)between
)the 'factual' Buddhistic theosophy of Franz Hartmann, who was also in
)attendance, and the more spiritual reflective attitude of the rest of the
)circle."
)Dan thinks that Steiner's ideas
)about blood had "social impact" (i.e., contributed to Nazi thinking); I
)think that that is extremely unlikely, since the Nazi conclusions about
)race
)relations were the diametric opposite of those that would arise from
)Steiner's idea ("The mingling of blood ... enables humanity to reach a
)higher stage of evolution"). On the other hand, Graevell apparently read
)the lecture the same way that Dan does (not that I've every read Graevell's
)_Ostara_ article), so obviously other readings are possible.
Hi Neil,
I liked your post. I agree that no "smoking guns" are to be found in
Goodrick-Clarke's book; indeed I'd go so far as to say that there are no
smoking guns in history, just the patient sifting of evidence. But on the
question of the "social impact" of Steiner's teachings, I think Dan's on the
right track, and I think Goodrick-Clarke's book supports Dan's point. For
example, the sentence immediately prior to your quote #3 above reads: "Since
Ariosophy originated in Vienna, in response to the problems of German
nationality and metropolitanism, one must consider the particular kind of
theosophy which the Ariosophists adapted to their voelkisch ideas." Thus
Goodrick-Clarke is saying (by my reading, at least) that Steiner was part of
this "particular kind of theosophy" that influenced the ariosophists, who in
turn "contributed to Nazi thinking" as you put it. And one page after your
quote, Goodrick-Clarke ends his chapter on "The Modern German Occult Revival
1880-1910" thus: "Furthermore, the very structure of theosophical thought
lent itself to voelkisch adoption. The implicit elitism of the hidden
mahatmas with superhuman wisdom was in tune with the longing for a
hierarchical social order based on the racial mystique of the Volk. The
notion of an occult gnosis in theosophy, notably its obscuration due to the
superimposition of alien (Christian) beliefs, and its revival by the chosen
few, also accorded with the attempt to ascribe a long pedigree to voelkisch
nationalism, especially in view of its really recent origins. In the context
of the growth of German nationalism in Austria since 1866, we can see how
theosophy, otherwise only tenuously related to voelkisch thought by notions
of race and racial development, could lend both a religious mystique and a
universal rationale to the political attitudes of a small minority." Since
Steiner was the leading promoter of theosophical doctrines in Germanophone
Europe during the first decade of the century, it would be difficult to deny
that he played an important role in the diffusion of those theosophical
ideas that were picked up by various strands within the voelkisch movement.
Also, aside from the cases of Graevell and Schwartz-Bostunitsch,
Goodrick-Clarke mentions several early anthroposophists who were also
ariosophists, such as Karl Heise and Max Seiling. This indicates, I think,
the porous nature of the different groups within the occult-voelkisch
spectrum, and lends further credence to interpretations of Steiner's early
role that emphasize his commonalities with racist and far-right figures. The
point isn't to blame this sort of crossover on Steiner personally, but to
recognize how the ideas he promoted could appeal to people who were
simultaneously drawn to proto-Nazi ideologies.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:22:26 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
charlie morrison wrote:
)After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything )
)racist in it.
Hi Charlie,
don't you think that referring to black people as "barbarian savages," as
Steiner does in "Blood is a very special fluid," is racist?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:25:16 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
Tarjei writes:
)He never promoted ideals based upon blood, race, tribe, or
)nationality.
)The notion that he celebrated or swore fealty to blood relationships or
)heritage is fiction
Hi Tarjei,
can you tell us how the following statements by Steiner, all of them made in
the last ten years of his life and all of them published in the Collected
Works, fit in to your description of what he "always" and "never" said?
"The characteristic sign of our times is that people believe that if a
society establishes an empty phrase as a universal program -- general unity
of all races, nations, colors, and so forth -- that something has thereby
been achieved. Nothing is achieved by this except throwing sand in the eyes
of humankind." (1920, GA 199 p. 124)
"One can only understand history and all of social life, even today's social
life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And one can
only understand everything spiritual in the correct sense if one first
examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely through
skin color." (1923, GA 349 p. 52)
"In these decades [late nineteenth century] it was of decisive importance
for the Austro-German with spiritual aspirations that -- living outside the
folk community to which Lessing, Goethe, Herder etcetera belonged, and
transplanted into a wholly alien environment over the frontier -- he imbibed
there the spiritual perception of Goethe, Schiller, Lessing and Herder."
(1918, GA 185; Steiner also refers to himself here as a "true-born
German-Austrian" and "German by descent and racial affiliation.")
"How could people fail to notice the profound differences, in terms of
spiritual culture, between the European and the Asian peoples. How could
they fail to notice this differentiation, which is tied to skin color!"
(1915, GA 174b p. 35)
"Someone who has, shall we say, a fine nose can easily tell a Japanese from
a European according to the smell." (1924, GA 354 p. 146)
"Because of the coming together in recent centuries of the so-called
civilized peoples with the savage peoples, syphilitic diseases have
developed through the sexual mixing of civilized peoples with savage
peoples. [. . .] Syphilitic diseases originated because people of dissimilar
races mixed with one another sexually." (1923, GA 348 p. 328)
"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course simply absurd
that it currently plays such a large role in Europe." (1923, GA 349 p. 53)
"The dreadful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe is
a horrible act." (1923, GA 300b p. 282)
"Negroes cut themselves off completely from the spiritual world." (1919, GA
190 p. 149)
"The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race."
(1923, GA 349 p. 67)
"The transition from the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch
cannot happen in any other way than as a violent battle of white humankind
against colored humankind." (1915, GA 174b p. 38)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:27:21 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
Tarjei writes:
)You're giving me the distinct impression that this is a sport you
)enjoy, that you're having fun with. Your favorite sparring partner
)and all that. You also seem to enjoy engendering debates.
I do indeed enjoy engendering debates. It's a common trait among people who
take ideas seriously. You seem to be saying that this is a bad thing. Could
you explain why you think that? Are debates harmful? Is a lack of debate
beneficial? Is this allergic reaction to rational debate related, in your
view, to your anthroposophic beliefs? You're also right that I enjoy
sparring about historical issues. I think you might enjoy it as well if you
could manage to get a little bit of distance on the topic.
)The reason why people like Sune and myself
)react to this, is that you are actually changing and distorting the
)historical and ideological contexts to your own liking; you are
)falsifying it. This is why Sune calls you a liar, not a favorite
)sparring partner.
I don't think that is the reason. I think you and Sune see me as a liar
because you can't make sense of my arguments in any other way. I suspect
this has to do with your reverential attitude toward Steiner and with the
fact that you take historical debates personally. It may also have to do
with an uncomprehending attitude toward political critique in general, as
well as an inability to distinguish factual claims from interpretive claims
(not to mention "lies" from disagreements), but perhaps I am reading too
much into your recent posts.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:30:59 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: engendering factual errors
Hi Tarjei,
you originally wrote that I had made "three factual errors" in the first
two sentences of my article on anthroposophy and ecofascism. It now turns
out that all three instances depend entirely on your idiosyncratic
understanding of the terms "tour," "large," and "civil servant." In light of
this, could you explain how you came to the conclusion that these instances
constituted "factual errors"?
And while you're pondering that one, a few more specific questions for
you:
)A tour is a scheduled travel from town to town.
Do you do much public speaking? I do. A few months ago I did a "speaking
tour" of Maryland (that's what the speakers bureau that coordinated the trip
called it). All of my talks took place in the city of Baltimore. Could you
tell us if this fits your definition of a "speaking tour," and if not, why
we should prefer your definition to the one routinely used by people who
actually arrange such things?
)The audience was small, not large.
Part of my job at the bookstore is to set up author events. I can't recall
the last time we got 70-plus people to attend one (and we get some very well
known national and international authors). Or consider a different example:
Have you ever attended an academic conference? If not, ask someone who has.
They'll tell you that getting over 70 people to come to a session is nearly
unheard of. Often it's a big deal to get more than 20. Could you thus
clarify how you came up with your standard for a "large audience," and why
you consider other standards to be factually erroneous?
)Cato Schi–tz is simply
)showing how a distorted picture can also be reflected in sloppiness
)with details.
Perhaps you didn't understand this the first time around: Nobody knows what
the correct title of Steiner's lecture was. In the Collected Works, the book
that eventually developed out of those lectures doesn't even give titles for
the individual lectures. Thus C. Schiotz is obviously mistaken in asserting
that the title I gave is inaccurate, as there is no accurate title against
which we might measure that claim. More important, perhaps you didn't
understand that the title I gave comes straight from the account by the
anthroposophist Mandl. Hence if you'd like to draw conclusions about
"sloppiness with details," you'll have to draw them about your fellow
anthroposophist, not about me. Since I explained all of this clearly the
first time around, could you tell us why you're having a difficult time
grasping it?
)It may be semantic nit-picking, and because it's Schi–tz' argument,
)it may be Humanist's tranalation, but to use a critic's argument, I
)would add that because the editors of Humanist apparently share your
)worldview as well as your opinion about RS, they must have gotten
)every word exactly right.
I don't understand what you mean. What does the translation have to do with
it? Could you simply address the question and tell us what *you* think
Steiner's father did for a living? And then explain why you think that, when
his biographers agree with my account?
)If your claims were all factual, the distortions you present would be
)self-evident also to the alert readers who know little or nothing
)about the subject.
That isn't a response to the argument I put forward (namely, that your
reaction to my work would be the same even if you agreed with all of my
factual claims). It seems to me that you persist in conflating two different
kinds of disagreement. I think it would make our discussion easier, and your
own position more coherent, if you would distinguish between interpretive
and factual controversies.
Looking forward to your reply,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:52:09 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Diana?
)I just realized Diana hasn't posted here since the tenth. I don't know
)exactly where she lives, but since she said she's in the mid-Atlantic region
)(includes both Washington and NYC, by my reckoning), I suddenly got
)concerned this morning.
)
)Hoping this just being alarmist on my part, David
)
Debra:
Diana is in Pennsylvania. I assume she is shook but OK. (That plane didn't
kill anyone on the ground that I've heard about.) It would be nice for list
mates to just check in and let us all stop wondering.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:09:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: RS about blood relations (was: Re: Steiner's role in...)
)Tarjei writes:
)
))He never promoted ideals based upon blood, race, tribe, or
))nationality.
))
))The notion that he celebrated or swore fealty to blood
))relationships or heritage is fiction
Peter S:
)Hi Tarjei,
)
)can you tell us how the following statements by Steiner, all of them
)made in the last ten years of his life and all of them published in
)the Collected Works, fit in to your description of what he "always"
)and "never" said?
It certainly doesn't prove the opposite.
)"The characteristic sign of our times is that people believe that if
)a society establishes an empty phrase as a universal program --
)general unity of all races, nations, colors, and so forth -- that
)something has thereby been achieved. Nothing is achieved by this
)except throwing sand in the eyes of humankind." (1920, GA 199 p. 124)
RS does not swear fealty to blood relationships or anything similar
in this quote. He is first of all describing how empty phrases -
words without meaning - befog people because they sound good on the
surface. That should be self-evident.
)"One can only understand history and all of social life, even
)today's social life, if one pays attention to people's racial
)characteristics. And one can only understand everything spiritual in
)the correct sense if one first examines how this spiritual element
)operates within people precisely through skin color." (1923, GA 349
)p. 52)
RS is still not swear fealty to blood relationships or anything of
the kind. He is speaking about an approach to _study_, not to values
and not to lifestyle or anything like that.
)"In these decades [late nineteenth century] it was of decisive
)importance for the Austro-German with spiritual aspirations that --
)living outside the folk community to which Lessing, Goethe, Herder
)etcetera belonged, and transplanted into a wholly alien environment
)over the frontier -- he imbibed there the spiritual perception of
)Goethe, Schiller, Lessing and Herder." (1918, GA 185; Steiner also
)refers to himself here as a "true-born German-Austrian" and "German
)by descent and racial affiliation.")
No swearing of fealty to blood relationship, which is your invention.
)"How could people fail to notice the profound differences, in terms
)of spiritual culture, between the European and the Asian peoples.
)How could they fail to notice this differentiation, which is tied to
)skin color!" (1915, GA 174b p. 35)
A stereotypical remark more appropriate for the past than the
present. Today, demographic changes are erooding such distinctions.
But no swearing of fealty to blood here either.
)"Someone who has, shall we say, a fine nose can easily tell a
)Japanese from a European according to the smell." (1924, GA 354 p.
)146)
A dog or other animal might ba able to do that, and perhaps also some
humans with refined sense of smell. But no swearing of fealty to
blood or race.
)"Because of the coming together in recent centuries of the so-called
)civilized peoples with the savage peoples, syphilitic diseases have
)developed through the sexual mixing of civilized peoples with savage
)peoples. [. . .] Syphilitic diseases originated because people of
)dissimilar races mixed with one another sexually." (1923, GA 348 p.
)328)
This quote should be seen in conjunction with another, where RS says
that the difference between so-called civilized man and what Rousseau
called "the noble savage" will very soon disappear. It looks like it
has disappeared. It should also be seen in conjunction with RS'
description of Christ's first sign at the wedding in Ghana, where he
explains the importance of racial mix for the introduction, and later
the evolution, of the Christ impulse. I cannot comment upon the
origin of syphilis because I have not studied medicine or the history
of diseases.
)"The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course
)simply absurd that it currently plays such a large role in Europe."
)(1923, GA 349 p. 53)
)"The dreadful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to
)Europe is a horrible act." (1923, GA 300b p. 282)
)"Negroes cut themselves off completely from the spiritual world."
)(1919, GA 190 p. 149)
)
)"The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative
)race." (1923, GA 349 p. 67)
)
)"The transition from the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural
)epoch cannot happen in any other way than as a violent battle of
)white humankind against colored humankind." (1915, GA 174b p. 38)
Racist remarks? yes. Swearing of fealty to race? No. Typical of
anthroposophists' views? No. Representative of Anthroposophy? No.
Giving a false picture of Anthroposophy because the quotes are lumped
together from out-of-context texts? Yes. The quote blow my sig among
many others - illustrate my point.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:14:51 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
)Tarjei writes:
)
))You're giving me the distinct impression that this is a sport you
))enjoy, that you're having fun with. Your favorite sparring partner
))and all that. You also seem to enjoy engendering debates.
Peter S:
)I do indeed enjoy engendering debates. It's a common trait among
)people who take ideas seriously. You seem to be saying that this is
)a bad thing. Could you explain why you think that? Are debates
)harmful? Is a lack of debate beneficial? Is this allergic reaction
)to rational debate related, in your view, to your anthroposophic
)beliefs? You're also right that I enjoy sparring about historical
)issues. I think you might enjoy it as well if you could manage to
)get a little bit of distance on the topic.
Seriously no. The reason for this is that your article and posts are
not objective searches for the truth, but polemical lies based upon
half-truths and quarter-truths. This makes it a game to you, but not
to us.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:18:13 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: engendering factual errors
)Looking forward to your reply,
The three errors were pointed out by Schi–tz in his second article,
coming to a website near you. It was only a preview while
translating. When it's done, you can take it up with him. I'm almost
done here.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 04:22:14 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Distortions, fun and games (was: Steiner's role...)
Peter S:
)I think you and Sune see me as a liar because you can't make sense
)of my arguments in any other way.
Nonsense. Sune has spelled this out at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:03:35 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
Sharon:
My child wore a really cute T-shirt with an early rendition of Felix the cat
on it to school. The teachers made her turn it inside out and wear it all
day that way. (Reminds me of a dunce hat.) It's a form of discrimination and
humiliation.
David: Not necessarily, if the no-cartoon-characters-on-clothing policy is
clearly stated, well understood, and evenhandedly enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:21:18 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Diana?
) Debra:
)
) Diana is in Pennsylvania. I assume she is shook but OK. (That plane
didn't
) kill anyone on the ground that I've heard about.) It would be nice
for list
) mates to just check in and let us all stop wondering.
Actually, I am worried that she may have lost someone. I'm sure Diana
herself is fine.
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:22:48 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Symbols, was David
) David: Not necessarily, if the
) no-cartoon-characters-on-clothing policy is
) clearly stated, well understood, and evenhandedly enforced.
I think if you search far enough you could find both Brother Wind and
Father Winter in a cartoon somewhere. Most kids today would be totally
unfamiliar with Felix the Cat, unless they had cool parents. When does
something become a 'cartoon character' and when is it just a picture of
something.
How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product made
by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be considered
inappropriate? Where does this end? Who decides what is good
imagination and what is bad?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:08:09 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Germany loves you
Thank you, Tarjei. These first hand accounts are moving.
Hoping we respond to what happened appropriately, without doing the same
thing to their country that they did to us. May all the innocent people be
safe.
Debra
)I was watching the channel Deutsche Welte again the other evening,
)and the love among Germans for America and Americans is truly
)overwhelming. One might think that this had been compromized by the
)fact that Germans and Americans were once killing each other, but the
)opposite is the case: The Germans say they have everything to thank
)the Americans for: How they stood by them throughout the Cold War and
)especially during the Berlin air lift, and they are also very
)grateful for the Americans _liberating_ them _from_ the Nazi regime.
)There was an enormous ceremony in Berlin, where people carried signs
)saying "Ich bin ein amerikaner!" in remembrance of John F. Kennedy's
)famous punch line forty years ago when the infamous wall was raised,
)"Ich bin ein Berliner" - which they called an unbelievable show of
)solidarity.
)
)An American diplomat, deeply moved by this show of genuine affection
)from the massive crowds in the streets, said from the podium:
)"America will never forget _this_!"
)
)Germany loves you, America!
)
)
)(I'll get back to business with translating and publishing on-topic
)articles, but the world is not, and will never be, what it was a week
)ago. We need a little time to adjust.)
)
)--
)Tarjei
)
)http://uncletaz.com/
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:55:07 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
) How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product
made
) by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be
considered
) inappropriate? Where does this end? Who decides what is good
) imagination and what is bad?
