return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: two schools' description of WE
By canndw netzero.net
Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Leo J. Ryan Foundation 2001 conference
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Schwartz's "mythic" status
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: The "mission" of the Jews
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: PLANS' and its supporting organizations
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Cult-war in Europe
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Secondary comments to Cult-war in Europe
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: two schools' description of WE
By snell gv.net
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By jfk3 sprint.ca
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re:Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: two schools' description of WE
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Secondary comments to Cult-war in Europe
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:29:54 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
Liz:
) I always wonder if people who admire Eugene Schwartz also agree with his
) ideas that children need to be told what to wear, what to eat, basically
) what to think as much as possible? And that choices of any kind are
) very bad for the development of the astral body? Do you follow these
) injunctions with your children?
To a degree we do, less so as the children get older. Limiting choices for
younger children was something I found attractive about waldorf.
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, 01 Oct 2001 00:35:41 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Dear critics,
Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views on sexuality in
general it is remarkable that anthroposophists and their defenders
take up the issue of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit
PLANS.
Here is an illustrative quote:
"The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to
provide the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to
receive the Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and
the initiates perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was
approaching the Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception
had to be prepared for.
The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we
adopt not only certain physiological characteristics, but also
soul-spiritual ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of
conception, we adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent.
Because we are in a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure
of lovemaking, inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the
embryo as soon as
sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and
why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it
was necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way.
Joseph and Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable
of an Oriental technique which provides for sexual intercourse
without passion or hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is
experienced as a sacrifice. In this way, the purest body and
soul-substance was provided for
the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was born
'without sin.'"
Guess who wrote this ... Tarjei Straume (at:
http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html)
Best,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:52:14 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Leo J. Ryan Foundation 2001 conference
ray fulk wrote:
) In a message dated 9/30/01 7:06:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
) sufrito53 yahoo.com writes:
)
) (( I have heard even the Bush family supports Sun Myung Moon. Anyone
) have
) any information on this? I'd be interested.
)
) Hi Su.
)
) The Rev has had traditional allies with US administrations since the
) Korean
) war (remember the photo of him and Nixon?). Possible references: the
) Trilateral commission.
) Also have a humorous story of a friend of mine who was a Moony if you
) are
) interested -offlist
)
) Ray
I have heard that Daddy Bush gives speaches for Moon.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
--- Peter Zegers
) Dear critics,
)
) Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views
) on sexuality in general it is remarkable that
) anthroposophists and their defenders take up the
) issue of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit
) PLANS.
Dottie
Oh Jeez Peter. Nobody tried to discredit PLANS.
Unfortunately Lisa responded to my comment before
realizing what I was saying.
So, it seems your papers try to discredit RS by
claiming his ideology is the same as Hitlers. Yet when
the tables are turned you cry foul. PJI lists AP as a
cult and they happen to be supporting PLANS for lawyer
fees.
Boy look how sensitive everyone is about this issue.
Kind of reminds me of how critics claim AP's crowd
round the wagon when Nazi's and RS are mentioned in
the same paragraph. Whew.
And Peter, will you respond to my questions regarding
your home language and your world view?
Thanks in advance,
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:16:28 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear critics,
)
) Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views on sexuality in
) general it is remarkable that anthroposophists and their defenders take
) up the issue of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit PLANS.
)
) Here is an illustrative quote:
)
) "The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to provide
) the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the
) Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates
) perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the Earth, a
) very special and unusual kind of conception had to be prepared for.
)
) The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we adopt
) not only certain physiological characteristics, but also soul-spiritual
) ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of conception, we
) adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent. Because we are in a
) state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure of lovemaking, inherent
) selfish tendencies enter the soul of the embryo as soon as
) sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and why
) it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
)
) In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it was
) necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way. Joseph and
) Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable of an Oriental
) technique which provides for sexual intercourse without passion or
) hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is experienced as a sacrifice.
) In this way, the purest body and soul-substance was provided for
) the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was born
) 'without sin.'"
)
) Guess who wrote this ... Tarjei Straume (at:
) http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html)
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
Thanks for this quote, Peter.
Interesting that this spiritual oppression does the same thing that all
religions do in terms of encouraging self-denial and masochism. It is
frightening to think that God expects humankind to behave in this
manner, and sets it up as the ideal. It seems that all religions end up
in the same hole, encouraging self-denial and suffering. Encouraging us
to believe that our humanity is evil or dirty. Kind of a throwback to
more primitive times. So where's the improvement that Anthroposophy is
supposed to have on other religions?
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:34:37 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Schwartz's "mythic" status
David Cann says:
((It's funny to me how Eugene Schwartz has taken on a mythic status among
waldorf critics.))
Lisa here: Frankly, it is just so darned unusual for those who are deeply
involved in promoting Waldorf education to tell the truth about it -- that
the schools *are* religious and that anthroposophy is the driving force
behind, in and around it! -- that anyone who does so earns the respect of
the critics.
The fact that Eugene Schwartz seems to "stand alone" in his decision to
tell the truth -- and to do so in a public fashion -- says more about the
rest of the Waldorf vanguard than it does about the critics. It's the
contrast that tells the story, in my opinion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
) Lisa wrote
OK, Dottie, I understand clearly that you
) never said that PLANS
) or PLANS' members were "anti gay." Instead, you
) mentioned that PLANS is
) linked to/supported by organizations that *do* take
) an intolerant position
) to gay people, etc.
and
) "What is up" with my vehement protestations each
) time you mention that
) PLANS is supported by -- among other organizations
) -- the Pacific Justice
) Institute is that I do not want people out there
) reading the list to get the
) impression that PLANS, either as an organization or
) its individual members,
) are homophobic or against tolerance.
Dottie
Oh well too bad. What seems to be good for the goose
is said to be good for the gander, right? So here you
are not wanting others to hear these things and draw
the 'wrong' conclusions, just as APs complain about
the way the critics, Staudenmaier and Zegers slander
RS in relation to the crazy idea that RS and Hitler
have the same ideology. Hellooooooo.
And this is your fiasco not mine. You once again
misread my post and started the defense when none was
called for.
Lisa
) Frankly, Dottie, I think that you mention the
) fact that PLANS is
) supported by an evangelical Christian organization
) (which is what, to my
) understanding, PJI is) because *you* are intolerant
) of PJI's views, which
) you describe as "anti gay" and against tolerance.
Dottie
Yeah I hear you just like I heard Paul's claim I was a
racist and even put it as the subject line of a post:
Dotties' Racism. Yeah right. If anything I am
considered racist against whites as many of the white
gangs are tired of seeing me with the blacks and
latinos:
I am not intolerant towards PJI and evangelical
Christians. What I am not tolerant about are the way
they go about trying to stop work places from allowing
tolerance classes to be taught to workers who have
problems with treating gays as fairly as they do
others.
Most of the kids I work with on the streets are gay
bisexual or confused about their sexual orientation.
PJI specifically funded a lawsuit to stop a group of
high school kids from meeting after school on school
grounds to discuss the problems they face as gay
teens. Yet they are fighting very hard right now to
bring a religious after school class on the campus.
And you and others may not be aware of the fact that
many of the foster kids are kicked out because they
acted too feminine around their family members or to
butch as they call it. I think that if these kids had
had a chance to have a class, like the one that PJI
successfully stopped from happening, they would not be
out there confused and prostituting themselves on the
streets.
Not that I am blaming PJI for the things that have
befallen my kids but on the other hand if we do not
wake up we will have more disease and crime on the
street in the next five years, then has ever been seen
in a life time. Why should they just bring a class on
religion, which I am not opposed too, and fight all
others who wish to have a chance at the same
opportunity.