As the director of my preschool, I do. I recruit staff and families
with compatible views, and that is that.
Our school has a clearly explained and fairly enforced policy of
nonviolence, which clearly discourages the glamorization of violence
in children's play (toys & games), media, clothing, etc. Violent
material, including super-heroes, scary dinosaurs, and monsters, is
not allowed on children's clothing, backpacks, etc. when they are at
school. The parents all know about this philosophy in advance of
enrollment (and in fact, many choose to be here because of it).
We do make children change clothes if need be. (Felix the Cat however,
would be just fine. Mickey Mouse and the Disney version of
Winnie-the-Pooh make regular appearances here, as well.)
Some people think we are crazy, or silly, or radical... we think they
should simply choose another school, and usually, so do they.
Works for me.
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 22:28:37 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Diana?
)) Debra:
))
)) Diana is in Pennsylvania. I assume she is shook but OK. (That plane
)didn't
)) kill anyone on the ground that I've heard about.) It would be nice
)for list
)) mates to just check in and let us all stop wondering.
Sarina:
)Actually, I am worried that she may have lost someone. I'm sure Diana
)herself is fine.
Debra:
Oh Gawd! Didn't even think of that. I had such an earie feeling that
*someone* on our list would be severely affected. Please, not Diana. . .
Waiting to hear. Come on, Diana. Give us a ring!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 22:48:29 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: RE: Symbols, was David
)) David: Not necessarily, if the
)) no-cartoon-characters-on-clothing policy is
)) clearly stated, well understood, and evenhandedly enforced.
)
LIZ:
)
)How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product made
)by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be considered
)inappropriate? Where does this end? Who decides what is good
)imagination and what is bad?
Debra:
Yes, have the child wear a tee-shirt with a picture of a gnome, fairy pr a
wet on wet transfer as an experiment. Does the child still need to turn it
inside out? Who is willing to experiment? I'll help pay the costs of making
a transfer if someone is willing to take on the challenge. I'm certain
others would contribute. We could make two tee-shirt transfers and send our
kids to school wearing them. One that the WC crowd chooses as appropriate
for children, and one that we deem Anthroposophically correct. This idea
needs work, but it could evolve into something that we could all agree on.
How about it, David? We on the list should remain silent, turning it into a
controled experiment around several Waldorf schools. Would you be a willing
participant, willing to allow your child(ren) to wear such a thing, if
people here were willing to help sponsor it? This could be interesting, Liz.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 480
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Symbols, was David
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Symbols, was David
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Diana?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
By snell gv.net
Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Waldorf Education sanitized?
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Waldorf Education sanitized?
By dingman mindspring.com
Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Symbols, was David
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By Gary GoodWinter.com
the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 08:16:52 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
on 9/15/01 9:22 PM, Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff at lizanderrol home.com
wrote:
)
) How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product made
) by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be considered
) inappropriate? Where does this end? Who decides what is good
) imagination and what is bad?
Sharon:
The Steiner enforcers decide, after all, they know. Steiner's aesthetic is
the only "kosher" aesthetic, the only one allowed. The pictures / symbols
given are Anthroposophic, there is no art or free expression in Waldorf. Our
school was void of any typical young children's drawings, sad actually. This
was extremely frustrating for a family of artists like ours. Total
discrimination to permit only one aesthetic, this is why I work tirelessly
to get Waldorf to own who they are, so that family's like mine can be spared
making a wrong choice, affecting our lives forever.
You should have seen the flap after I innocently attempted to give
kindergartners pencils to make drawings for a fund raiser. That was when I
learned thhat linear drawings are a no no in Waldorf. (Even though young
humans have been making line drawings for millions of years, got to change
evolution I suppose.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 08:19:46 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
on 9/15/01 9:22 PM, Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff at lizanderrol home.com
wrote:
)
) How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product made
) by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be considered
) inappropriate?
Sharon:
Actually, at our school you could wear a shirt with microcosmic man on it,
anything produced by Waldorf was OK.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:17:04 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Diana?
)I just realized Diana hasn't posted here since the tenth. I don't know
)exactly where she lives, but since she said she's in the mid-Atlantic
) )region (includes both Washington and NYC, by my reckoning), I suddenly
) )got concerned this morning.
Oh, I am fine. We are all physically fine. I read the list earlier in the
week and I was very relieved to hear you had not been anywhere near the
Pentagon, David. Who'd have thought? and that Gary was safe also. I have
thought of you all but just can't talk. Still too numb. More later, thinking
of you all.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:21:04 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
Sharon: Just read this, published by the Rudolf Steiner Press in 1996!
"Although it is not standard practice, some schools invite adherents of all
kinds of religious persuasions to address their twelfth class and explain
their faiths and what they mean to them. Thus the pupils may hear from an
Anglican, a Roman Catholic, an Evangelical, a Quaker, a Buddhist, native
African, Moslem, even a Scientologist." (Roy Wilkinson, The Spiritual Basis
of Steiner Education, Sophia Books, Rudolf Steiner Press, London. c 1996.
p78.)
Sharon:
Excuse me folks while I go out and convert to "Native African". (sarcasm)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:56:15 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
) Sharon: Just read this, published by the Rudolf Steiner Press in 1996!
)
) "Although it is not standard practice, some schools invite adherents of all
) kinds of religious persuasions to address their twelfth class and explain
) their faiths and what they mean to them. Thus the pupils may hear from an
) Anglican, a Roman Catholic, an Evangelical, a Quaker, a Buddhist, native
) African, Moslem, even a Scientologist." (Roy Wilkinson, The Spiritual Basis
) of Steiner Education, Sophia Books, Rudolf Steiner Press, London. c 1996.
) p78.)
)
) Sharon:
) Excuse me folks while I go out and convert to "Native African". (sarcasm)
)
it would be very interesting to ask roy wilkinson about this today, he is
still very much part of the anthro comunity in forest row in the uk and
still sells his books at the school etc, surely even anthro's must cringe at
this terminololgy?
bea
I've just read this again...published in 1996!!! I thought it must have been
50/60 years ago!!! how could they publish this in 1996??
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:01:20 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
)Sharon: Just read this, published by the Rudolf Steiner Press in 1996!
)
)"Although it is not standard practice, some schools invite adherents of all
)kinds of religious persuasions to address their twelfth class and explain
)their faiths and what they mean to them. Thus the pupils may hear from an
)Anglican, a Roman Catholic, an Evangelical, a Quaker, a Buddhist, native
)African, Moslem, even a Scientologist." (Roy Wilkinson, The Spiritual Basis
)of Steiner Education, Sophia Books, Rudolf Steiner Press, London. c 1996.
)p78.)
)
)Sharon:
)Excuse me folks while I go out and convert to "Native African". (sarcasm)
Debra:
In our public Waldorf school, the parents began complaining that no other
eligious views were being expressed other than Anthroposophy. In the spirit
of public school, and at some Jewish families insistance that the school
balanced the Christianity being promoted in the classroom, one teacher
invited a person of Jewish faith to talk to his students. Later the teacher
bragged to the parents about how he handled the situation. He simply told
the kids after the Jewish person left, "Now this is the way *he* believes,
*not* the way *we* believe."
The Jewish families in the class protested, "We *are* Jewish. This *is* the
way we believe." They were so ticked off that their children were given
that message. The teachers just didn't seem to get it.
Interesting that it is only in the 12th grade that it may be safe to allow
the students to be exposed to other beliefs, after they have completed the
entire 13 to 14 year indoctrination process.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:45:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: more racist ignorance from Anthro Press
)Sharon: Just read this, published by the Rudolf Steiner Press in 1996!
)
)"Although it is not standard practice, some schools invite adherents of all
)kinds of religious persuasions to address their twelfth class and explain
)their faiths and what they mean to them. Thus the pupils may hear from an
)Anglican, a Roman Catholic, an Evangelical, a Quaker, a Buddhist, native
)African, Moslem, even a Scientologist." (Roy Wilkinson, The Spiritual Basis
)of Steiner Education, Sophia Books, Rudolf Steiner Press, London. c 1996.
)p78.)
)
)Sharon:
)Excuse me folks while I go out and convert to "Native African". (sarcasm)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/bgn/index.cfm?docid=2886
*PEOPLE AND RELIGION
Cuba is a multiracial society with a population of mainly Spanish and
African origins. The largest organized religion is the Roman Catholic
Church. Afro-Cuban religions, a blend of native African religions and Roman
Catholicism, are widely practiced in Cuba.*
http://www.allspiritual.com/NativeAfrican.php3
College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York:
RLS 235 Primal Perspectives (3)
http://www.strose.edu/Academic/undergradcat/acadprograms/course_descriptions/religious_studies_d.htm
*Spirituality expressed as religious practice and belief outside the
boundaries of major world religious traditions: Native African, Polynesian,
Native Australian, Siberian; traditions and assessment of their
contemporary relevance. (LA-A)*
Wellesley College:
http://www.wellesley.edu/RelLife/multi_faith/team.htm
*The Office of Religious and Spiritual Life now strives to support the
spiritual, educational and worship needs of all Wellesley students. Support
and celebration for people of Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian (Orthodox,
Protestant, Roman Catholic), Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Native African,
Native American, Pagan, Sikh, Unitarian Universalist, Zoroastrian and other
religious traditions is offered through the Office of Religious and
Spiritual Life.*
'Loyola University Chicago' (http://www.luc.edu/):
-) http://www.luc.edu/depts/rel_cul_soc/rcss01.htm
*Religion Culture and Society
Course Descriptions
Spring 2001
...
Native African, Religion & Spirituality
Raymond Mosha
RCS 251-118 (THEO 280, BWS 278, INTS 398)
MWF 12:30 - 1:20 p.m.
Touchtone Registration Call # 43671
Dumbach Hall 233
The aim of this course is to disclose and articulate the basic world views
and basic human values that mold Indigenous African Spirituality
(indigenous life) and to demonstrate that there is no distinction there
between religion and the rest of life experience. It further aims at
showing how the disclosed values or formation directives of Indigenous
African Spirituality (Religion and Life) are timeless and timely human
values that enrich, not only contemporary formational and educational
programs in Africa, but also may contribute to the emerging universal
spirituality or global ethic, and to the urgent need for human and cosmic
survival.*
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:36:37 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: Waldorf Education sanitized?
D L wrote:
Su, I am not going to get into an argument with you. I am willing to
discuss, but not argue. If you would like to discuss any of the
points
made in my email to Sharon, please respond in a less attacking manner
and I
will be willing to discuss - but not argue. If you do not wish to
rationally discuss, no response is needed. Thank you.
Shalom,
DL
Again DL, I feel the need to repeat that you are not in the frame of
mind for telling the truth or for discussing.
Interesting that you don't answer, nor do any of the other WE advocates.
I address this question to all of you.Why don't you answer?
Interestingly you talk about this in terms of "giving up" but the
essential issue is that this not be taught in public schools. You avoid
that completely.
The rest of us Critics need to address this issue again. I am repeating
the question:
I still want to know what a sanitized Waldorf Education would look
like.
You cannot provide that data, because it would be impossible. Just not
possible.
I think you are using words like "argument" or "criticism" in the same
way that you use
the word "attack." Any form of criticism of a cultic group is an
"attack"
or an "argument". Period.
I would like to see you describe a Waldorf school without
Anthroposophy,
without Lemuria and Atlantis, without "spiritual science".
Unfortunately the problem is that criticism and debate for you "equal"
to
"attack". Why tiptoe around the fact that you are promoting the idea
of
reincarnation? Why dance around the issue of promoting to children
each
time they have a birthday, the idea that they are the reincarnated
soul
of someone else,crossing the Rainbow Bridge, and and that they then
"choose" their parents? These are all beliefs that are part of a
belief
system, that many may not desire for their children.
You are being evasive, and promoting the covert behavior that is so
distinctive of Anthroposophists and Waldorf Education. Covert behavior
is the hallmark of Anthroposophy. A belief system for troubled souls.
I
have met many of them. Including many who visit this board,to defend
it.
Why beat around the bush?
It is a trojan horse mentality, in which one plants themselves within
a
community and others don't realize what they are about. This type of
covert behavior is well known to Americans for many reasons. It is the
most effective, and it works now as it did for Odysseus. Very well,
very
effectively. And it is clever of you to continue doing it, because you
can maintain your high and mighty posture of "above it all". It is
very
clever, very astute. And you may continue to operate as you do, for a
long long time, but unfortunately, many have caught on to you, enough
to
be questioning your motives. Which is why this board exists. And why
almost 70,000 people have visited it.
It's not that *I* can't discuss rationally; I can.
It's that *you* cannot discuss the truth openly because it is not part
of your belief system to discuss things openly. This is the hallmark
of
Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education. Everything must be discovered or
revealed, "little by little", because otherwise you would scare people
away. I have heard that said by very high-level WE people.
It is not I who cannot discuss. It is you. You are projecting your own
inability to openly discuss the doctrines and methodology of
Anthroposophy. It is you who have limitations on the discussion.
Because
Dornach does not permit it. You are a member of a belief system, which
limits your freedom and behavior. You are quite bound by that system
of
beliefs, and by the covert way in which you operate, in order to
spread
your beliefs.
Quite simply and plainly.
Try hard as you can to make *me* look like the impediment. But
everyone
here who has called into question the premises of WE or A will agree
with me. You and your cronies are the ones who are playing cat and
mouse
regarding all the important issues that concern this board.
No problem; we all know this and as much as you try, you are very
obvious.
Shalom, DL, and we've got your game.
I await any and all to address this, but I won't hold my breath,
because I know you *can't* answer this.
All the best,
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:34:54 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Education sanitized?
Su wrote:
)
)
)
) Try hard as you can to make *me* look like the impediment. But
) everyone
) here who has called into question the premises of WE or A will agree
) with me. You and your cronies are the ones who are playing cat and
) mouse
) regarding all the important issues that concern this board.
)
) No problem; we all know this and as much as you try, you are very
) obvious.
)
) Shalom, DL, and we've got your game.
)
) I await any and all to address this, but I won't hold my breath,
) because I know you *can't* answer this.
)
) All the best,
)
) Su
)
Newpaul
Perhaps the advocates answer is to deny the facts. After all, if it is
true for you and me and Debra, and Sharon, and Dan and Diana and Lisa,
and Michael and hundreds of others critics, there is an excellent chance
it is also true for all Waldorf Schools and for them as well. Truth is
no respecter of persons. So rather than face the facts, Waldorfers deny
them, calling them accusations and the critics misguided, and believing
they can hide behind the lie that public waldorf charters are somehow
separated from the religious and occult influences of the private
sectarian Waldorf Schools.
Public or private, the foundational precepts of Waldorf ED and Steiner's
theories of child development are both rooted in the occult and in
magic. IMO it is a sinking ship of fools.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 23:37:00 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
Debra:
)Interesting that it is only in the 12th grade that it may be safe to allow
)the students to be exposed to other beliefs, after they have completed the
)entire 13 to 14 year indoctrination process.
The school in question is obviously not following the normal Waldorf plan.
http://www.jlc.net/~faiman/waldorf/handbook_curriculum.html#religion
"Religion and Festivals"
"Pine Hill welcomes families from a wide range of religious and
philosophical backgrounds. We celebrate Michaelmas, Christmas and Easter
which are Christian festivals. Teachers also celebrate some of the Jewish
festivals, especially in third grade in connection with the stories of the
Old Testament, and they tell stories from various religious traditions each
year. In the elementary grades, we seek to instill in the children a sense
of reverence for the world and the wisdom and beauty apparent in its
formation."
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:27:44 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
Why not multicultural all the time? Why the focus on Michelmas, Advent,
Christmas, Easter, St. Martin's, St. John's Tide if you are trying to
provide a multicultural perspective in reference to religion or world view
or beliefs (whichever you care to call it)? Telling a few stories from
various other belief systems or cultures does not seem quite adequate to me.
Equal respect and representation, please! I have never understood this in
light of the assertions that Waldorf Ed is non-sectarian. It was definitely
Pagan/Northern European Christian around here to the exclusion of all else.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:50:49 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
Paula:
)Why not multicultural all the time? Why the focus on Michelmas, Advent,
)Christmas, Easter, St. Martin's, St. John's Tide if you are trying to
)provide a multicultural perspective in reference to religion or world view
)or beliefs (whichever you care to call it)? Telling a few stories from
)various other belief systems or cultures does not seem quite adequate to me.
)Equal respect and representation, please! I have never understood this in
)light of the assertions that Waldorf Ed is non-sectarian. It was definitely
)Pagan/Northern European Christian around here to the exclusion of all else.
WE was founded in Europe; it grew out of the European Christian
culture and its Jewish and Pagan roots. The adaptation of this
educational approach to peoples of other continents would be a task
for those who establish Waldorf schools in the Americas and other
continents. As a European, I see no point in using criticism of WE on
other continents as an argument against our Anthroposophy-inspired
cultures and institutions here in Europe. Nordic mythology, for
instance, is our national heritage. If that is inappropriate for
Americans, it is the task of American educators to make the desired
adjustments.
Pine Hill Waldorf School is located in North America. As far as I
remember, North America does have a lot of people of European descent
with a penchant for Christianity, English and Celtic mythology,
Shakespeare, Jewish history, and Germanic and Nordic and Greek
mythology. If this is not suitable, why not find another private
school instead, with a different profile?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:26:51 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
on 9/16/01 5:37 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
) "Pine Hill welcomes families from a wide range of religious and
) philosophical backgrounds. We celebrate Michaelmas, Christmas and Easter
) which are Christian festivals. Teachers also celebrate some of the Jewish
) festivals, especially in third grade in connection with the stories of the
) Old Testament, and they tell stories from various religious traditions each
) year. In the elementary grades, we seek to instill in the children a sense
) of reverence for the world and the wisdom and beauty apparent in its
) formation."
Their ignorance shows...no Jew calls this section of the Bible "The Old
Testament". This is not only ignorant, but insulting, as "old" implies that
it has been replaced by the "new" testament -- it is no longer valid.
Nice try.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:33:11 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
Tarjei,
Still do not understand the insistence that it can be done no other way. No
adaptations allowed or encouraged--at least this is what I have been told.