And need I remind you once again I AM A CHRISTIAN.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:48:15 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
)
)) Lisa wrote
)
) OK, Dottie, I understand clearly that you
)) never said that PLANS
)) or PLANS' members were "anti gay." Instead, you
)) mentioned that PLANS is
)) linked to/supported by organizations that *do* take
)) an intolerant position
)) to gay people, etc.
)
) and
)
)) "What is up" with my vehement protestations each
)) time you mention that
)) PLANS is supported by -- among other organizations
)) -- the Pacific Justice
)) Institute is that I do not want people out there
)) reading the list to get the
)) impression that PLANS, either as an organization or
)) its individual members,
)) are homophobic or against tolerance.
)
) Dottie
)
) Oh well too bad. What seems to be good for the goose
) is said to be good for the gander, right? So here you
) are not wanting others to hear these things and draw
) the 'wrong' conclusions, just as APs complain about
) the way the critics, Staudenmaier and Zegers slander
) RS in relation to the crazy idea that RS and Hitler
) have the same ideology. Hellooooooo.
)
) And this is your fiasco not mine. You once again
) misread my post and started the defense when none was
) called for.
)
)
) Lisa
)
)) Frankly, Dottie, I think that you mention the
)) fact that PLANS is
)) supported by an evangelical Christian organization
)) (which is what, to my
)) understanding, PJI is) because *you* are intolerant
)) of PJI's views, which
)) you describe as "anti gay" and against tolerance.
)
) Dottie
)
) Yeah I hear you just like I heard Paul's claim I was a
) racist and even put it as the subject line of a post:
) Dotties' Racism. Yeah right. If anything I am
) considered racist against whites as many of the white
) gangs are tired of seeing me with the blacks and
) latinos:
)
) I am not intolerant towards PJI and evangelical
) Christians. What I am not tolerant about are the way
) they go about trying to stop work places from allowing
) tolerance classes to be taught to workers who have
) problems with treating gays as fairly as they do
) others.
)
) Most of the kids I work with on the streets are gay
) bisexual or confused about their sexual orientation.
) PJI specifically funded a lawsuit to stop a group of
) high school kids from meeting after school on school
) grounds to discuss the problems they face as gay
) teens. Yet they are fighting very hard right now to
) bring a religious after school class on the campus.
)
) And you and others may not be aware of the fact that
) many of the foster kids are kicked out because they
) acted too feminine around their family members or to
) butch as they call it. I think that if these kids had
) had a chance to have a class, like the one that PJI
) successfully stopped from happening, they would not be
) out there confused and prostituting themselves on the
) streets.
)
) Not that I am blaming PJI for the things that have
) befallen my kids but on the other hand if we do not
) wake up we will have more disease and crime on the
) street in the next five years, then has ever been seen
) in a life time. Why should they just bring a class on
) religion, which I am not opposed too, and fight all
) others who wish to have a chance at the same
) opportunity.
)
) And need I remind you once again I AM A CHRISTIAN.
)
) Peace,
)
) Dottie
)
)
Lisa here: Dottie, what can I say except that I certainly support the work
you are doing on a street level with children and young adults of any and
all sexual orientations, colors and creeds.
I cannot claim to know anything at all about the lawsuit you mentioned
-- the one brought by PJI that prohibited troubled teens to meet after
school to discuss their difficulties and lives. Such a group sounds like an
excellent idea, and one that should be pursued, no matter what special
interest group opposes it. As you so rightly point out, these children are
the future our of country and our world, and they must be helped. If a
school is not the place where such help and succor can be administered, then
we truly are on the way to being lost.
As to PJI trying to bring a religion class to public school ... well, I
have to say I personally would oppose that. Religion classes, other than
academic comparative religion courses, belong in church or elsewhere, and
not, in my opinion, in a public school.
Keep up the good work, Dottie. Those kids need you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Tolerance (was PLANS supporting)
Dottie
) ) Not that I am blaming PJI for the things that have
) ) befallen my kids but on the other hand if we do
) not
) ) wake up we will have more disease and crime on the
) ) street in the next five years, then has ever been
) seen
) ) in a life time. Why should they just bring a class
) on
) ) religion, which I am not opposed too, and fight
) all
) ) others who wish to have a chance at the same
) ) opportunity.