I think maybe over here we are possibly more multicultural than your area,
and it would make sense to adapt (over here), but this does not happen, at
least in my area. Even the seasonal variations are not taken into account.
What the heck do they do in the Southern Hemisphere?
A friend who trained years ago under a number of European anthroposophist
noted at that time that there was the view and promotion of "this is the way
it is and this is the way it must be done--no alterations!" When I speak of
Waldorf Ed as I did in my previous post, I speak from my American
perspective--no Northern European bashing intended! What is perfectly
reasonable and appropriate in one area may not be so appropriate in another.
What I do not understand is why when this is brought up, instead of
acknowledging this and possibly looking towards a solution, we are told that
we "do not understand", that to change things in this respect would be a
deviation from the way the curriculum is supposed to be presented, among
other things. Also, America can vary greatly from region to region--but
you've been here and you probably already realize this.
As far as choosing another school, we have and we love it! Can't tell you
what a difference it has made for the boys--most everything Waldorf promoted
and then failed to deliver. I consider ourselves fortunate in this respect.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:31:42 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
on 9/16/01 5:37 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
) Debra:
)
)) Interesting that it is only in the 12th grade that it may be safe to allow
)) the students to be exposed to other beliefs, after they have completed the
)) entire 13 to 14 year indoctrination process.
)
) The school in question is obviously not following the normal Waldorf plan.
Tarjei then quotes from the Pine Hill Parent Handbook on "Religion and
Festivals", presumably to illustrate the normal Waldorf plan.
Please note that over the years, I have consistently made it a point *not*
to claim that the Pine Hill story is definitive, authoritative, or
universal, with regard to Waldorf either worldwide or in the US. While I
was appalled at Debra's story of "that's what they believe, not what we
believe", and had an immediate personal response of "what a screwed-up
apology for a Waldorf school", I can no more demonstrate that Debra's school
was a shocking aberration from the norm (represented by Pine Hill :-) than
she can demonstrate that her school was itself representative of the Waldorf
norm. This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and stories
of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they can
expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:44:28 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
) ) David: Not necessarily, if the
) ) no-cartoon-characters-on-clothing policy is
) ) clearly stated, well understood, and evenhandedly enforced.
)
)
) I think if you search far enough you could find both Brother Wind and
) Father Winter in a cartoon somewhere. Most kids today would be totally
) unfamiliar with Felix the Cat, unless they had cool parents. When does
) something become a 'cartoon character' and when is it just a picture of
) something.
)
) How about if a child wore a T-shirt with a picture of some product made
) by the Waldorf company, whatever-it's-called, would that be considered
) inappropriate? Where does this end? Who decides what is good
) imagination and what is bad?
It certainly varies, based from school to school. That's not my point.
Anybody is welcome to question (or disagree with, or ridicule) a policy, if
it's clearly stated. Depending on the policy and how it's viewed by the
school, though, an unwillingness to follow such policies might be a problem.
Our school requests no pictures (or advertisements) on clothing, but I know
that's not rigidly enforced, because my children sometimes wear shirts with
pictures on them (and I daresay my wife and I are viewed as pretty
supportive of our teachers).
If this attire got to be a problem, I am sure we would talk with the teacher
about it before it got to the point where shirts were turned inside-out in
class.
The issue when I wrote the above note was whether it is "discrimination and
humiliation" when a teacher enforces such a policy. I still say if the
policy is clearly stated and known to all parties in advance, then a fair
enforcement need not be viewed as unfair or shaming.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 05:49:24 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
Gary:
)Their ignorance shows...no Jew calls this section of the Bible "The Old
)Testament". This is not only ignorant, but insulting, as "old" implies that
)it has been replaced by the "new" testament -- it is no longer valid.
By that line of reasoning, every Christian Bible divided into the Old
and the New Testaments is an insult. Christianity itself is an insult.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:01:44 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
) Their ignorance shows...no Jew calls this section of the Bible "The
Old
) Testament".
Well, no, but the Christians sure do! And since the whole Anthro thing
is "esoteric Christianity" or whatever, this shouldn't come as a big
surprise.
) This is not only ignorant, but insulting, as "old" implies that
) it has been replaced by the "new" testament -- it is no longer
valid.
Well, yeah... I agree with you, but I would say the Waldorf schools
are no more insulting than any other Christian (or pseudo-Christian)
organization, in that regard.
Just playing devil's advocate, if you will!
~ Sarina
"It's nice to have a church to go to on Sunday morning.
Especially one that doesn't make you throw up."
--Thomas N. Winter--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:25:13 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
on 9/16/01 11:49 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
) Gary:
)
)) Their ignorance shows...no Jew calls this section of the Bible "The Old
)) Testament". This is not only ignorant, but insulting, as "old" implies that
)) it has been replaced by the "new" testament -- it is no longer valid.
)
) By that line of reasoning, every Christian Bible divided into the Old
) and the New Testaments is an insult. Christianity itself is an insult.
My point is that they are simply playing lip-service to other religions. I
hardly call that "reverence".
Shanah tovah! (Happy New Year)
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 06:25:42 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: the insult of the New Testament
I agree that the New Testament is insulting. It is an obscene affront
to the holy ethos of the Old Testament and other pre-Christian
religions, and to Islam. It is an ethos that was described by Tolstoi
and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King among others,
who represented major moral achievements in the twentieth century in
the face of major setbacks elsewhere.
The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
Palestinians with heavy armor.
Here are the insulting, offensive words:
*****************************************************
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
*****************************************************
Someone once summed this up in the following way:
Answering good with evil is demonic.
Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
Answering good with good is human.
Answering evil with good is divine.
*****************************************************
I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
church where they want you to throw up.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:32:34 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
on 9/17/01 12:25 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
) I agree that the New Testament is insulting. It is an obscene affront
) to the holy ethos of the Old Testament and other pre-Christian
) religions, and to Islam. It is an ethos that was described by Tolstoi
) and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King among others,
) who represented major moral achievements in the twentieth century in
) the face of major setbacks elsewhere.
)
) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
) Palestinians with heavy armor.
)
) Here are the insulting, offensive words:
)
) *****************************************************
)
) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
) and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
) them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
) which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
) children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
) rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
) the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
) do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
) only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
) ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
) perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
)
) *****************************************************
)
) Someone once summed this up in the following way:
)
) Answering good with evil is demonic.
)
) Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
)
) Answering good with good is human.
)
) Answering evil with good is divine.
)
) *****************************************************
)
) I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
) church where they want you to throw up.
Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
"Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade Cen... uh, well,
perhaps we can find another suitable place...
Any suggestions?
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:36:22 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
on 9/17/01 12:32 AM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
) on 9/17/01 12:25 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
)) I agree that the New Testament is insulting. It is an obscene affront
)) to the holy ethos of the Old Testament and other pre-Christian
)) religions, and to Islam. It is an ethos that was described by Tolstoi
)) and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King among others,
)) who represented major moral achievements in the twentieth century in
)) the face of major setbacks elsewhere.
))
)) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
)) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
)) Palestinians with heavy armor.
))
)) Here are the insulting, offensive words:
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
)) and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
)) them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
)) which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
)) children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
)) rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
)) the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
)) do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
)) only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
)) ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
)) perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Someone once summed this up in the following way:
))
)) Answering good with evil is demonic.
))
)) Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
))
)) Answering good with good is human.
))
)) Answering evil with good is divine.
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
)) church where they want you to throw up.
)
)
) Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
) club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
) cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
) "Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade Cen... uh, well,
) perhaps we can find another suitable place...
)
) Any suggestions?
)
) ...Gary
I know! We can invite them to The Steiner School in NYC! Then after a
respectful meeting full of reverence and love and light, we can give them a
tour of the City...
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 06:39:00 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
Gary:
)Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
)club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
)cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
)"Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade Cen... uh, well,
)perhaps we can find another suitable place...
According to the New Testament ethos as described in Mattew and
elsewhere, a follower of Christ should shower Bin Ladin with flowers
and love and forgiveness. That's why it's so offensive.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:51:54 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
on 9/17/01 12:39 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
) Gary:
)
)) Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
)) club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
)) cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
)) "Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade Cen... uh, well,
)) perhaps we can find another suitable place...
)
) According to the New Testament ethos as described in Mattew and
) elsewhere, a follower of Christ should shower Bin Ladin with flowers
) and love and forgiveness. That's why it's so offensive.
And THAT is why I am NOT a Christian!
BTW, in my youth, I WAS a born-again Christian, a pacifist even. I
registered for the draft as a Conscientious Objector, and was granted a 1-O
status (C.O.). I even quoted that very passage in my essay to the Draft
Board.
Now, having lived through some terrifying experiences, with images of
flaming body parts falling from the sky etched in my mind, I am re-thinking
the wisdom of that approach to "solving" the world's problems.
Well, at least those WTC victims who were "saved" Christians are off in a
"beautiful place," laughing down at those who were left behind. At the same
time, the hijackers are now "Martyrs". Perhaps they'll all be best buddies
up in heaven? Isn't religion wonderful?
Cynically yours,
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:58:54 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
on 9/17/01 12:51 AM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
) on 9/17/01 12:39 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
)) Gary:
))
))) Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
))) club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
))) cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
))) "Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade
Cen... uh, well,
))) perhaps we can find another suitable place...
))
)) According to the New Testament ethos as described in Mattew and
)) elsewhere, a follower of Christ should shower Bin Ladin with flowers
)) and love and forgiveness. That's why it's so offensive.
)
) And THAT is why I am NOT a Christian!
)
) BTW, in my youth, I WAS a born-again Christian, a pacifist even. I
) registered for the draft as a Conscientious Objector, and was granted a 1-O
) status (C.O.). I even quoted that very passage in my essay to the Draft
) Board.
)
) Now, having lived through some terrifying experiences, with images of
) flaming body parts falling from the sky etched in my mind, I am re-thinking
) the wisdom of that approach to "solving" the world's problems.
)
) Well, at least those WTC victims who were "saved" Christians are off in a
) "beautiful place," laughing down at those who were left behind. At the same
) time, the hijackers are now "Martyrs". Perhaps they'll all be best buddies
) up in heaven? Isn't religion wonderful?
)
) Cynically yours,
)
) ...Gary
Well, I've had enough fun for one night. Gotta get up early for my trek
back to the war zone...my daughter went to bed in tears when I told her that
I would be returning to NYC tomorrow.
Wish me luck!
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:11:51 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
)on 9/17/01 12:39 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
)) Gary:
))
))) Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
))) club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
))) cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
))) "Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade
)))Cen... uh, well,
))) perhaps we can find another suitable place...
))
)) According to the New Testament ethos as described in Mattew and
)) elsewhere, a follower of Christ should shower Bin Ladin with flowers
)) and love and forgiveness. That's why it's so offensive.
)
)And THAT is why I am NOT a Christian!
)
)BTW, in my youth, I WAS a born-again Christian, a pacifist even. I
)registered for the draft as a Conscientious Objector, and was granted a 1-O
)status (C.O.). I even quoted that very passage in my essay to the Draft
)Board.
)
)Now, having lived through some terrifying experiences, with images of
)flaming body parts falling from the sky etched in my mind, I am re-thinking
)the wisdom of that approach to "solving" the world's problems.
)
)Well, at least those WTC victims who were "saved" Christians are off in a
)"beautiful place," laughing down at those who were left behind. At the same
)time, the hijackers are now "Martyrs". Perhaps they'll all be best buddies
)up in heaven? Isn't religion wonderful?
)
)Cynically yours,
)
)...Gary
Just to clear a few things up: I have not said that I personally
subscribe to the ethos in question at the present time. But I do
regard it as a pointer to the future. And I also regard the
afore-mentioned heroes as pioneers.
Gandhi may have been naive when he wrote a letter to Hitler trying to
persuade him into reason. It didn't work. But I admire that gutsy
Indian for trying.
The world would be so much colder snd crueller _without_ those brave
individuals who try to do precisely that: to answer evil with good,
to answer hate with love. And the world would be so much poorer if
such *naive* endeavors of "bleeding heart liberals" were not
persistent.
Perhaps what Nietzsche called an Ðbermensch, Superman, is a human
being who has evolved to the point where only thoughts and acts of
selfless love are present in him or her, and where anything to the
contrary is unthinkable, even when faced with evil and ruthless
brutality. A mutation.
Idealistically yours,
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 23:28:45 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
)on 9/17/01 12:25 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
)) I agree that the New Testament is insulting. It is an obscene affront
)) to the holy ethos of the Old Testament and other pre-Christian
)) religions, and to Islam. It is an ethos that was described by Tolstoi
)) and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King among others,
)) who represented major moral achievements in the twentieth century in
)) the face of major setbacks elsewhere.
))
)) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
)) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
)) Palestinians with heavy armor.
))
)) Here are the insulting, offensive words:
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
)) and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
)) them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
)) which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
)) children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
)) rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
)) the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
)) do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
)) only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
)) ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
)) perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Someone once summed this up in the following way:
))
)) Answering good with evil is demonic.
))
)) Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
))
)) Answering good with good is human.
))
)) Answering evil with good is divine.
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
)) church where they want you to throw up.
)
Gary:
)Well, isn't this nice...why don't we just invite the remaining Bin Ladin
)club members (don't want to call them "terrorists"...not nice) over for a
)cup of tea and politely discuss their grievances. We could do it at the
)"Windows on the World" restaurant on top of the World Trade Cen... uh, well,
)perhaps we can find another suitable place...
)
)Any suggestions?
Debra:
Yes. We could serve them MacDonalds burgers with "special sauce. . ."
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 481
-- Topica Digest --
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Symbols
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By mysplum earthlink.net
Correction
By snell gv.net
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By snell gv.net
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By snell gv.net
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By snell gv.net
RE: No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
By snell gv.net
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Symbols, was David
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By tastraum uncletaz.com
the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
families informed, or not?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By dan dandugan.com
Re: families informed, or not?
By faiman jlc.net
Re: families informed, or not?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: the insult of the New Testament
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:02:31 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
on 9/16/01 11:28 PM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
)))
))) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
))) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
))) Palestinians with heavy armor.
Sharon:
Not me right? You're talking about the other one?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:36:08 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols
on 9/15/01 9:55 PM, Sarina McDonald at sarina bainbridge.net wrote:
)
) Our school has a clearly explained and fairly enforced policy of
) nonviolence, which clearly discourages the glamorization of violence
) in children's play (toys & games), media, clothing, etc. Violent
) material, including super-heroes, scary dinosaurs, and monsters, is
) not allowed on children's clothing, backpacks, etc. when they are at
) school. The parents all know about this philosophy in advance of
) enrollment (and in fact, many choose to be here because of it).
Sharon:
I respect that policy and agree with it.
I always transferred this kind of thinking to Waldorf's rational, but
Waldorf was never what it seemed. Always something else going on that I
didn't understand until I left and began to read Steiner. I think it's
ridiculous to ban Gumby and Maisy and all the other very sweet stories
available. There is a difference between violent crap and endearing
children's stories.
I was quite shocked when my daughter told me a story she had learned at
Waldorf school about a husband chopping up 89 wives and having the first
wife return to kill him because she hadn't gone to heaven. I immediately
tried to find that story, thought it was a version of "Bluebeard", but it
differed significantly. The teacher said it was "architypal"....and I smiled
sweetly like an idiot. Still looking for that tale. My child was in
kindergarten!!!!
Waldorf is on a mission to prepare children for the afterlife, for a better
reincarnation, that is why they are so serious, no time for any worldly
pleasures, only time for Grimm, written for adults, and other moral tales,
to pass along coded messages. Lisa sent me some Waldorf children's books,
they give me the creeps because they are illustrated in the Waldorf style,
with all sorts of occult symbols. I have a reversion to them, give me sweet
little Maisy the mouse any day!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:26:23 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
Tarjei Straume wrote:)
)
) Here are the insulting, offensive words:
)
) *****************************************************
)
) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
) and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
) them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
) which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
) children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
) rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
) the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
) do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
) only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
) ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
) perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
)
) *****************************************************
)
) Someone once summed this up in the following way:
)
) Answering good with evil is demonic.
)
) Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
)
) Answering good with good is human.
)
) Answering evil with good is divine.
)
) *****************************************************
)
) I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
) church where they want you to throw up.
) --
) Tarjei
)
Newpaul
This is great Tarjei - radical, offensive, insulting. Now can you
describe the old and new convenants and how are forever changed by the
blood of Christ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:53:08 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
Sharon:
I am trying to determine when to date Anthroposophy. My research has too
many conflicting dates, some say that the society began in 1912, but I also
have many references to it from 1910 and even well before that date. Can
somebody help me square this away? I presume that Steiner preached
Anthroposophy from the Theosophical pulpit from at least 1906, probably even
sooner. Then left the Theosophical Society in 1910 after Leadbeater's
scandal of 1906, and Krishnamurti's arrival, setting up the official Anthro.
Society in 1912, and starting to build his mystical temple, the Goetheanum
in 1913. When did Steiner actually coin the word Anthroposophy?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:48:46 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Correction
Debra:
I didn't write this.
-ds
)on 9/16/01 11:28 PM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
)
))))
)))) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
)))) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
)))) Palestinians with heavy armor.
)
)Sharon:
)Not me right? You're talking about the other one?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:48:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
))Diana wrote:
))I don't know what it is you really want to know, DL. I thought you
))were asking, Why do a study on whether a "focus on the intellect"
))was a good thing in educating children. So, such a study would try
))to show, I suppose, whether focusing on the intellect was a good
))thing in educating children. Waldorf makes the claim that it is
))not. So such research might attempt to determine whether that was
))true.
))Diana
)
)DL: True how? Better how? Maybe I'm not being clear. But how can
)a scientific study show if focusing on the intellect is "better"?
)Whether or not focusing on the intellect is better is a subjective
)opinion.
I am sure it has consequences that can be observed.
)How does a scientific study evaluate the subjective nature of that
)question? A scientific study might be able to show the "effects" of
)one versus the other - but not without a lot of work to limit
)variables - and even then, it would be iffy, imo.