) Lisa
) If a school is not the place where such help and
support can be administered, then
) we truly are on the way to being lost.
Dottie
I just want to add something here. What I find alot is
that parents think they are going to send their
children off to private school to avoid all the
crazyness of public schools and all that can happen in
a big city.
Let me tell one and all and let it be heard: If you
think that you can keep your children safe by not
interacting with the communities in which there are
devestating poverty and racial issues, be sure that
one day your children will encounter those kids you
took pains to not notice. Make no mistake about it.
You can not hide so you might as well make an
initiative now, to help heal those who have been left
behind, before one day an angry young man face down
with a gun in his hand and a hungry belly will take
you or a loved one with him.
And that is not to say that those who seek a better
education forget about those who have not. I just
wanted to share something that I hear alot from
friends who say they are taking their families away
from these crazy peoples and cities.
Elvis Presley sang a song that has inspired me
throughout my life to understand the hardships of
those who had not the opportunity to be educated nor
fed properly. I believe it might have been called
"And The World Cried".
Lisa
Dottie. Those kids need you.
Dottie
Dearest Lisa, they need all of us. You have a
beautiful daughter and I have a bunch of beautiful
neices and nephews. We owe it to them to create a
safer place for them to achieve their lifes desires,
whatever they may be without the stench of
homelessness, poverty and racism about them.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:18:52 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 9/30/01 5:46:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter_zegers runbox.no writes:
(( Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views on sexuality in general
it is remarkable that anthroposophists and their defenders take up the issue
of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit PLANS. ))
Hi Peter.
I must say that I missed your point altogether. However, I do believe you
have stumbled upon one reason why Rudy never wore a smile in his photos. I
would be interested in Tarjei's explanation of sexual arousal without the
hint of hedonism if he could struggle to make it relevant to the
list....perhaps in private, as it were.
Kudos to you Dottie.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:24:08 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: The "mission" of the Jews
In a message dated 9/30/01 12:03:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tastraum uncletaz.com writes:
(( Hegel was one of the German idealists who have influenced many
important people, including Martin Kuther King. I have only glanced
through his writings myself. ))
A while back, Sune refered to Hegel's influence on Steiner. My inquiry then
was to what extent. The influence of Hegel's dialectic of Spirit (Pure Spirit
becomes infused with matter then becomes Pure Spirit) is clear. My interest
lies in Hegel's concept of the relationship between the individual and the
state, the state being the embodiment of Spirit (the greater whole) which is
the motivating power of historical movement, his unique concept of freedom
(Spirit's unhindered selfdetermination) and Steiner's concepts of
Volkspirits, spirits of geology etc., as forces of history. Ultimately, my
focus is on RS's concept of freedom and it's philosophical complications, as
I percieve it, in and of itself and as it relates to Hegel's.
I didn't get very far and perhaps this is not the forum . But I am a
critic of sorts and here you are. If you have the time, read Hegel's The
Philosophy of History and his Logic. You being an anarchoapop, I would be
interested in what you have to say.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS' and its supporting organizations
Lisa
) Lisa here: OK, Dottie, I understand clearly that you
) never said that PLANS
) or PLANS' members were "anti gay." Instead, you
) mentioned that PLANS is
) linked to/supported by organizations that *do* take
) an intolerant position
) to gay people, etc.
and
) "What is up" with my vehement protestations each
) time you mention that
) PLANS is supported by -- among other organizations
) -- the Pacific Justice
) Institute is that I do not want people out there
) reading the list to get the
) impression that PLANS, either as an organization or
) its individual members,
) are homophobic or against tolerance.
Dottie
Oh well, to bad. What is good for the goose is said to
be good for the gander although this was not my
original point. PLANS, Staudenmaier and Zegers
continualy label RS as a racist who had the same
ideologies as Hitler. Hello?