Those are the challenges in any study, and all science is "iffy."
)The point I'm trying to make is that while you can create a
)scientific study to study almost anything - scientific studies can
)not evaluate "better."
)
)How would you define "better"? That's the main question. And it
)goes directly to values. I want my child to be able to spend the
)first part of her life without having her intellect be the leader.
)I want my child to explore imagination much more than the intellect
)- at least until she's older.
)
)Can scientific studies measure values? I don't think they can. But
)I seem to be in a minority here. If you think they can, please
)enlighten me.
I am interested in finding out if children who were taught to read
early, for example, compared with children taught to read later, have
discernably different outcomes later in their school careers. For
example, there's a 1997 paper "Early Reading Acquisition and its
Relation to Reading Experience and Ability Ten Years Later" by Ann
Cunningham that I'm trying to get ahold of.
I'm also interested in the effect of Waldorf on the students'
world-view. I think it would be quite possible to design a study
comparing the dimension of magic/rationality in the world-views of
matched groups of Waldorf graduates and graduates of comparable
private schools.
Scientific studies determine the facts, DL. Given the facts, you can
decide what you think is "better."'
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:08:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything good in Waldorf Ed.?
)))))Dan:
)))))Interesting. Scientific method is immoral, except when people claim
)))))there's something wrong with Waldorf, then they have to have
)))))scientific evidence...
)))))
))))DL wrote:
))))Dan - when have I ever called scientific method immoral?
))
)))Dan:
)))I didn't say you did, and you didn't. I see how my mentioning that
)))oft-heard Anthropop theme in a reply to your post might make you
)))think I was referring to you, sorry.
)))
))DL: You really expect me to believe that? Then please explain the purpose
))of the "off-heard Anthropop theme" in your reply. What exactly did you mean
))by it?
)
)DL writes: Dan - in your (apparent) rush to warn me about what you
)considered an ad hom attack, it seems you missed the last part of
)the email. There's a question pending and I'd love to hear the
)answer.
)
)What exactly did you mean by it?
Sorry I set you off by making a point that had nothing to do with
you. I've read and heard from Anthroposophists that "Goethean
Science" is moral, compared with "materialistic science," which
isn't. I was reminded of this when you mentioned something about a
scientific study. Does that help? There are two arguments for the
immorality of scientific method frequently given: 1) that a
double-blind drug trial harms the control volunteers by lying and
giving them nothing; 2) that any number of examples of evil done
through technology, like the atomic bomb, demonstrate that
materialistic science is harmful. Here's one of the latter:
"Zarathustra shows how far behind even our modern age is with its
abstract moral-less science. It is shown that the dangers of the
atomic age, the terrors of scientific inventions during the last war
have (lightly as yet) awakened the consciousness of man to the
realization that modern 'civilization' had advanced but little
philosophically, morally, and humanely, and only progressed in deadly
destructive and abstract science..." [Pfeiffer, Ehrenfried. The
Zarathustrian Way. Spring Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1982, p. 14 (
quoted in Finser, 1994 p. 245)]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:04:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
)Newpaul wrote:
)) I read the posts of critics because interesting enough Waldorf Education
)) is so offensive that it can unite fundamentalist Christians and hard
)) core Secular Humanists together in opposition to its lies and its
)) deceptions. This is a struggle where religion and science can agree
)) that the cult of Anthroposophy and its sectarian Waldorf Schools are
)) deceptive, unscientific, occult, and perpetuate the spirit of the
)) anti-christ. This strange coop of seemingly opposite groups makes an
)) interesting statement about just how offensive Waldorf really is.
and Kerr (dirtwitch) replied,
)And with this I'm unsubscribing from the WC discussion list.
Don't go away mad.
)I know not ALL critics are such intolerant bigots, but if you align
)yourself with those who wish to deny other people their religious
)FREEDOMS you end up looking just as bad. The concept that all
)anthroposophists have some secret EVIL agenda that is being perpetuated
)on this list (and unfortunately voices like Newpaul and Su's ring out
)more loudly than those of Lisa and Diane) is no different than the
)antisemetic views put forth by neonazis.
Well, I guess you are mad. I can't bust you for ad hominems after you
exit with a loud slam. The freedom of Anthroposophy that PLANS is
restricting is the freedom to feed at the trough of public tax money.
When Anthroposophy behaves more respectfully, it will be more
deserving of respect.
)Unfortunately, the very real
)concerns about waldorf schools religious orientation are lost in what
)can only be read as those concerns being a smokescreen for a bigotted
)campaign against anthroposophy. All I can see right now are the caring
)women I know who went into teaching in waldorf schools because of their
)love of children, out of their own attachment parenting, who came to
)waldorf through reading Elkind, and Gardner, and found in waldorf the
)best chance to nurture children's love of learning.
Everyone who is seduced by Waldorf's false front is well-intentioned.
Good intentions aren't enough, however.
)Not a perfect
)system, but the only one that was developmental in design. If anything,
)participating here has convinced me to work with my local waldorf
)schools more.
The only system that's developmental in design? You're sadly misinformed.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:38:49 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
)on 9/16/01 5:37 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
))
)) Debra:
))
))) Interesting that it is only in the 12th grade that it may be safe to allow
))) the students to be exposed to other beliefs, after they have completed the
))) entire 13 to 14 year indoctrination process.
Tarjei:
)) The school in question is obviously not following the normal Waldorf plan.
Neil:
)Tarjei then quotes from the Pine Hill Parent Handbook on "Religion and
)Festivals", presumably to illustrate the normal Waldorf plan.
)Please note that over the years, I have consistently made it a point *not*
)to claim that the Pine Hill story is definitive, authoritative, or
)universal, with regard to Waldorf either worldwide or in the US. While I
)was appalled at Debra's story of "that's what they believe, not what we
)believe", and had an immediate personal response of "what a screwed-up
)apology for a Waldorf school", I can no more demonstrate that Debra's school
)was a shocking aberration from the norm (represented by Pine Hill :-) than
)she can demonstrate that her school was itself representative of the Waldorf
)norm.
Debra:
That's very true, Neil. I have stated in the past that our Waldorf school
was not only riddled by Anthroposophy, it was riddled by dysfunctional and
dogmatic (insecure) teachers. I wonder how many Waldorf school's drift off
the Anthroposophical norm.
Neil:
This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
)they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and stories
)of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
)considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they can
)expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
Debra:
Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to caution
parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe that Lucifer
is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in reincarnation
should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult should stay away,
as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
That Anthroposophy continues to bill itself as non-sectarian in a country
who is willing to die for religious freedom floors me. There is no need for
this secrecy here. All we ask is that you allow us to make a fully informed
choice for our families, and stop dancing around the truths of your
movement.
I have long felt that Anthroposophy's downfall is the esoteric aspect of
it. If Anthroposophy was up front about their beliefs, I suspect it could
attract and preserve global health within the movement. IMO, living one's
life veiled in secrecy is hard on a soul because of the inherent
dishonesty. Even evangelical missionary efforts are forthright about what
they are doing. That Waldorf schools willingly sign up families who don't
have a clue what they are signing up for, can be hard on a soul, karma
wise. Anthroposophy has a moral corruption piece that I don't like, and it
is built into the belief system. Worse, the Anthro movement, when busted,
squeels, "Ignore the man behind the curtain." Living under rocks can't be
that much fun.
That Anthroposophists believe they will be the only ones who will be able
to see each other in the period between death and rebirth is astounding to
me. If in fact you *will* be able to see in your afterlives, I think you
may well find yourselves watching yourselves wading through alot of *s__t*
because of your misdeeds. I say this because Anthroposophy leaves out two
very important character traits - honesty and integrity. Personally I think
those traits should count for something in the after-life grading system.
While I'm not sure whose boat to jump on, I know I'm passing
anthroposophy's up. If there is a karmic debt Anthro must pay, it's not my
bill.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:57:45 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
)Neil wrote:
)
)This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
) )they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and
)stories
) )of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
) )considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they can
) )expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
)
)
)Debra wrote:
)Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to caution
)parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe that Lucifer
)is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in reincarnation
)should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult should stay away,
)as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
DL: I agree with one variation - that parents who believe differently than
what WE or Anthroposophy espouse *and* do not wish to encounter a different
perspective, stay away. Some might be interested in exploring differences
even though they themselves do not believe.
)Debra wrote:
)That Anthroposophy continues to bill itself as non-sectarian in a country
)who is willing to die for religious freedom floors me. There is no need for
)this secrecy here. All we ask is that you allow us to make a fully informed
)choice for our families, and stop dancing around the truths of your
)movement.
DL: Just wondering - is it Anthroposophy or WE that bill themselves as
non-sectarian? I was under the impression that it is only WE that does
that.
)Debra wrote:
)That Anthroposophists believe they will be the only ones who will be able
)to see each other in the period between death and rebirth is astounding to
)me. If in fact you *will* be able to see in your afterlives, I think you
)may well find yourselves watching yourselves wading through alot of *s__t*
)because of your misdeeds. I say this because Anthroposophy leaves out two
)very important character traits - honesty and integrity.
DL: I'm curious as to how Anthroposophy leaves out honesty and integrity.
Is there an Anthroposophist tenet that says (more or less) do not be honest
or do not have integrity? Or are there other tenets that - if one were to
follow them - would result in a lack of honesty or integrity? Or are you
seeing actions of specific Anthroposophists or those involved with WE
lacking in honesty or integrity?
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:59:18 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
)Dan wrote:
)Scientific studies determine the facts, DL. Given the facts, you can
)decide what you think is "better."'
)
DL: Exactly - while scientific experiments can show us results - evaluating
these results can be a subjective art. Facts can be (and are) twisted all
the time - my question is - even with the facts discovered through a
scientific experiment, everyone still evaluates the results subjectively.
Also, the type of study you seem to be referring to would fall under the
"social sciences" - not physical science - and social science is not nearly
precise in my opinion as physical science.
And if such a study were done and showed a substantial difference between
the WE "delay the intellectualism" approach and a public school or
Montessori school "develop the intellect as soon as possible" approach - I
think there would still be arguments over the findings because person A
might want people to focus on the development of the intellectual and person
B may not - and their evaluation of the results would be just another
argument.
I'm not opposed to such a study - just wary that it will resolve anything.
And I want to be clear that any study of an educational or belief system or
one that deals with human interactions - is not in the realm of physical
science, but social science.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:21:46 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
)Tarjei Straume wrote:)
)
))
)) Here are the insulting, offensive words:
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
)) and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
)) them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
)) which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
)) children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
)) rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
)) the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
)) do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
)) only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be
)) ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
)) perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) Someone once summed this up in the following way:
))
)) Answering good with evil is demonic.
))
)) Answering evil with evil is animalistic.
))
)) Answering good with good is human.
))
)) Answering evil with good is divine.
))
)) *****************************************************
))
)) I guess the above passage from Matthew should only be read in a
)) church where they want you to throw up.
)) --
)) Tarjei
))
)Newpaul
)This is great Tarjei - radical, offensive, insulting. Now can you
)describe the old and new convenants and how are forever changed by the
)blood of Christ?
I forgot to add: The above should be kept locked away from the reach
of fundies.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:24:23 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the insult of the New Testament
)on 9/16/01 11:28 PM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
)
))))
)))) The New Testament ethos is offensive, especially at this hour when
)))) America is crying for revenge and Sharon is beating up on the
)))) Palestinians with heavy armor.
)
)Sharon:
)Not me right? You're talking about the other one?
No, the Israeli prime minister, who is the wrong man in the wrong
place at the worst possible time in history. I wish Peres was running
the show.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:25:51 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
I wrote yesterday,
) This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
) they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and
) stories
) of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
) considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they
) can
) expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
Debra responds,
) Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to
) caution
) parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe that
) Lucifer
) is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in reincarnation
) should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult should stay
) away,
) as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
I'm afraid that I could not disagree with you more. We are a secular
family. We don't believe in reincarnation. We don't believe in the
occult. And we most certainly should *not* have stayed away! I would
go farther, and say that most of the other Waldorf parents I know who
clearly should not have stayed away, fall into one or more of your
"parents who ..." categories.
I understand that it is a basic tenet of Waldorf Criticism that Waldorf
education is so inextricably interwoven with Anthroposophy that it must
be offensive to any informed parent who does not share the
Anthroposophical world view. That simply flies in the face of the huge
numbers of Waldorf families who are well informed, are not in the least
anthroposophically inclined, and who have no problems with the
anthroposophical foundations of Waldorf education.
And if you wish to reply that your experience denies the existence of
such families, then you will simply bring us back around to where I
started: your experience is not my experience, your school is not my
school, and your story is not my story.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:31:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
)Sharon:
)I am trying to determine when to date Anthroposophy. My research has too
)many conflicting dates, some say that the society began in 1912, but I also
)have many references to it from 1910 and even well before that date. Can
)somebody help me square this away? I presume that Steiner preached
)Anthroposophy from the Theosophical pulpit from at least 1906, probably even
)sooner. Then left the Theosophical Society in 1910 after Leadbeater's
)scandal of 1906, and Krishnamurti's arrival, setting up the official Anthro.
)Society in 1912, and starting to build his mystical temple, the Goetheanum
)in 1913. When did Steiner actually coin the word Anthroposophy?
During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated back
to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first coined it.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:50:58 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
David: I find it interesting (and telling) that Neil recommends that
everybody make his/her own decision about waldorf educaiion, and Debra,
while "agreeing" with Neil, then "makes the decision" for several broad
groups.
----------------------------------
Neil Faiman wrote:
This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories they
read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and stories of
its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they
can expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
Debra responds,
Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to
caution parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe
that Lucifer is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in
reincarnation should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult
should stay away,as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
Neil again:
I'm afraid that I could not disagree with you more (rest snipped)
David: Me, too.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:03:26 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
))Neil wrote:
))
))This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
)) )they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and
))stories
)) )of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
)) )considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they can
)) )expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
))
))
))Debra wrote:
))Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to caution
))parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe that Lucifer
))is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in reincarnation
))should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult should stay away,
))as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
)
)DL: I agree with one variation - that parents who believe differently than
)what WE or Anthroposophy espouse *and* do not wish to encounter a different
)perspective, stay away. Some might be interested in exploring differences
)even though they themselves do not believe.
Debra:
In this senario, parents are using their children as guinea pigs. Many
parents who are attracted to Waldorf are the last people who want to
experiment with our children.
)
))Debra wrote:
))That Anthroposophy continues to bill itself as non-sectarian in a country
))who is willing to die for religious freedom floors me. There is no need for
))this secrecy here. All we ask is that you allow us to make a fully informed
))choice for our families, and stop dancing around the truths of your
))movement.
)
)DL: Just wondering - is it Anthroposophy or WE that bill themselves as
)non-sectarian? I was under the impression that it is only WE that does
)that.
Debra:
Anthroposophy bills itself as above religion. They use Spiritual Science
and Anthroposphy interchangably. It's the *only* truth.
)
))Debra wrote:
))That Anthroposophists believe they will be the only ones who will be able
))to see each other in the period between death and rebirth is astounding to
))me. If in fact you *will* be able to see in your afterlives, I think you
))may well find yourselves watching yourselves wading through alot of *s__t*
))because of your misdeeds. I say this because Anthroposophy leaves out two
))very important character traits - honesty and integrity.
)
)DL: I'm curious as to how Anthroposophy leaves out honesty and integrity.
)Is there an Anthroposophist tenet that says (more or less) do not be honest
)or do not have integrity? Or are there other tenets that - if one were to
)follow them - would result in a lack of honesty or integrity? Or are you
)seeing actions of specific Anthroposophists or those involved with WE
)lacking in honesty or integrity?
Debra:
It's built into the system, IMO. There have been numerous quotes posted
here that support my assertion and I reposted some of the quotes just a
couple weeks or so ago on this list.
I transcribed a radio debate between Dan Dugan and AWSNA leaders. The
discussion was centered around a quote from Eugene Schwartz's book,
"Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide." This book was listed as a teachers
resource guide in a public Waldorf school in Sacramento.PLANS used an
embarrassing quote from the book that was purchased with taxpayer's money
in a press release. The quote was about how Waldorf schools are under the
guardianship of Lucifer and how that was a good thing. WCBM's Les
Kensolving (Baltimore) obtained our press release and interviewed both
sides.
AWSNA's leaders wormed their way through the interview, denying important
Anthro tenets and denouncing (until that moment) a very important USA
Anthro leader. Eugene Schwartz was the head of Waldorf teacher training at
Sunbridge College who, prior to our press release, was held in high esteem.
Schwartz must not have liked being outed from the movement by his peers. He
scheduled a seminar at Sunbridge and invited Dan to give a slideshow. The
following morning, Schwartz gave an amazing lecture - essentially agreeing
with PLANS - Waldorf should be honest about what they do, and further
stating that Waldorf wasn't ready for the public sector. I was astounded.
It looked like there was about to be a split between the East and West
Anthro movements.
During this time, PLANS speculated about the security of Schwartz's job.
Sadly, our concerns were validated. Shortly after the seminar, Schwartz was
fired from his job as head of Sunbridge College. He said his termination
was a result of the seminar and his speech. This tells me that the Anthro
big coats are still vested in dishonesty.
I wish Schartz would split off from Anthroposophy and create a new sect of
Anthroposophy, complete with integrity and morality.
This radio program/debate is available. It's a fat file - 43K. If anyone
wants a copy, I'll email it privately.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:43:54 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
))Sharon:
))I am trying to determine when to date Anthroposophy. My research has too
))many conflicting dates, some say that the society began in 1912, but I also
))have many references to it from 1910 and even well before that date. Can
))somebody help me square this away? I presume that Steiner preached
))Anthroposophy from the Theosophical pulpit from at least 1906, probably even
))sooner. Then left the Theosophical Society in 1910 after Leadbeater's
))scandal of 1906, and Krishnamurti's arrival, setting up the official Anthro.
))Society in 1912, and starting to build his mystical temple, the Goetheanum
))in 1913. When did Steiner actually coin the word Anthroposophy?
Tarjei:
)During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated back
)to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first coined it.