So here you are being protective and if I can remind
you of your response to anyone who is pro RS or
Waldorf is that they are in a cult and do not know it.
And here you are doing the exact same thing with your
response.
Of course you do not want people out there to get that
PLANS is anti gay or supportive of groups who are.
Well unfortunately for you and PLANS sometimes one has
to lay down with strange bed fellows to get their
points heard by the public.
Lisa
) Frankly, Dottie, I think that you mention the
) fact that PLANS is
) supported by an evangelical Christian organization
) (which is what, to my
) understanding, PJI is) because *you* are intolerant
) of PJI's views, which
) you describe as "anti gay" and against tolerance.
Dottie
Well, dear Lisa, you are wrong. You can try and label
me as Paul did (he claimed I was racist, even a
heading for the post Dotties Racism) as intolerant but
it is plain to see that is not true. I am a Christian.
And the only thing I have seen that I did not
appreciate about PJI is their stance on Gays and their
list of cults which includes accupuncture. Pretty
wild. And yes that is really ugly. They even fight for
people in the work place who do not want to have to
attend classes to learn to be more tolerant towards
gays.
I do not even have a problem that they are trying to
bring religion back into schools. Not my issue.
However many of the kids I work with from the streets
are gay or bisexual or confused about their sexuality.
And PJI has fought an initiative in Orange County that
would have allowed young people who felt judged by
their communities for their sexual orientation to meet
on the school grounds after school. Yet they fought as
hard to bring religion to after school studies. That
one is before the court.
And I would like to remind you while you are spewing
this continued rhetoric about me is that I never even
intended the conversation to go this way. So blame
yourself for this little fiasco. And yes I would like
to say I think you owe me an apology. If I wanted I
could have once again gone full tilt and kept ramming
it down about the money and the support. But I didn't.
And I still am not.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:05:20 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Cult-war in Europe
Tarjei, you wrote,
)Please learn the difference between Anthroposophy and Scientology,
)and between Anthroposophy and the Order of the Solar Temple.
I'm quite aware of the differences. Scientology is perhaps the most
dangerous cult in the world (well, not considering Al Qaeda). No
question Solar Temple is a bad one too. Either makes Anthroposophy
look like Sunday school. But still the c-word applies.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:24:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Secondary comments to Cult-war in Europe
Tarjei, you wrote about Scientology,
)I have sometimes felt ambivalent about this and asked myself whether
)or not I am a hypocrite of sorts, or promoting a double standard, by
)attacking scientology while defending anthroposophy.
Well, Scientology is an evil psychology and business cult that does a
lot of damage. Anthroposophy is a well-meaning religious and
political cult that also does some damage. Of course you explain the
bad things as not representing the "real" Anthroposophy, and then we
point out how they are done by people following Steiner's teachings...
)Apart from my clumsy and unedited endeavor to clear some of this up
)at the aforementioned http://uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html, it is
)appropriate for me to share a strictly personal perspective about
)this matter:
)
)In my personal view - for which I must assume sole responsibility at
)this point - the work of RS in the German-speaking world prompted
)such powerful counter-reactions or counter-attacks by the "Opposing
)Powers", i.e. spiritual powers that oppose the progression of
)humanity, that not only one, but two world wars resulted from it, or
)were more or less directly connected with it, seen from the
)perspective of the other side of the threshold.
Whoa. The world wars were a reaction to the work of Rudolf Steiner?
Megalomania is contagious! Who has "seen" this "from the perspective
of the other side of the threshold," and how did they inform you?
)One of the manifestations of this is that Theosophy and
)Anthroposophy produced two counter-images, two reverse mirror-images
)so to speak: The first of these was Nazism, the second was
)Scientology. In other words, if you imagine Theosophy and
)Anthroposophy as Dr. Jeckyll, you have Nazism and Scientology as Mr.
)Hyde. Anyway, this is a theory of mine.
Dear Tarjei, that's nuts.
)And this is why Anthroposophy and everything connected with it is
)impossible to understand without an appreciation for the forces of
)good and evil, of Christ, Lucifer, and Ahriman, of light and
)darkness. From the looks of it, so-called "secular society" will
)need to learn such distinctions in the future, to discern between
)good and evil concepts and ethics and ideals and so on. But when
)that happens, this society will no longer be "secular" in the
)present sense of the word.
Your reasoning seems circular, we can't understand Anthroposophy
without understanding Anthroposophy. And sectarian, only the doctrine
of your sect can save the world.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:34:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
)More than ever, our children need to grow up strong, independent, highly
)educated, compassionate & creative.
Platitudes.
)Our rigorous,
What a joke.
)developmentally
)appropriate curriculum
An outright deception.
)has been successfully taught in Waldorf schools
)worldwide for over 70 years.
Too bad it hasn't been examined till now.
***
)Waldorf schools use a developmental curriculum that follows the progress of
)civilization as the child ages.
I doubt anybody reading that will appreciate the complexity and
weirdness of the theory behind it. Steiner wants to take the child
step by step through his "evolution of consciousness," the
Theosophical evolution of the Aryan race.
)Preschoolers and Kindergartners listen raptly to stories, see puppet shows,
)bake bread, make soup, model beeswax, build houses, dig and construct and
)play outside. This lays the groundwork for intense involvement in later
)learning. At this age, proper preparation for life is full engagement in
)joyful play.
Are parents going to notice that there's -no teaching- promised here?
)Grade school children start the day with the Main Lesson, a two-hour
)immersion in a subject, which changes every few weeks. This immersion in a
)subject encourages attention, focus, and deep learning.
New Age buzzword alert: "deep."
)Skills are also
)taught in language arts, mathematics, and foreign languages; specialty
)subjects include singing and playing an instrument, handwork, painting,
)modeling, music, drama, physical education and Eurythmy.
All good things, of course no one is mentioning how strictly limited
the approach to all of these subjects is, nor how weird Eurythmy is.
)Harvard's Howard Gardner, author of several influential books (among them
)The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach), sees
)Waldorf education as consistent with his theory of multiple human
)intelligences. "I like very much the determinedly developmental perspective
)of Waldorf schools -- the realization that human development in general, and
)each child's development in particular, has a kind of organic rhythm to it,
)and its disturbance can be very damaging," he says in the Sept. 25, 2001
)issue of the Boston Globe.
What does Gardner know about Waldorf?
)Grade 1
)Literature of Fairy tales - Nature studies
Nature studies? Walks in the woods where questions are answered with
fantasy answers about fairies and gnomes? Moral animal tales?
) - Two foreign languages -
)Handwriting - Alphabet - Vowels and consonants - Arithmetic - Add, subtract,
)multiply & divide - Form drawing
People probably think that "form drawing" means sketching something.
Little do they know it's supposed to be therapy.
) - Knitting.
)
)Grade 2
)Literature of world legends, folk tales & fables - Reading - Sentence
)writing - Saint stories - Form drawing - Arithmetic - Modeling.
)
)Grade 3
)Old Testament stories - American Indian Legends - Arithmetic - Farming -
)Measurement - Cursive writing - House building - Grammar - Music notation -
)Sewing.
)
)Grade 4
)Norse myths
In 1920's Germany Norse mythology was supposed to be the ancient
texts of the Aryan race, "evolution" from the Jewish stories of the
previous year.
) - Fractions - Zoology
The famous "Man and Animal" block: Anthroposophy.
) - Local geography - Woodwork - Local
)history - Cross stitch - Orchestra - Composition
)
)Grade 5
)Ancient civilizations up to Greece
The first four sub-races of the Aryan root race.
) - U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
How the threefold plant is like the threefold man upside down.
) -
)Sentence construction - 4-needle knitting - Decimals - String instruments
)
)Grade 6
)Roman & medieval history
The fourth sub-race to the fifth.