Debra:
Interesting. Do you know who first coined the word? If this is true, Taz,
then Steiner even stole the name of the very movement he is credited with
founding.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:53:10 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: RE: No universal experiences (was: Waldorf and religion)
)David: I find it interesting (and telling) that Neil recommends that
)everybody make his/her own decision about waldorf educaiion, and Debra,
)while "agreeing" with Neil, then "makes the decision" for several broad
)groups.
Debra:
I'll concede to both Neil and your arguments and say this: Parents should
not only understand the relationship between Waldorf and Anthroposophy,
but should understand where Anthroposophy's tenets differ from their own
belief system, by giving parents a short sheet of Anthro's core beliefs. If
parents are still fine with that, then they should go for it. Then, if they
have complaints later, they have only themselves to blame.
)
)----------------------------------
)Neil Faiman wrote:
)This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories they
)read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and stories of
)its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
)considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they
)can expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
)
)Debra responds,
)Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to
)caution parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe
)that Lucifer is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in
)reincarnation should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult
)should stay away,as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
)
)Neil again:
)I'm afraid that I could not disagree with you more (rest snipped)
)
)David: Me, too.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:34:11 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
) charlie morrison wrote:
)
) )After reading this lecture several times, I have never seen anything )
) )racist in it.
)
) Hi Charlie,
)
) don't you think that referring to black people as "barbarian savages," as
) Steiner does in "Blood is a very special fluid," is racist?
)
) Peter S.
charlie:
You make it sound as though Steiner would have thought of any black person
as a "barbarian savage". This is not the case. Nowhere did he equate "black
person" with "barbarian savage". When he used the term "savage" he was
talking about certain aboriginal tribes who had very little contact with
"civilised" Europeans up until that time. His wording may not have been
"politically correct" but it was the norm for that time and his audience
would have understood precisely who he was talking about. And here he was
asking a question as to how contact with Europeans would affect these
people. The majority of colonists at that time would not even have
considered the native's point of view.
Where you interpret Steiner's remarks as racist, I interpret them as showing
a caring attitude to what happens to other cultures as they become
inevitably overwhelmed by modern Western culture. He highlighted the dangers
they faced.
And as Tarjei has pointed out, according to Steiner, people cannot be fully
understood if they are judged by the race or culture to which they belong.
It is only by considering their individuality that they can be understood.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:23:36 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Symbols, was David
) Debra:
)
) Yes, have the child wear a tee-shirt with a picture of a gnome, fairy pr a
) wet on wet transfer as an experiment. Does the child still need to turn it
) inside out? Who is willing to experiment? I'll help pay the costs of
making
) a transfer if someone is willing to take on the challenge. I'm certain
) others would contribute. We could make two tee-shirt transfers and send
our
) kids to school wearing them. One that the WC crowd chooses as appropriate
) for children, and one that we deem Anthroposophically correct. This idea
) needs work, but it could evolve into something that we could all agree on.
)
) How about it, David? We on the list should remain silent, turning it into
a
) controled experiment around several Waldorf schools. Would you be a
willing
) participant, willing to allow your child(ren) to wear such a thing, if
) people here were willing to help sponsor it? This could be interesting,
Liz.
If you make a nice looking shirt, I might be willing to buy a couple (two in
14-16, one in 10-12).
In my opinion, though, the idea of using it for a "controlled experiment" is
ludicrous.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:48:21 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
on 9/17/01 11:43 AM, Debra Snell at snell gv.net wrote:
) Interesting. Do you know who first coined the word?
Sharon:
I think it was Swiss physician and philosopher Ignaz Troxler, a friend of
Beethoven. He meant by it: 'a cognitive method, which taking as a starting
point the spiritual nature of man, investigates the spiritual nature of the
world.'
Which is how Steiner used it. I am trying to nail down a date for when
Steiner began to use this term to describe his theology.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:36:44 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
) ))Sharon:
)))I am trying to determine when to date Anthroposophy. My research has too
)))many conflicting dates, some say that the society began in 1912, but I also
)))have many references to it from 1910 and even well before that date. Can
)))somebody help me square this away? I presume that Steiner preached
)))Anthroposophy from the Theosophical pulpit from at least 1906, probably even
)))sooner. Then left the Theosophical Society in 1910 after Leadbeater's
)))scandal of 1906, and Krishnamurti's arrival, setting up the official Anthro.
)))Society in 1912, and starting to build his mystical temple, the Goetheanum
)))in 1913. When did Steiner actually coin the word Anthroposophy?
)
)Tarjei:
)
))During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated back
))to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first coined it.
)
)
)Debra:
)
)Interesting. Do you know who first coined the word?
I don't remember.
)If this is true, Taz, then Steiner even stole the name of the very
)movement he is credited with founding.
I'm wondering how much nonsense it is necessary to hurl out
continually, always assuming things that are not true.
RS did mention the name of the person who first used the word
"anthroposophy" in an obscure document or book some centuries ago,
but the name or place eludes me completely.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with theft or burglary or larceny or
pilfering or dishonesty. He was not a back alley pocket thief or a
plagiarist who took credit for other people's work.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:50:10 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: the word 'anthroposophy'
The word "anthroposophy" means wisdom of man, or knowledge of man:
anthro + sophia. Just like philosophy, philo + sophia, means love of
wisdom, and theosophy, theo + sophia, means wisdom, or knowledge, of
the gods.
It was in this sense and with this intent that the word
"anthroposophy" was also used originally when it was first thought of.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:56:57 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: families informed, or not?
Neil states, in a post made during a discussion of what -- and how much --
Waldorf schools should reveal to prospective parents:
That simply flies in the face of the huge
numbers of Waldorf families who are well informed, are not in the least
anthroposophically inclined, and who have no problems with the
anthroposophical foundations of Waldorf education.
Lisa here: Neil, I well understand that your daughter had a wonderful
experience at her Waldorf school, and that you and your family apparently
not only understood Waldorf's anthroposophic underpinnings, but also were OK
with them, even though some of them don't jive with your personal beliefs.
But I have to ask you: how do you know that "huge numbers" of Waldorf
families are "well informed?"
As you know, my daughter spent almost six years at our Waldorf school
here in Baltimore, and during that time, I was very involved in many aspects
of the school. I not only served as class "mom" to all of my older girl's
classes (preschool through 4th grade), but also worked in various capacities
including open houses, school festivals, planning sessions, workshops and
more.
And I would argue most vehemently that the majority of the parents at
our Waldorf school were NOT what I would call "well informed" about either
the anthroposophic underpinnings of Waldorf education or even the specifics
of Waldorf's pedagogy ... ie) why certain information was presented at a
certain grade level, etc.
This was never more clear than during one particular meeting of parents
in my younger girl's kindergarten class. The meeting was called around the
time that we withdrew our older girl from the 4th grade, which shocked a lot
of people who knew us and our involvement in the school. At this point, I
was asking a lot of questions, both here online and at school, that seemed
to be making teachers and some other parents uncomfortable.
To make a potentially long story as short as possible, I came to the
meeting ready to take notes, as usual. (Over the years, I had made it a
practice to take notes at all meetings and then present them to all parents
later in the form of a little class newsletter, which would keep those who
had not attended up to speed.) I also came with a list of questions
regarding the anthroposophic underpinnings of the school, and how they
translated into everyday practice. (Example: Why are the kindergarten
children not given black crayons to draw with? Explain how some of the
science taught in a Waldorf school might be different from science taught in
a non-Waldorf school, etc.)
The other parents were riveted. Most of them had never heard of these
things that I had brought up, and which I was just discovering for myself.
When the kindergarten teacher, obviously frustrated and upset by these
direct questions, said "I thought everyone knew these things. If you did not
know these things, why haven't people been asking these question?" one
mother, near to tears, said "How can we ask the right questions if we did
not even have this basic information? Someone should have told us these
things before we enrolled our child!"
Neil, perhaps at your school things were different. But my experience at
our former school tells me that a number of parents, I would venture to say
the majority, enrolled their children because they did not want to send
their children to school in a city system widely recognized as failing, and
Waldorf offered a mid-priced private education that they perceived as not
pushy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:08:13 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
Sharon asked,
)) When did Steiner actually coin the word Anthroposophy?
)
)During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated
)back to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first
)coined it.
Research is complicated by some Anthroposophical editors, who have
substituted "Anthroposophy" for "Theosophy" in translations of
earlier Steiner works, believing that that was what he really meant.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:37:06 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: families informed, or not?
on 9/17/01 7:56 PM, Lisa Ercolano at momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) Neil states, in a post made during a discussion of what -- and how much --
) Waldorf schools should reveal to prospective parents:
)
)
) That simply flies in the face of the huge
) numbers of Waldorf families who are well informed, are not in the least
) anthroposophically inclined, and who have no problems with the
) anthroposophical foundations of Waldorf education.
)
) Lisa here: Neil, I well understand that your daughter had a wonderful
) experience at her Waldorf school, and that you and your family apparently
) not only understood Waldorf's anthroposophic underpinnings, but also were OK
) with them, even though some of them don't jive with your personal beliefs.
) But I have to ask you: how do you know that "huge numbers" of Waldorf
) families are "well informed?"
)
) [discussion of Lisa's school snipped]
In our school, anthroposophy was not kept in a closet. Study groups,
foundation classes, and cultural events at the local branch of the
Anthroposophical Society were generally well publicized in the parent
newsletter. Individual classes would often have their own study groups or
educational evenings. For those who wanted to learn more, there were
Steiner books in the school store or in local book stores. Frankly, given
the amount of parent education available, not to mention the general
awareness of anthroposophy "in the air" as it were, ignorance of
anthroposophy would have had to be willful.
This isn't just speculation. We had friends. We talked with our friends.
We and our friends were as informed or uninformed about anthroposophy as we
chose to be. Our friends were not just in our one class. It was clear that
anthroposophy was neither a dark secret nor a big deal.
I cannot, of course, point to other schools from my own experience to
illustrate that we were not unique, but I can point out that there have been
a number of other parents who have posted on this list whose reports would
seem to be consistent with mine.
Regards,
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:57:34 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: families informed, or not?
) on 9/17/01 7:56 PM, Lisa Ercolano at momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
)
)) Neil states, in a post made during a discussion of what -- and how much --
)) Waldorf schools should reveal to prospective parents:
))
))
)) That simply flies in the face of the huge
)) numbers of Waldorf families who are well informed, are not in the least
)) anthroposophically inclined, and who have no problems with the
)) anthroposophical foundations of Waldorf education.
))
)) Lisa here: Neil, I well understand that your daughter had a wonderful
)) experience at her Waldorf school, and that you and your family apparently
)) not only understood Waldorf's anthroposophic underpinnings, but also were OK
)) with them, even though some of them don't jive with your personal beliefs.
)) But I have to ask you: how do you know that "huge numbers" of Waldorf
)) families are "well informed?"
))
)) [discussion of Lisa's school snipped]
)
) In our school, anthroposophy was not kept in a closet. Study groups,
) foundation classes, and cultural events at the local branch of the
) Anthroposophical Society were generally well publicized in the parent
) newsletter. Individual classes would often have their own study groups or
) educational evenings. For those who wanted to learn more, there were
) Steiner books in the school store or in local book stores. Frankly, given
) the amount of parent education available, not to mention the general
) awareness of anthroposophy "in the air" as it were, ignorance of
) anthroposophy would have had to be willful.
)
) This isn't just speculation. We had friends. We talked with our friends.
) We and our friends were as informed or uninformed about anthroposophy as we
) chose to be. Our friends were not just in our one class. It was clear that
) anthroposophy was neither a dark secret nor a big deal.
)
) I cannot, of course, point to other schools from my own experience to
) illustrate that we were not unique, but I can point out that there have been
) a number of other parents who have posted on this list whose reports would
) seem to be consistent with mine.
)
) Regards,
)
) Neil
Lisa here again, Neil: And certainly, there are a number of parents who have
posted on this list whose reports are consistent with *mine.*
I wonder as I read your answer above, Neil, if we are actually in
disagreement.
When you say that, at your school, anthroposophic study groups and
classes were well publicized, books were available, etc. and therefore
parental ignorance of anthroposophy would have to be "willful," I do not
disagree. But instead of using the word "willful," I would have to say
"inadvertent." Here's why:
At our former school there was a small (larger now, from what I
understand) parent library, where Steiner and anthro books were available.
Some such books also were available at the school store. The school
newsletter, which came out weekly, would from time to time carry notices
that the Raphael Branch of the Anthroposophical Society was meeting.
Yet many if not most of the parents I was acquainted with -- and that
was quite a few, as I said -- really did not understand WHAT ANTHROPOSOPHY
HAD TO DO WITH THE EDUCATION THEIR CHILDREN WERE GETTING. To most of those
parents, the meetings of the local branch of the anthro society was just
something a few teachers did; they did not consider all of that RELEVANT to
what was going on in the classrooms where their children sat each weekday.
I suppose you *could* blame that on the parents, saying that the
information was out there for them to partake of, and they chose not to.
But I would have to disagree. I think that if Waldorf schools (all of
them) literature, admissions folks, teachers and other representatives had
made sure to EMPHASIZE to prospective and current parents that ANTHROPOSOPHY
is more than just a word, that, indeed, most all of what their children
would be exposed to in the school is directed by it, then parents certainly
would be more compelled to look more closely.
Instead, even parents who think enough to ask "Well, is this
anthro-whatever taught in the classroom, because our family is (Catholic,
Buddhist, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim)?" are often told that, no, the school
is non-sectarian. If they ask "Do I need to know about this anthroposophy?"
they are told they certainly will be welcome to learn more, but that it is
not necessary.
Once again, we are confronted with the question oft asked by critics
such as myself: Why doesn't Waldorf just boldly OWN what it is? That way,
families such as mine would enroll their children elsewhere, and the schools
would avoid all this unpleasantness. Both sides would win.
An anthroposophic school should call itself an anthroposophic school,
just as our local Catholic schools proudly say "A Catholic School." Simple,
neat and honest.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:58:17 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: the insult of the New Testament
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) Just to clear a few things up: I have not said that I personally
) subscribe to the ethos in question at the present time. But I do
) regard it as a pointer to the future. And I also regard the
) afore-mentioned heroes as pioneers.
)
) Gandhi may have been naive when he wrote a letter to Hitler trying to
) persuade him into reason. It didn't work. But I admire that gutsy
) Indian for trying.
Ghandi may have been a "good guy" but he was a little screwed up too. He
made mistakes, like the partition of India, and sleeping with young
girls to "keep warm", and to "test" his celibacy ( he claimed,) and he
sort of neglected/abused his wife. He did it all for "humanity".
He wasn't an ubermensch; he was just a nice man with a screwed up
private life. He did great things, and then also some stupid ones. We
can learn from his great deeds and from his stupid ones.
)
) The world would be so much colder snd crueller _without_ those brave
) individuals who try to do precisely that: to answer evil with good,
) to answer hate with love. And the world would be so much poorer if
) such *naive* endeavors of "bleeding heart liberals" were not
) persistent.
)
) Perhaps what Nietzsche called an Ðbermensch, Superman, is a human
) being who has evolved to the point where only thoughts and acts of
) selfless love are present in him or her, and where anything to the
) contrary is unthinkable, even when faced with evil and ruthless
) brutality. A mutation.
)
) Idealistically yours,
)
) --
) Tarjei
I have to admit I am a bit confused at how a person can subscribe to
"love thy neighbor," and have a blood and guts website and subscribe to
other such things.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:44:28 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
))Tarjei:
))
)))During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated back
)))to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first coined it.
)I'm wondering how much nonsense it is necessary to hurl out
)continually, always assuming things that are not true.
Taz:
)RS did mention the name of the person who first used the word
)"anthroposophy" in an obscure document or book some centuries ago,
)but the name or place eludes me completely.
)
)It has nothing whatsoever to do with theft or burglary or larceny or
)pilfering or dishonesty. He was not a back alley pocket thief or a
)plagiarist who took credit for other people's work.
Debra:
But Steiner is given full credit for founding Anthroposophy. Maybe we're
playing with words. Maybe he is credited for founding The Anthroposophical
Society, not Anthroposophy. (This is all so confusing to me.) I have not
heard the name associated with anyone other than Steiner. Seems like there
should be more than one guru in the mix if there is another name mentioned.
Sharon, this is right up your alley. Put your sniffers in high gear and get
back to us.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 482
-- Topica Digest --
RE: families informed, or not?
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: the insult of the New Testament
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By dan dandugan.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By dan dandugan.com
Re: families informed, or not?
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:38:40 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: families informed, or not?
) In our school, anthroposophy was not kept in a closet. Study groups,
) foundation classes, and cultural events at the local branch of the
) Anthroposophical Society were generally well publicized in the parent
) newsletter. Individual classes would often have their own
) study groups or
) educational evenings. For those who wanted to learn more, there were
) Steiner books in the school store or in local book stores.
) Frankly, given
) the amount of parent education available, not to mention the general
) awareness of anthroposophy "in the air" as it were, ignorance of
) anthroposophy would have had to be willful.
Our school as a public school is supposed to be anthroposophy free.
Anthroposophy is never discussed, most people have never heard of the
word and would be surprised that it has anything to do with Waldorf
Schools. The two teacher-directors also claim that our school is 100%
Steiner, what they mean by that I have no idea.
I doubt that we have a single anthroposophist at our school. Many of
our parents are just into New Age stuff. Other parents are attracted to
the emphasis on healthy food. Some parents like the tv ban. Some
parents, like me, are there because there are other parents that are
very involved with their children and love to go to the beach and the
park and do things with their kids as a family and with other families.
How informed are we and how informed should we be? We were given a form
to sign, saying that we will uphold all these things at the school,
support the teachers, follow the guidelines in the parent handbook. The
parent handbook is not even printed yet and we are supposed to sign this
paper without having read it.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:54:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
Dan Dugan:
)Research is complicated by some Anthroposophical editors, who have
)substituted "Anthroposophy" for "Theosophy" in translations of
)earlier Steiner works, believing that that was what he really meant.