) - Geology - Percent, geometry, algebra - Hand
)sewing - South American geography - Woodworking - Choir - Astronomy
)
)Grade 7
)Renaissance & Reformation - Combustion
My son had the combustion lesson block, and I also attended a
demonstration lesson. They burned things and described the smoke and
ashes. Nothing about oxidation. In seventh grade.
) - Age of Exploration - Mechanics -
)Algebra - Woodworking - European geography - Choir - Nutrition & physiology
Steiner's threefold physiology.
)- Optics
Newton was wrong, Goethe was right.
) and acoustics.
)
)Grade 8
)Modern history - Anatomy
Been to a demonstration anatomy lesson. All about the forms of the
threefold skeleton. How the skull is spherical, the limbs linear, and
the trunk in between. Anthroposophy.
) - Drama - Machine sewing - World geography -
)Woodworking - Organic chemistry
You recall the organic chemistry test I posted that was about how
sugar relates the four elements.
) - Choir - Physics - Meteorology
It was very important to Steiner that there are only four kinds of clouds.
) - Poetics
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Ad
- U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
Dan
) How the threefold plant is like the threefold man
) upside down.
)
Dottie
Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it is
so funny to me because I have always thought the trees
had their heads in the ground and their legs flying in
the air. Check it out next time when you pass a tree
:)
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:12:10 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
David:
)It's also, IMO, probably a better job to be a class teacher at Green Meadow
)Waldorf School than to be the director of teacher training at Sunbridge.
)
)If "Walden" had heard Eugene speak "before signing up", he/she would likely
)have found that talk interesting, captivating, and very, *very* pro-Waldorf.
Debra:
I agree with you completely. The *reason* critics hold him in high esteem
is because he is also *honest* when honesty becomes important. He is a rare
breed when it comes to Anthroposophy. Why is it so hard to understand our
message? We don't care what you believe, how you raise your kids. We just
want honesty so we can make a decision based on the simple truth.
Anthroposophy is religious in nature. This simple statement will give
parents the *choice* and allow us the final say on whether Waldorf, and
it's religious ideals, are right for *our* families.
Shilling Waldorf as an arts based nonsectarian school is very deceiving.
Chartered Waldorf schools can be even worse because we are trusting that
public schools in America are indeed nonsectarian. This assumption throws
us (parents) off our track completely. Since we live in a country where
religious freedom is completely supported, we aren't ready for covert
religious missionary efforts. Heck, this can take us out of our realm of
thinking altogether. Many of us have no reference for this kind of
thinking. Shame on the Anthroposophists for tricking us into believing they
are merely interested in our childrens' education.
At the very least, Waldorf needs to be more defined toward full disclosure.
This is our argument in a nutshell. Eugene came clean. Even if he did get a
"better [but far less respectful] job", his honesty made him a martyr for
our cause. It's no wonder why we respect him.
I have no misgivings that Eugene doesn't support Waldorf. Heck, he is a
great supporter. He is just willing to call Anthroposophy a religious
school. That is all we have ever asked.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:23:46 -0400
From: "lubert das" (jfk3 sprint.ca)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
----- Original Message -----
From: "dottie zold" (dottie_z yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) Ad
) - U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
)
) Dan
) ) How the threefold plant is like the threefold man
) ) upside down.
) )
) Dottie
)
) Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it is
) so funny to me because I have always thought the trees
) had their heads in the ground and their legs flying in
) the air. Check it out next time when you pass a tree
) :)
)
) Peace,
)
) Dottie
It is funny, if left at that; not like it hasn't occurred to a great many
people, but would you find it that funny if it was taught to you, along
with seed, leaf, stem, and root comparisons, as "scientific fact", or as
"proof"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) ) Ad
) ) - U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
) )
) ) Dan
) ) ) How the threefold plant is like the threefold
) man
) ) ) upside down.