For RS himself, there was no difference. He changed it in order to
make a clear distinction from the course pursued by Annie Besant and
Charles Leadbeater in the TS. But an explanatory introduction is
better than substitution in the text what editing is concerned.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:01:17 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: the insult of the New Testament
Su:
)I have to admit I am a bit confused at how a person can subscribe to
)"love thy neighbor," and have a blood and guts website and subscribe to
)other such things.
The page you're referring to wasn't made by me, but that's beside the
point. I can do nothing to clear up your confusion nevertheless, so
it doesn't matter.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:03:16 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
) ))Tarjei:
)))
))))During the breakup from the TS, I believe, but the word is dated back
))))to the sixteenth or seventeenth century when somebody first coined it.
))I'm wondering how much nonsense it is necessary to hurl out
))continually, always assuming things that are not true.
)
)
)Taz:
)
))RS did mention the name of the person who first used the word
))"anthroposophy" in an obscure document or book some centuries ago,
))but the name or place eludes me completely.
))
))It has nothing whatsoever to do with theft or burglary or larceny or
))pilfering or dishonesty. He was not a back alley pocket thief or a
))plagiarist who took credit for other people's work.
)
)Debra:
)
)But Steiner is given full credit for founding Anthroposophy.
He did found the Anthroposophical Movement. Anthroposophy was a
further development of Theosophy.
)Maybe we're playing with words.
The point is that there was no theft of intellectual property involved.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:35:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
Tarjei, you wrote,
)RS did mention the name of the person who first used the word
)"anthroposophy" in an obscure document or book some centuries ago,
)but the name or place eludes me completely.
I've seen it too, but can't find it. My small Oxford dictionary says 1742.
)It has nothing whatsoever to do with theft or burglary or larceny or
)pilfering or dishonesty. He was not a back alley pocket thief or a
)plagiarist who took credit for other people's work.
Nobody accuses Steiner of being a back alley pocket thief. But he was
a plagiarist, given that he claimed to have discovered all of
Blavatsky's Theosophical lore by his own research in the spirit
world. Perhaps unconsciously, which one can't say for Blavatsky.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:37:44 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei, you wrote,
)The word "anthroposophy" means wisdom of man, or knowledge of man:
)anthro + sophia. Just like philosophy, philo + sophia, means love of
)wisdom, and theosophy, theo + sophia, means wisdom, or knowledge, of
)the gods.
)
)It was in this sense and with this intent that the word
)"anthroposophy" was also used originally when it was first thought
)of.
Indeed that was it's original meaning, but the meaning has changed.
Now it is the name of a cult-like religious sect following the
teachings of Rudolf Steiner. That's why I always capitalize
Anthroposophy, because I don't want to support the pretense that it's
a generic term.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:09:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
)Sharon:
)I think it was Swiss physician and philosopher Ignaz Troxler, a friend of
)Beethoven. He meant by it: 'a cognitive method, which taking as a starting
)point the spiritual nature of man, investigates the spiritual nature of the
)world.'
See:
http://www.troxlerforum.ch
Where it is said:
)Why did this work go unnoticed so nearly two centuries and why is it
)impossible to find Troxler in the encyclopaedic
)literature on philosophy?
)
)One reason might be the fact that Troxler used the term
)"anthroposophy" (the origins of which can be traced back to the 17th
)century) for a philosophical approach to anthropology that had been
)based on his philosophy teacher Schelling in Jena but also on
)Troxler's own experience as a physician. No doubt, his work has
)been an important source of inspiration for Rudolf Steiner, when
)the latter developped his personal version of anthroposophy, three
)quarters of a century later. Quite logically, Troxler's personal
)archives, stored at the Basel University Library
)http://www.snl.ch/repertoi/perst/troxl001.htm , are the property of
)the Allgemeine Anthrosophische Gesellschaft. As a consequence,
)Troxler's work has been absorbed into Rudolf Steiner's
)interpretation of anthroposophy. The motivation of the
)international scientific community to rediscover his multi-facetted
)work may suffer indirectly from this phenomenon of absorption and
)from the ambivalent attititude toward national socialism and fascism
)demonstrated by a number of exponents of the anthroposophical
)movement during the 20th century.
In other words, they're saying Troxler isn't getting his due because
of the subsequent association with the disreputable followers of
Steiner.
My small Oxford dictionary dates the word to 1742, 40 years before
Troxler was born, so there's one more step to go.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:43:26 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: families informed, or not?
neill wrote:
In our school, anthroposophy was not kept in a closet. Study groups,
) foundation classes, and cultural events at the local branch of the
) Anthroposophical Society were generally well publicized in the parent
) newsletter. Individual classes would often have their own study groups or
) educational evenings. For those who wanted to learn more, there were
) Steiner books in the school store or in local book stores. Frankly, given
) the amount of parent education available, not to mention the general
) awareness of anthroposophy "in the air" as it were, ignorance of
) anthroposophy would have had to be willful.
bea here;
at our school there were anthroposphy study groups happening and a few
ordinary parents went along, they had nothing to do with education.We were
told anthroposophy was not in the classroom. We were never told that anthros
believe that early reading hardens the organs and thats why they didnt do
it; we were never told that wet om wet painting helped in incarnation and
thats why they did it, anthroposophy study groups read books like "knowlegde
of higher worlds" etc what has that to do with the education our children
were being given, once you have been involved in the school a longer time it
starts to dawn on you that there something wierd going on, most of the antro
stuff was kept hidden or changed into palatable terms for the ordinary
parents, there was a body of anthros who thought that the school should be
honest about what they were about but that would have meant downsizing
enormously and then having to lay off teachers so it was never voted in.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:35:18 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )Newpaul wrote:
) )) I read the posts of critics because interesting enough Waldorf Education
) )) is so offensive that it can unite fundamentalist Christians and hard
) )) core Secular Humanists together in opposition to its lies and its
) )) deceptions. This is a struggle where religion and science can agree
) )) that the cult of Anthroposophy and its sectarian Waldorf Schools are
) )) deceptive, unscientific, occult, and perpetuate the spirit of the
) )) anti-christ. This strange coop of seemingly opposite groups makes an
) )) interesting statement about just how offensive Waldorf really is.
Good point, Paul.
To add here, I think it is not that Waldorf is offensive, or that its
belief systems are offensive, though to some they may be on the absurd
side, as all religious beliefs may *appear* absurd to others.
It is the insidious nature of its tactics that are offensive. I have no
problem with Anthroposophists believing what they believe. I am offended
by the insidious way in which they tout their beliefs as the only way to
think, and superior to others. I have observed that Waldorf and
Anthroposophist apologists are forceful in their efforts to cover up
what Steiner really said that is not acceptable, and constantly defend
the covert activities of the schools and the individuals who work in the
schools, and who write the educational plans. Deny, hide, deny, hide,
deny, hide!
Hide and seek!
It is a belief system that couches its beliefs in a pseudo-moralistic
theology, and when anyone goes to specifically question the theology,
the texts of Steiner and the actions of the schools, these same
apologists back off and say this or that thing is not *really* done, or
it's just the exception but not the rule that this or that Waldorf
school acted in a cultish and exclusive manner.
)
) and Kerr (dirtwitch) replied,
)
) )And with this I'm unsubscribing from the WC discussion list.
)
) Don't go away mad.
Don't worry, Dan, she'll be back, perhaps with another face, or should I
say, "handle".
) )I know not ALL critics are such intolerant bigots, but if you align
) )yourself with those who wish to deny other people their religious
) )FREEDOMS you end up looking just as bad. The concept that all
) )anthroposophists have some secret EVIL agenda that is being perpetuated
) )on this list (and unfortunately voices like Newpaul and Su's ring out
) )more loudly than those of Lisa and Diane) is no different than the
) )antisemetic views put forth by neonazis.
Boo hoo, Dirtwitch. I have not denied you any right to practice your
religion but this is *always* the excuse cultists give for attacking
others who see through the authoritarian nature of their particular
cult. I don't deny you anything. Please practice your anthroposophical
views, and please pray for the 6th Epoch, or 7th or whatever. Please
pray for Steiner's reincarnation, and the sword of Michael to descend,
just as I might pray for the second coming (cough, cough)...
I do however criticize your covert proselytizing in the schools, and
your endeavors to infiltrate the public school system, in order
disseminate your beliefs to children without their parent's knowledge. I
resent the manner in which the Waldorf teachers operate, even on a
personal level, using the knowledge that they have garnered by
mainstream scientists, and mixing it with their own religious fervor in
to an educational cocktail.
Take away the Anthroposophical beliefs of the Waldorf schools, and you
have nothing but a nice private school, with a focus on arts, and
teachers who stick with the kids for 8 or 9 years. Oh, and add a mindset
that detracts from intellectual learning and focuses on fairy tales. And
even there you can't launder Waldorf Education, as I follow it more and
more because every story, every tale told in school is told in a certain
way for a certain purpose, as Sharon pointed out.
Boo hoo. You call Newpaul and me intolerant bigots. In fact that is an
ad hominem type of comment, and would probably unsubscribe you anyway.
You are intolerant, and you are evasive in your inability, along with DL
and most other Waldorf Apologists, to describe a W school denuded of
Anthroposophical beliefs.
Why you can't even accept as your own, the beliefs that Steiner espouses
in black and white ink in his voluminous books! Every comment that is
made that exposes the attitudes and beliefs of Waldorf Education and
Anthroposophy, that seems a bit politically incorrect, you deny.
You resent the idea that we have uncovered your agenda of proselytizing
and dumbing down children, to prepare them for the afterlife.
Dan, there is no way that Dirtwitch can not go away mad, because she
feels exposed. While you and Sharon and others pick away at the actual
belief system and its intent, others of us see it from the perspective
of its more global intent, and its whole control methodology. I
particularly like to see how individuals manipulate the information and
try to evade specific questions, in order to cloud the real issues.
)
) Well, I guess you are mad. I can't bust you for ad hominems after you
) exit with a loud slam. The freedom of Anthroposophy that PLANS is
) restricting is the freedom to feed at the trough of public tax money.
That's right. That's our freedom to do, and gosh darn it, we are going
to do it with a vengeance.
) When Anthroposophy behaves more respectfully, it will be more
) deserving of respect.
When they come out and say what they mean, then they won't be able to
commandeer a dime of public monies. What a headache that will be for
Dornach Command Central.
)
) )Unfortunately, the very real
) )concerns about waldorf schools religious orientation are lost in what
) )can only be read as those concerns being a smokescreen for a bigotted
) )campaign against anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy is Waldorf and Waldorf is Anthroposophy. That's really the
crux of the problem, as I see it. They are inseparable, and that's what
makes it hard for you to tolerate the criticism.
The mind-numbing goal of Anthroposophical education is to awaken the
irrational thoughts and impulses of the individual and pit them against
the rational and logical mind which has brought us to all the good and
great achievements of the 21st Century.
What has brought us back to the stone age are religious fanatics and
covert ideologies and activities of religious zealots.
All I can see right now are the caring
) )women I know who went into teaching in waldorf schools because of their
) )love of children, out of their own attachment parenting, who came to
) )waldorf through reading Elkind, and Gardner, and found in waldorf the
) )best chance to nurture children's love of learning.
Boo hoo again. Dan's comments below are seconded by me:
) Everyone who is seduced by Waldorf's false front is well-intentioned.
) Good intentions aren't enough, however.
)
) )Not a perfect
) )system, but the only one that was developmental in design. If anything,
) )participating here has convinced me to work with my local waldorf
) )schools more.
)
) The only system that's developmental in design? You're sadly
) misinformed.
)
) -Dan Dugan
I can only say that our greatest non-sectarian educators better get off
their duffs and start getting their s---t together and build a coherent
school system or people like your well-meaning Anthroposophical friends
with their one-tracked minds will covertly take their Trojan Waldorf
Horse right into the public system.
That's why I am vocalizing here.
-Su
PS I notice and will continue to notice, persistently, that no one wants
to sanitize Waldorf Education with a 10 foot pole.
Wonder why????????
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 483
-- Topica Digest --
Re: families informed, or not?
By faiman jlc.net
Re:answer for Debra
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: families informed, or not?
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
FW: We are not alone - Off topic
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By canndw netzero.net
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: FW: We are not alone - Off topic
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Question for Anthro. experts
By dan dandugan.com
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By canndw netzero.net
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Uncle Taz Comes Clean
By dingman mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:13:49 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: families informed, or not?
on 9/17/01 10:57 PM, Lisa Ercolano at momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) Lisa here again, Neil: And certainly, there are a number of parents who have
) posted on this list whose reports are consistent with *mine.*
) I wonder as I read your answer above, Neil, if we are actually in
) disagreement.
) When you say that, at your school, anthroposophic study groups and
) classes were well publicized, books were available, etc. and therefore
) parental ignorance of anthroposophy would have to be "willful," I do not
) disagree. But instead of using the word "willful," I would have to say
) "inadvertent." Here's why:
I note that this discussion has quickly slipped away from the point where I
started. That's fine (it's what always happens anyways), but it's slipped
from a point that I felt very comfortable espousing, and that you were
apparently not very interested in challenging, to one that I am much less
comfortable about arguing, and that you are apparently much more comfortable
challenging.
I started out disagreeing with Debra's long and open-ended list of people
who should stay away from Waldorf education (and who presumably *would* stay
away, if they knew anything about anthroposophy). I disagreed on the basis
of the observation of many parents who (a) belonged on Debra's list, (b)
were well informed about anthroposophy, and (c) had no need to stay away
from Waldorf education. (I was admittedly hyperbolic in referring to a
"huge number" of such parents, when in fact I cannot testify personally to
that huge number.)
The discussion has quickly morphed back into the more familiar one of
whether Waldorf schools in general adequately inform their parents. On this
point I specifically decline to say that you are wrong (while declining to
accept that you are universally correct). This takes us back to where I
started *two* days ago, when I remarked on the care I have taken over the
years to observe that Waldorf experiences obviously *do* differ, and
specifically acknowledged the validity of the experiences of Critics in
their own schools.
I am *not* going to argue that every Waldorf school adequately informs its
parents about anthroposophy, and I'm quite willing to accept that may of you
(the critics) were not adequately informed by your own schools, so I will
leave the redirected discussion to you now.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:04:30 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re:answer for Debra
Sharon:
Debra asked me if I knew of any Anthroposophy specialists, I have just found
two.
Dr. Helmut Zander in Germany has just completed a large study of
Anthroposophy and his work is expected to become the standard academic work
on this subject. I've heard that a book is almost out.
Also, Dr. Olav Hammer is working on Anthroposophy and its offshoots at the
moment, and will continue in the years ahead. Don't know much about him,
still learning.
PS: Peter S. says Zander is an excellent scholar / historian. Let's hope his
work will be available in English.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:44:11 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: families informed, or not?
Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff wrote:
) I doubt that we have a single anthroposophist at our school.
Have you ever studied the curriculum of a waldorf teacher in either of
the 2 Anthroposophical seminaries - Steiner college or Sunbridge? The
1st year of the 2 year curriculum is devoted entirely to an immersion
in Anthroposophy. Dan has a link off of his articles page that will
show you the curriculum and reading list. It is pure Anthroposophy very
little that can be called education in a mainstream sense.
Newpaul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:41:24 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
) ))Neil wrote:
) ))
) ))This is why I have always suggested that readers take the stories
) )) )they read here -- stories of the virtues of Waldorf education, and
) ))stories
) )) )of its horrors -- as a consumer's guide to things to look out for when
) )) )considering a Waldorf school, rather than as predictions of what they
)can
) )) )expect in the particular Waldorf school they may be considering.
) ))
) ))Debra wrote:
) ))Here, hear! While I agree completely with what you said, I want to
)caution
) ))parents to research Anthroposophy as well. Parents who believe that
)Lucifer
) ))is Satan should stay away. Parents who don't believe in reincarnation
) ))should stay away. Parents who don't believe in the occult should stay
)away,
) ))as well as secular families. (I could go on and on.)
) )
) )DL: I agree with one variation - that parents who believe differently
)than
) )what WE or Anthroposophy espouse *and* do not wish to encounter a
)different
) )perspective, stay away. Some might be interested in exploring
)differences
) )even though they themselves do not believe.
)
)Debra:
)
)In this senario, parents are using their children as guinea pigs. Many
)parents who are attracted to Waldorf are the last people who want to
)experiment with our children.
DL: I disagree with your statement that parents in the above situation are
using their children as guineau pigs. If that's what you got from my
example, then I wasn't being clear. I'm not advocating that anyone
"experiement" with their children. Well, beyond the basic experimenting
that happens all the time as a natural part of life - don't all parents "try
this, try that" in an effort to find what works with their kids? The
answers to raising children are not all cut and dried. There's a lot of
experimenting going on - everyday.
) )
) ))Debra wrote:
) ))That Anthroposophy continues to bill itself as non-sectarian in a
)country
) ))who is willing to die for religious freedom floors me. There is no need
)for
) ))this secrecy here. All we ask is that you allow us to make a fully
)informed
) ))choice for our families, and stop dancing around the truths of your
) ))movement.
) )
) )DL: Just wondering - is it Anthroposophy or WE that bill themselves as
) )non-sectarian? I was under the impression that it is only WE that does
) )that.
)
)Debra:
)
)Anthroposophy bills itself as above religion. They use Spiritual Science
)and Anthroposphy interchangably. It's the *only* truth.
)
DL: I am lost. How is this an affront to religious freedom? And does
Anthroposophy "bill itself" as above (better than) religion or does it say
that it includes more than just religion? (Much like the social sciences
might "bill themself" as more than psychology without implying that social
sciences are better than psychology.)
) )
) ))Debra wrote:
) ))That Anthroposophists believe they will be the only ones who will be
)able
) ))to see each other in the period between death and rebirth is astounding
)to
) ))me. If in fact you *will* be able to see in your afterlives, I think you
) ))may well find yourselves watching yourselves wading through alot of
)*s__t*
) ))because of your misdeeds. I say this because Anthroposophy leaves out
)two
) ))very important character traits - honesty and integrity.
) )
) )DL: I'm curious as to how Anthroposophy leaves out honesty and integrity.
) )Is there an Anthroposophist tenet that says (more or less) do not be
)honest
) )or do not have integrity? Or are there other tenets that - if one were
)to
) )follow them - would result in a lack of honesty or integrity? Or are you
) )seeing actions of specific Anthroposophists or those involved with WE
) )lacking in honesty or integrity?
)
)Debra:
)
)It's built into the system, IMO. There have been numerous quotes posted
)here that support my assertion and I reposted some of the quotes just a
)couple weeks or so ago on this list.
)
DL: I'm glad that you identified it is your opinion. But the question is
whether Anthroposophy advocates behaviour other than honesty or integrity or
does your opinion come from the actions of individuals? In my concerns
about the Catholic Church and their dealings with pedophilic priests, I've
been reminded that the pedophilic actions were those of individuals as was
the evasive behaviour of members of the church leadership. The Catholic
Church as an institution does not advocate (as far as I know) lying or
pedophilia. So, is it something within the Anthroposophic doctrine to lie
or to cast off integrity?
)I transcribed a radio debate between Dan Dugan and AWSNA leaders. The
)discussion was centered around a quote from Eugene Schwartz's book,
)"Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide." This book was listed as a teachers
)resource guide in a public Waldorf school in Sacramento.PLANS used an
)embarrassing quote from the book that was purchased with taxpayer's money
)in a press release. The quote was about how Waldorf schools are under the
)guardianship of Lucifer and how that was a good thing. WCBM's Les
)Kensolving (Baltimore) obtained our press release and interviewed both
)sides.
)
)AWSNA's leaders wormed their way through the interview, denying important
)Anthro tenets and denouncing (until that moment) a very important USA
)Anthro leader. Eugene Schwartz was the head of Waldorf teacher training at
)Sunbridge College who, prior to our press release, was held in high esteem.
)
)Schwartz must not have liked being outed from the movement by his peers. He
)scheduled a seminar at Sunbridge and invited Dan to give a slideshow. The
)following morning, Schwartz gave an amazing lecture - essentially agreeing
)with PLANS - Waldorf should be honest about what they do, and further
)stating that Waldorf wasn't ready for the public sector. I was astounded.
)It looked like there was about to be a split between the East and West
)Anthro movements.
)
)During this time, PLANS speculated about the security of Schwartz's job.
)Sadly, our concerns were validated. Shortly after the seminar, Schwartz was
)fired from his job as head of Sunbridge College. He said his termination
)was a result of the seminar and his speech. This tells me that the Anthro
)big coats are still vested in dishonesty.
DL: Both of the above seem to indicate that the lack of honesty or integrity
can be traced to the individuals. Even Anthroposophists (as far as I can
tell) are human and are prone to human foibles. So are Critics. If I find
examples of dishonesty from members of PLANS or Critics - would I be
justified in saying that PLANS lacks integrity or honesty?
)
)This radio program/debate is available. It's a fat file - 43K. If anyone
)wants a copy, I'll email it privately.
DL: I would love a copy, btw.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:55:44 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
)Nobody accuses Steiner of being a back alley pocket thief. But he
)was a plagiarist, given that he claimed to have discovered all of
)Blavatsky's Theosophical lore by his own research in the spirit
)world. Perhaps unconsciously, which one can't say for Blavatsky.
)
)-Dan Dugan
I don`t regard that argument as important or relevant because it is
based upon the subjective notion that the lore in question is
fiction, invention.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:57:23 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei, you wrote,
)
))The word "anthroposophy" means wisdom of man, or knowledge of man:
))anthro + sophia. Just like philosophy, philo + sophia, means love
))of wisdom, and theosophy, theo + sophia, means wisdom, or
))knowledge, of the gods.
))
))It was in this sense and with this intent that the word
))"anthroposophy" was also used originally when it was first thought
))of.
)
)Indeed that was it's original meaning, but the meaning has changed.
)Now it is the name of a cult-like religious sect following the
)teachings of Rudolf Steiner. That's why I always capitalize
)Anthroposophy, because I don't want to support the pretense that
)it's a generic term.
)
)-Dan Dugan
To me, this is as irrelevant as the notion about HPB`s alleged
fiction. The notion that "Anthroposophy" - or "anthroposophy" (as
developed in the 20th century) - does not mean wisdom of man or
knowledge of man but something else, is subjective and uninteresting.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:55:56 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and religion (was: more racist ignorance....)
DL wrote:
)parents who believe differently than what WE or Anthroposophy espouse
) )*and* do not wish to encounter a different perspective, stay away.
This is how I thought of it at the time, too. Now I realize I was wrong to
use my child to check out a new spiritual path. A boundary violation. The
parents (myself included) are often seeking structure and belief *for
themselves*.
)Some might be interested in exploring differences even though they
) )themselves do not believe.
Do it on your own time. Join a study group, or just start reading Steiner.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:59:26 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei:
)))The word "anthroposophy" means wisdom of man
Dan:
))Now it is the name of a cult-like religious sect following the
))teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
Tarjei:
)To me, this is as irrelevant (snip) subjective and uninteresting.
It has different meanings to insiders and outsiders. Obviously you define
your faith, Tarjei, differently from how a sociologist or historian is going
to describe the movement of people who adhere to that faith.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:18:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei:
)
))))The word "anthroposophy" means wisdom of man
)
)Dan:
)
)))Now it is the name of a cult-like religious sect following the
)))teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
)
)Tarjei:
)
))To me, this is as irrelevant (snip) subjective and uninteresting.
)
)It has different meanings to insiders and outsiders. Obviously you
)define your faith, Tarjei, differently from how a sociologist or
)historian is going to describe the movement of people who adhere to
)that faith.
)
)Diana
I define my point of view, Diana, just like you define yours. And
there is at least as much faith in yours as it is in mine.
Your point of view on the issues of anthroposophy and wisdom is not
represented by the sociologists and historians in the world than
mine is. What they are going to do in the future is not something I
would venture to speculate about, except that sociologists,
historians, philosophers, literary scholars, theologians,
anthropologists, etc. are all individuals with different viewpoints,
and it is highly unlikely that they would ever have a viewpoint in
common that concurs with highly subjective views about anthroposophy
expressed by hardcore critics on this list.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:56:16 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei:
)I define my point of view, Diana, just like you define yours. And
)there is at least as much faith in yours as it is in mine.
Tarjei, the difference between the definitions is that one is theological,
the other is sociological. I don't think there is "faith" in such a
statement - other than that people reporting on a religious movement from
*outside* are not likely to share the adherents' faith that they have got a
lock on truth or "wisdom."
)Your point of view on the issues of anthroposophy and wisdom is not
)represented by the sociologists and historians in the world than
)mine is
I don't think sociologists and historians have actually paid much attention
to anthroposophy thus far. I think it is unlikely they will eventually
conclude that it is the ultimate "wisdom of man." I realize these statements
are seen as insulting to your faith, but they are actually just a statement
that not everybody agrees with you.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:09:34 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei:
)
))I define my point of view, Diana, just like you define yours. And
))there is at least as much faith in yours as it is in mine.
Diana:
)Tarjei, the difference between the definitions is that one is
)theological, the other is sociological.
According to your view, that's how it is. But there are two major
flaws in your statement here: The wisdom and knowledge in
anthroposophy is not theological by definition. Neither is it opposed
to the human sciences in any way whatsoever.
)I don't think there is "faith" in such a statement - other than that
)people reporting on a religious movement from *outside* are not
)likely to share the adherents' faith that they have got a lock on
)truth or "wisdom."
Inside or outside is irrelevant terms here. It's a question of
hardcore criticism, i.e. criticism with a vengeance that cannot be
compared to any objective studies
))Your point of view on the issues of anthroposophy and wisdom is not
))represented by the sociologists and historians in the world than
))mine is
)
)I don't think sociologists and historians have actually paid much
)attention to anthroposophy thus far. I think it is unlikely they
)will eventually conclude that it is the ultimate "wisdom of man."
This is a subjective and irrelevant non sequitor, because sociology
and secular history do not deal with the question of what is _wisdom_
or what is not.
)I realize these statements are seen as insulting to your faith, but
)they are actually just a statement that not everybody agrees with
)you.
I also understand that my statements are offensive, obscene, and
immoral to hardcore critics, so we're even.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:26:07 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
I wrote:
)Tarjei, the difference between the definitions is that one is
)theological, the other is sociological.
Tarjei:
)According to your view, that's how it is. But there are two major
)flaws in your statement here: The wisdom and knowledge in
)anthroposophy is not theological by definition.
To those for whom it is not truth, it is another theology.
)Inside or outside is irrelevant terms here.
Inside or outside is clearly relevant. I am pointing out the obvious. Again
it is simply a way of saying there are folks who do not see it your way, who
do not share your religious views.
)It's a question of hardcore criticism, i.e. criticism with a vengeance
) )that cannot be compared to any objective studies
You are referring to Dan calling anthroposophy a "cult-like religious sect
that follows the doctrines of Rudolf Steiner"? This strikes you as vengeful?
I wrote:
)I don't think sociologists and historians have actually paid much
))attention to anthroposophy thus far. I think it is unlikely they
)will eventually conclude that it is the ultimate "wisdom of man."
Tarjei:
)This is a subjective and irrelevant non sequitor, because sociology
)and secular history do not deal with the question of what is _wisdom_ or
)what is not.
They simply describe the beliefs and activities of those who do claim to
know what "wisdom" is. I didn't say they are always objective. I was
pointing out that your definition was theological, and Dan's was
sociological, but I guess I'm repeating myself as usual.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:49:13 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Diana:
)To those for whom it is not truth, it is another theology.
Subjective, and ipso facto irrelevant.
Tarjei:
))Inside or outside is irrelevant terms here.
Diana:
)Inside or outside is clearly relevant.
Not when they are subjective.
)I am pointing out the obvious.
It's obvious to you, but you cannot speak on behalf of several
specialized fields that require a certain measure of objectivity and
detachment.
)Again it is simply a way of saying there are folks who do not see it
)your way, who do not share your religious views.
)
))It's a question of hardcore criticism, i.e. criticism with a
))vengeance )that cannot be compared to any objective studies
)
)You are referring to Dan calling anthroposophy a "cult-like
)religious sect that follows the doctrines of Rudolf Steiner"? This
)strikes you as vengeful?
It is part and of a vengeful distortion of anthroposophy as portrayed
on the PLANS website.
Diana:
))I don't think sociologists and historians have actually paid much
)))attention to anthroposophy thus far. I think it is unlikely they
))will eventually conclude that it is the ultimate "wisdom of man."
)
)Tarjei:
))This is a subjective and irrelevant non sequitor, because sociology
))and secular history do not deal with the question of what is
))_wisdom_ or what is not.
)
)They simply describe the beliefs and activities of those who do
)claim to know what "wisdom" is.
That is different, but also another irrelevant non sequitor because
)I didn't say they are always objective. I was pointing out that your
)definition was theological, and Dan's was sociological, but I guess
)I'm repeating myself as usual.
You're repeating subjective semantic drive. I have not made one
single theological argument in the context at hand. and I have not
used theological definitions to describe anthroposophy. The word
"wisdom" is not theological per definition, but this nonsensical and
wasteful dialogue is leading absolutely nowhere. It's totally
pointless.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:56:49 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
on 9/17/01 8:09 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) See:
)
) http://www.troxlerforum.ch
Sharon:
You have struck gold Dan! Look at the very bottom of the site, there's a
mention of experiments with colored disks.....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:21:47 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei,
)Diana:
)
))To those for whom it is not truth, it is another theology.
)
)Subjective, and ipso facto irrelevant.
Like you, I think I am finding this too depressing to participate. I am
trying to get back to normal here. These arguments are very sad. I am very
sad.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:46:59 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei,
)
))Diana:
))
)))To those for whom it is not truth, it is another theology.
))
))Subjective, and ipso facto irrelevant.
)
)Like you, I think I am finding this too depressing to participate. I
)am trying to get back to normal here. These arguments are very sad.
)I am very sad.
)Diana
I see that my last post in this thread was exceptionally sloppy and
poorly edited, with entire sentences missing, but it makes no
difference.
I don't think you can talk about sad arguments after what I have
seen, and continue to see: Anthroposophy is hardly mentioned without
qualifyers like immoral, disreputable, sinister, sick, deceptive,
evil, pathological, etc. ad nauseum, and I've even seen a suggestion
of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
with objective human sciences or historicity.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:55:39 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: FW: We are not alone - Off topic
) 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_3083677004_11352002_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I just had to pass this along.
...Gary
Subject: We are not alone
Open and pass along...... thank you
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/teraflop/thank%20you.htm)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:49:57 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
Dan describes studies he'd like to see:
) I am interested in finding out if children who were taught to read
) early, for example, compared with children taught to read later, have
) discernably different outcomes later in their school careers. For
) example, there's a 1997 paper "Early Reading Acquisition and its
) Relation to Reading Experience and Ability Ten Years Later" by Ann
) Cunningham that I'm trying to get ahold of.
David: That sounds like an interesting one. I'd like to see the results,
too.
) I'm also interested in the effect of Waldorf on the students'
) world-view. I think it would be quite possible to design a study
) comparing the dimension of magic/rationality in the world-views of
) matched groups of Waldorf graduates and graduates of comparable
) private schools.
I am less confident than Dan is about this one. I doubt there is an
established, testable spectrum of "magicality" or "rationality". I also
don't know what such a study would allow you to conclude. It certainly
wouldn't prove anything about the quality of the educational systems.
I am happy to see you actually proposing studies, whether I agree with them
or not. Every time I've proposed something that might be studied, all I
hear is how "hard" such a study would be from you guys.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:33:21 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
)
) I don't think you can talk about sad arguments after what I have
) seen, and continue to see: Anthroposophy is hardly mentioned without
) qualifyers like immoral, disreputable, sinister, sick, deceptive,
) evil, pathological, etc. ad nauseum, and I've even seen a suggestion
) of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
) vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
) with objective human sciences or historicity.
)
)
Newpaul
Good Point Tarjei. Anthroposophy does have lies, deception, cult
indoctrination, bad academics, distortions, untruths, and child abuse of
kids caught innocently in the system. If Anthroposophists do not want
to be labeled with disreputable qualifiers, they need to come clean
about what they are doing to our kids in those Waldorf Schools.
I think we parents and victims have been more than fair. Wake up there
are a lot of us who are have had enough of this betrayal of our trust.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:30:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei Straume wrote:
))
))
)) I don't think you can talk about sad arguments after what I have
)) seen, and continue to see: Anthroposophy is hardly mentioned without
)) qualifyers like immoral, disreputable, sinister, sick, deceptive,
)) evil, pathological, etc. ad nauseum, and I've even seen a suggestion
)) of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
)) vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
)) with objective human sciences or historicity.
))
))
)Newpaul
)Good Point Tarjei. Anthroposophy does have lies, deception, cult
)indoctrination, bad academics, distortions, untruths, and child abuse of
)kids caught innocently in the system. If Anthroposophists do not want
)to be labeled with disreputable qualifiers, they need to come clean
)about what they are doing to our kids in those Waldorf Schools.
I have never hurt a child in my life, except during fights when I was
a child myself. Neither have I deceived nor indoctrinated anyone.
Besides, I am not a liar.
It is pointless to engage in dialogues with you, Newpaul, so this
will be my last response to your posts.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:31:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: FW: We are not alone - Off topic
--============_-1211273813==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
)I just had to pass this along.
)
)...Gary
)
)
)Subject: We are not alone
)
)Open and pass along...... thank you
)
)(http://home.cfl.rr.com/teraflop/thank%20you.htm)
Thanks, Gary. I've already passed it on, and I have an interesting link to add:
http://www.moveon.org/justice/
This campaign can save and preserve the support evidenced by the
moving photographs on the webpage you posted.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:03:54 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
The earliest use of the term "anthroposophy" by RS that I've come across
is from 1906 (in a series of lectures on Haeckel, published in the GA under
the title Die Weltraetsel und die Anthroposophie). Some contemporary anthros
-- for example, the authors of the Dutch report on anthro & the race
question -- agree with Dan's point about the word "theosophy" having been
changed ex post facto to "anthroposophy". I'm personally a bit skeptical on
that point; the editorial work on the GA is generally scrupulous, and making
such a change without any indication is a major breach of standard practice
for posthumous editions. Also, it seems likely to me that Steiner would have
used the term for some time before the organizational break from the
Theosophical Society. Interestingly, he continued to use the term
"theosophy" positively in reference to his own system for several years
after the break from Besant et al.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:36:51 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Hi Charlie, you wrote:
)You make it sound as though Steiner would have thought of any black person
)as a "barbarian savage". This is not the case. Nowhere did he equate "black
)person" with "barbarian savage".
Here's the passage: "The question we are pointing to here is the question of
colonization, the question that arises when members of civilized peoples
come together with uncivilized peoples: To what extent can uncivilized
peoples absorb new cultures? How can a black person, how can a barbarian
savage be civilized, how should one behave toward them? Here we must
consider not only the feelings of a shadowy morality, but also huge, serious
and significant questions of life and existence. Anyone who does not know
what conditions a people exists under, whether they are on an ascending or
descending trajectory of development, whether this or that is determined by
their blood, will be unable to find the right way to introduce any
civilization to another people. All of this arises when the crucial question
of blood is raised."
Steiner refers here not to a particular black person, or group of black
people, but to any (and hence every) hypothetical black person that a white
person might encounter. And by the way, what's with all this "nowhere" stuff
lately? None of us here has read all of the Collected Works and none of us
has any idea what Steiner did or didn't say in the works that we haven't
read.
)When he used the term "savage" he was
)talking about certain aboriginal tribes who had very little contact with
)"civilised" Europeans up until that time. His wording may not have been
)"politically correct" but it was the norm for that time and his audience
)would have understood precisely who he was talking about.
I agree that his audience got the message loud and clear, but that's because
Steiner, by my reading, was pandering to their racist prejudices. As for
"the norm for that time", it depends on which peer group you look at. It is
certainly not the case that all Europeans or all white people, much less
educated Europeans, routinely referred to black people or aboriginal people
as "barbarian savages" in 1906. We need look no further than professional
anthropology -- itself a colonial enterprise -- for counterexamples.
)And here he was
)asking a question as to how contact with Europeans would affect these
)people. The majority of colonists at that time would not even have
)considered the native's point of view.
I don't know why you think Steiner "considered the native's point of view."
The two possibilities he entertains in this essay, as far as I recall, are
that the 'natives' would be able to assimilate the colonists' civilization,
or that they would die out. That they might have had their own civilization
seems not to have occurred to him. His model of cultural absorption works in
one direction only. Do you read him differently on this score? Or are you
just saying that at least he wasn't a bloodthirsty Herrero-murdering
colonist himself?
)Where you interpret Steiner's remarks as racist, I interpret them as
)showing
)a caring attitude to what happens to other cultures as they become
)inevitably overwhelmed by modern Western culture. He highlighted the
)dangers
)they faced.
I think what you're reading as "caring" is really condescension, a
constituent element of the sort of racism that some of us think afflicted
much of Steiner's thought. This essay is a paradigmatic instance of the
ideology of the White Man's Burden: to bring civilization to all of the
barbarian savages of the world. I take it that you either disgaree that
Steiner invoked this ideology here, or you disagree that this ideology is
racist. Could you explain why?
)And as Tarjei has pointed out, according to Steiner, people cannot be fully
)understood if they are judged by the race or culture to which they belong.
)It is only by considering their individuality that they can be understood.
I think you're confusing two different periods of Steiner's life. The
atheist, rationalist, and individualist Steiner did indeed hold the position
you describe (that little nugget of Steinerian wisdom that Tarjei is so fond
of dates from 1894, seven years before Steiner's conversion to theosophy).
After his theosophical turn, Steiner reversed his prior individualist
stance. The anthroposophist Steiner held that people can only be understood
by taking "the race or culture to which they belong" into account as a
central aspect of their existence. In his theosophical and anthroposophical
works he expressly subordinated individuality to group characteristics. Not
that the individualist emphasis disappeared entirely, but it took on a very
relativized form. I think that the essay we're discussing is a good example
of this, with its emphasis on "peoples" and their "civilized" or
"uncivilized" status, their "conditions of existence," their "trajectories
of development," and the potential role of "blood" in determining such
things.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 02:16:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
Peter S. wrote (to Charlie):
)I think you're confusing two different periods of Steiner's life.
)The atheist, rationalist, and individualist Steiner did indeed hold
)the position you describe
RS was never an atheist.
)(that little nugget of Steinerian wisdom that Tarjei is so fond of
)dates from 1894, seven years before Steiner's conversion to
)theosophy).
Neither did he "convert to" theosophy from a worldview antithetical
to it. Throughout his life, RS explained in numerous lectures his
purpose with PoF, and how it was an epistemological foundation for
everything he gave out in the years to come, first as theosophy,
later as anthroposophy. This is why, when he was asked toward the end
of his life, when asked about which of his works would be best
remembered in the future, he responded without hesitation: "The
Philosophy of Freedom will survive all my other works."
In other words, the PoF did not represent a philosophy RS had
"converted from" at any time.
)After his theosophical turn, Steiner reversed his prior
)individualist stance. The anthroposophist Steiner held that people
)can only be understood by taking "the race or culture to which they
)belong" into account as a central aspect of their existence. In his
)theosophical and anthroposophical works he expressly subordinated
)individuality to group characteristics. Not that the individualist
)emphasis disappeared entirely, but it took on a very relativized
)form. I think that the essay we're discussing is a good example of
)this, with its emphasis on "peoples" and their "civilized" or
)"uncivilized" status, their "conditions of existence," their
)"trajectories of development," and the potential role of "blood" in
)determining such things.
I could easily demonstrate evidence of the opposite from many
lectures as late as the 1920's with a little browsing, but my time is
currently limited, and it will suffice to include a quote from the
frequently-mentioned lecture from 1917, "The Ahrimanic Deception."
I am including what RS says here about the abuse of intellectual
proof in the first section below, because this is an art practiced
quite well by Peter S. In the second section you will find that
conditions of heredity, i.e. of blood, race, tribe, etc. should have
been outgrown in the fifth epoch that began in the fourteenth
century, and that arguments to the contrary are therefore based upon
the trickery described in the first section of the quote:
*******************************************************
Ahriman makes use of this confusion in order to prepare the triumph
of his incarnation and to drive men with increasing force into what
they find so difficult to realize - namely, that by intellectual or
modern scientific reasoning today, one can prove anything and equally
well prove its opposite. The point is for us to recognize that
everything can be proved and for that reason to examine the proofs
put forward in science today. It is only in natural science that
reality is shown by the facts; in no other field can one consider
intellectual proofs valid. The only way to escape the danger that
threatens if one accepts the lures of Ahriman and his desire to drive
men deeper and deeper into these things, is to realize through
anthroposophical spiritual science that human knowledge must be
sought for in a stratum deeper than that in which the validity of our
proofs arises.
And so, in order to create dissensions, Ahriman also makes use of
what develops from the old conditions of heredity which man has
really outgrown in the Fifth Post-Atlantean Epoch. The Ahrimanic
powers use all that is derived from old circumstances of heredity in
order to set men against each other in conflicting groups. All that
comes from old differences of family, race, tribe, peoples, is used
by Ahriman to create confusion.
*********************************************************
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes
the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment." - Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:22:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Anthro. experts
) ) See:
))
) ) http://www.troxlerforum.ch
)
)Sharon:
)You have struck gold Dan! Look at the very bottom of the site, there's a
)mention of experiments with colored disks.....
I see Troxler observed the visual phenomenon "peripheral fading" or
the "Troxler effect." I'm not sure what the connection to
Anthroposophy might be except in relation to the staring-at-an-object
meditation that Steiner taught, where devotees are induced to believe
that normal alterations in perception during an abnormal use of the
eyes is concrete evidence of spiritual vision.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:48:43 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
Su:
) PS I notice and will continue to notice, persistently, that no one wants
) to sanitize Waldorf Education with a 10 foot pole.
) Wonder why????????
David: Please, can you explain this? You have made similar statements
recently, but I don't understand what you're asking well enough to even
attempt an answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Only $9.95 per month!
Sign up in September to win one of 30 Hawaiian Vacations for 2!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:15:35 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Su" (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
Su wrote (snipped):
I am offended
) by the insidious way in which they tout their beliefs as the only way to
) think, and superior to others....
and:
) I do however criticize your covert proselytizing in the schools, and
) your endeavors to infiltrate the public school system, in order
) disseminate your beliefs to children without their parent's knowledge...
and:
) You resent the idea that we have uncovered your agenda of proselytizing
) and dumbing down children, to prepare them for the afterlife.
charlie:
I haven't seen anyone connected with Anthroposophy being overly involved in
proselytizing. Have you ever come across anyone handing out leaflets in the
street, or going from door to door selling it? For anyone to benefit from
studying Anthroposophy, they must come to it with free and open minds. If
there is no agenda for converting adults to our beliefs, (whatever they may
be), why would we want to convert children.(Steiner does not ask anyone to
believe in reincarnation, karma, angels, or anything else). If any Waldorf
schools are trying to convert the children into budding Anthroposophists,
then I can only think that the teachers do not know much about
Anthroposophy. So you can either get the teachers to change their ways or
stay well clear of the school, but don't try to blame "Anthroposophy". You;
in fact we all have to ask ourselves "is my perception of Anthroposophy
objective, or is it coloured by a biased outlook".
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:18:47 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Uncle Taz Comes Clean
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) It is pointless to engage in dialogues with you, Newpaul, so this
) will be my last response to your posts.
)
Well Tarjei, even if you have given up on me, I have not given up on
you. I detect that slowly but surely you are beginning to see the
light. I liked that scripture you posted the other day in response to
Gary, God Bless Him. And you seem to be getting the point that the
Dripping Blood Site "your son" built (with lots of help from Dad I'll
bet) is inappropriate, even for a Waldorf kid. I am clearly thrilled
that you will be taking an active role in your son's education and
talking with his teachers about their Anthroposophical foundations and
questionable academics concerning his school. Even asking questions
that the critics suggested.
I won't be long before you start dipping into those funds the Steiner
Foundation sends you to print up Anti-Waldorf fliers to staple to the
bulletin boards of the local health food coops and metaphysical
bookstores. Now wouldn't that be really cool act of pure Anarchosophy?
Hopefully you will even discover that you don't need Steiner to teach
you about Jesus.
Shalom and Blessings to you and yours.
Newpaul
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 484
-- Topica Digest --
Bug off
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By snell gv.net
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
vandalism? Nope! /was "the word anthroposophy"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: vandalism? Nope! /was "the word anthroposophy"
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: credibility (was no good thing)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: credibility (was no good thing)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
on the issue of "reverence"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: on the issue of "reverence"
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
engendering ignorance
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner's role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: engendering ignorance
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:Aeithiest huh???(was Steiner role)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Stuffed owls ( was RE: PLANS argument)
By canndw netzero.net
Re: on the issue of "reverence"
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: on the issue of "reverence"
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: on the issue of "reverence"
By jfk3 sprint.ca
Re: on the issue of "reverence"
By snell gv.net
Steiner on reproduction
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:41:06 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Bug off
Don't pretend to write about my family, because everything below
reeks with errors. It's ad hominem all over again: Writing about
Person, not substance. Writing abour person's family is even dirtier.
For the record: 1) I did not attend a parents' meeting at my son's
school (who lives in another city), but my stepson's. 2) I did no
help my son make his webpage, except linking the two pages together.
I won't comment on your posts, because they are full of hostile
insults. These sarcastic ad hominem remaks about my family prove my
point, so bug off.
Tarjei
)Well Tarjei, even if you have given up on me, I have not given up on
)you. I detect that slowly but surely you are beginning to see the
)light. I liked that scripture you posted the other day in response to
)Gary, God Bless Him. And you seem to be getting the point that the
)Dripping Blood Site "your son" built (with lots of help from Dad I'll
)bet) is inappropriate, even for a Waldorf kid. I am clearly thrilled
)that you will be taking an active role in your son's education and
)talking with his teachers about their Anthroposophical foundations and
)questionable academics concerning his school. Even asking questions
)that the critics suggested.
)
)I won't be long before you start dipping into those funds the Steiner
)Foundation sends you to print up Anti-Waldorf fliers to staple to the
)bulletin boards of the local health food coops and metaphysical
)bookstores. Now wouldn't that be really cool act of pure Anarchosophy?
)
)Hopefully you will even discover that you don't need Steiner to teach
)you about Jesus.
)
)
)Shalom and Blessings to you and yours.
)
)Newpaul
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:27:25 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
Tarjei:
(snip)
and I've even seen a suggestion
)of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
)vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
)with objective human sciences or historicity.
Debra:
Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
missed that post.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:33:57 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
I think I remember reading a tongue-in-cheek suggestion about throwing
balled up wet-on-wets at it. I remember nothing else. Was this what you
were referring to, Tarjei? If there was more, I didn't get that post
either.
Paula
) Debra:
)
) Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
) missed that post.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:53:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
)Tarjei:
)
)(snip)
)
) and I've even seen a suggestion
))of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
))vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
))with objective human sciences or historicity.
)
)
)Debra:
)
)Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
)missed that post.
Sharon wrote Sat, 08 Sep:
"Activists draw attention to "shit". Would you rather we show up at
the Goetheanum and throw rocks like fed up activists did in Seattle?"
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:28:21 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: vandalism? Nope! /was "the word anthroposophy"
) Tarjei:
)
) (snip)
)
) and I've even seen a suggestion
))of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
))vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
))with objective human sciences or historicity.
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
) missed that post.
)
Lisa here: This reminds me of that children's game we here in the US call
"telephone." Children sit in a circle. One whispers a word to the one
sitting next to her, who then whispers it to the next person. By the time
the message reaches the end, it is usually unrecognizable!
I think Tarjei is referring to a little conversation that took place on
this list about activists. Sharon L. pointed out that activists draw
attention to things that they think are not-OK, to "shit," if you will.
Someone on the list then (I cannot recall whom) argued with Sharon's use of
the "s" word. Sharon lightly retorted that perhaps he would prefer that we
Waldorf critics do as activists have done recently elsewhere, and throw
actual stones -- perhaps at the Goetheanum. At that point, I suggested that
instead of stones, we might choose to throw wadded up wet on wet paintings.
As far as I know, no critic here ever seriously suggested any kind of
vandalism.
Sheesh.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:44:45 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vandalism? Nope! /was "the word anthroposophy"
) ) Tarjei:
))
)) (snip)
))
)) and I've even seen a suggestion
)))of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
)))vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
)))with objective human sciences or historicity.
))
))
)) Debra:
))
)) Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
)) missed that post.
))
)
)Lisa here: This reminds me of that children's game we here in the US call
)"telephone." Children sit in a circle. One whispers a word to the one
)sitting next to her, who then whispers it to the next person. By the time
)the message reaches the end, it is usually unrecognizable!
) I think Tarjei is referring to a little conversation that took place on
)this list about activists. Sharon L. pointed out that activists draw
)attention to things that they think are not-OK, to "shit," if you will.
)Someone on the list then (I cannot recall whom) argued with Sharon's use of
)the "s" word. Sharon lightly retorted that perhaps he would prefer that we
)Waldorf critics do as activists have done recently elsewhere, and throw
)actual stones -- perhaps at the Goetheanum. At that point, I suggested that
)instead of stones, we might choose to throw wadded up wet on wet paintings.
) As far as I know, no critic here ever seriously suggested any kind of
)vandalism.
) Sheesh.
From what I have seen on this list, it can be very difficult indeed
to see the difference between what is serious and what isn't. This
perception is corroborated by the total absence of self-irony in
critics' humor, which should always be aimed at AP and its defenders
with all the sarcasm and hostility that can be mustered.
The absence of self-irony is one noteworthy item that clearly
separates the hard core critics from all the others on this list.
Critics obviously refuse to accept AP humor, they find it tasteless
and sickening. So why should we laugh at your jokes? The point is
that the suggestion of vandalism was raised, isn't it? And isn't my
taking this seriously precisely a little piece of your own medicine?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:54:15 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: credibility (was no good thing)
) Anthroposophy. So you can either get the teachers to change
) their ways or
) stay well clear of the school, but don't try to blame
) "Anthroposophy". You;
) in fact we all have to ask ourselves "is my perception of
) Anthroposophy
) objective, or is it coloured by a biased outlook".
Although in theory what you say sounds great, in practice there are
several problems. The greatest problem that I can see is that Waldorf
schools use the same buzz words as many other alternative schools, i.e.
whole child, developmental, community oriented, arts based, etc. etc.
But each of these words have turned out to have very different meanings
to what most people I know thought they would have.
I heard about a funny example the other day; our head teacher and the
only one with both Waldorf training and Waldorf teaching experience was
having these little educational seminars for parents. At one point
color theory came up and this teacher had to apologize as she said she
didn't really know much about it. A parent jumped in here and said,
that's okay because I know all about this stuff, this is what I have
taught for ages (she taught self-esteem and modeling in several schools)
and she proceeded to give the interpretation of color that is what
probably could be termed mainstream, as it is that which is most
commonly taught in non-Waldorf schools and colleges. The head teacher
could do nothing as this parent proceeded to spell out color theory, as
she had forgotten the Steiner stuff that she must have learned in
college, and therefore could not say anything about it. That parent has
no idea that what she was describing as color theory and what is color
theory according to Steiner are two different things.
Take developmental. Most people who have studied education outside of
Steiner's theories have learned about child development according to
people like Piaget. So when we read the word developmental we are
assuming that this mainstream idea is what is being talked about, not
Steiner's very different view.
When people complain about anthroposophy coming into the classroom, it
is not that the children are being taught anthroposophy, but rather that
the basis of what is being taught is according to anthroposophical
theories rather than mainstream ones. Perhaps that is all that need be
made clear.
One of the most difficult aspects for me in the classroom is all of the
reverence. Reverence for me is not something that is taught but
something that comes from within ourselves. If the teacher feels all
reverantial about lighting a candle before she tells a story, then let
her experience that, but don't require that my child also feel
reverence. Candles in our home are for light and for birthdays. I have
never felt that candles were in some way spiritual (not very new-age of
me I know). Same before eating. We do not say grace in our home. So
the little ditties they do at school before snack are totally out of
context for our family. I am uncomfortable that my child has to wait
for someone to say a verse before they may start eating.
Sleeping, eating and going to the bathroom are basic requirements and
any school that tries to control when these things happen in children is
not about education but about control. I realise that I have just
included almost every school in the World.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:27:00 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the word 'anthroposophy'
on 9/19/01 9:53 AM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)) Tarjei:
))
)) (snip)
))
)) and I've even seen a suggestion
))) of vandalizing the Goethanum in Dornach. This is criticism with a
))) vengeance indeed, hardcore malignant criticism that has nothing to do
))) with objective human sciences or historicity.
))
))
)) Debra:
))
)) Whaatt??!! Tarjei, who suggested vandalizing the Goethanum? I must have
)) missed that post.
)
) Sharon wrote Sat, 08 Sep:
)
) "Activists draw attention to "shit". Would you rather we show up at
) the Goetheanum and throw rocks like fed up activists did in Seattle?"
Sharon:
And you accuse us of taking things out of context, man are you waaaayyyyy
off here Tarjei. Read the exchange puhleez! In any case, my next post
proceeded to say that I'm for nonviolence and the pen is mightier than the
sword. Yeeeesh Tarjei, you sure have a persecution complex. Shall we critics
point out the terrible things some of you say about us? You call us liars,
you threaten us with insanity, etc, etc....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:44:40 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: credibility (was no good thing)
on 9/19/01 10:54 AM, Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff at lizanderrol home.com
wrote:
)
) When people complain about anthroposophy coming into the classroom, it
) is not that the children are being taught anthroposophy, but