) ) )
) ) Dottie
) )
) ) Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it
) is
) ) so funny to me because I have always thought the
) trees
) ) had their heads in the ground and their legs
) flying in
) ) the air. Check it out next time when you pass a
) tree
) ) :)
L,
) It is funny, if left at that; not like it hasn't
) occurred to a great many
) people, but would you find it that funny if it was
) taught to you, along
) with seed, leaf, stem, and root comparisons, as
) "scientific fact", or as
) "proof"?
)
Hi,
You know, I was a funny kind of child when I was
younger. It seems I have grown into a funny kind of
adult, along the way, with a very strong
independant/stubborn streak. So I would have to say
that I would listen and see where it feels right to
me.
I would also have to say I have been taught many
things in the public school sector that are not true
especially in regards to our history. Not to mention
the media aspects that ommit very important data that
one would have to take into consideration in order to
judge the validity of a story. (yes a little tanget,
however, relevent I would say) And then all the little
white lies I was told as a child. Not to mention all
the big lies in regards to why blacks and white should
not intermarry and how Jews killed God. I mean the
list goes on and on.
And I have to say that many of my friends often notice
the similarity of a leafs structure to that of our own
veins and such. I mean don't you find it interesting
that the similarities are there? Would you contemplate
the possibilities of such a thing?
So for me to be taught the possibility that stems,
seeds, leaves and so forth are indicative of man, I
would have to say I would have loved to have
contemplated that one as a child. And I probably would
have driven my teachers crazier than I have already.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:52:42 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Dottie:
) Oh Jeez Peter. Nobody tried to discredit PLANS.
) Unfortunately Lisa responded to my comment before
) realizing what I was saying.
If I got it wrong, I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that
Steiner had a very negative view on sexuality.
) So, it seems your papers try to discredit RS by
) claiming his ideology is the same as Hitlers. Yet when
) the tables are turned you cry foul.
Sigh. It now must sound like a mantra, but I nevertheless want to
point out that neither Peter Staudenmaier nor myself ever said that
anthroposophists are nazi's. Show me where one of us ever said so.
) And Peter, will you respond to my questions regarding
) your home language and your world view?
Dutch and secular humanist (atheist) respectively. Hope this
satisfies you curiosity. I think it is irrelevant.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:22:42 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
Limiting choices for
) younger children was something I found attractive about waldorf.
)
) David
Paula: Limiting choices is one thing, but when you are told quite sternly
that "Children shouldn't be allowed ANY choices", this takes things a bit
far. This was the enforced version here.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:29:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Secondary comments to Cult-war in Europe
I wrote:
))In my personal view - for which I must assume sole responsibility
))at this point - the work of RS in the German-speaking world
))prompted such powerful counter-reactions or counter-attacks by the
))"Opposing Powers", i.e. spiritual powers that oppose the
))progression of humanity, that not only one, but two world wars
))resulted from it, or were more or less directly connected with it,
))seen from the perspective of the other side of the threshold.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Whoa. The world wars were a reaction to the work of Rudolf Steiner?
)Megalomania is contagious! Who has "seen" this "from the perspective
)of the other side of the threshold," and how did they inform you?
Thirteen years ago, a fellow apop of mine in Texas who had been
working with the subject for many years told me that this was _his_
opinion. I chewed on it for a while and concluded he might be right.
A theory anyway. My son's mother, who is also an apop, didn't buy it.
She said, "Well, the man was important, but he cannot have been
_that_ important." Well, I'm not so sure. Maybe he was.
)Your reasoning seems circular, we can't understand Anthroposophy
)without understanding Anthroposophy.
I don't think it's unreasonable to stipulate that Anthroposophy must
be understood on its own terms, with its own thought tools or thought
forms, in order to be comprehended properly at all.
)And sectarian, only the doctrine of your sect can save the world.
I didn't say that, and it is not implicit in my former statement.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:34:31 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Peter Z quotes Yours Truly below. So what? I stand by every word of that.
It appears to me that what Peter Z may have against this, is what he
has against Christianity in general.
Tarjei
***********************************************************
)Dear critics,
)
)Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views on sexuality in
)general it is remarkable that anthroposophists and their defenders
)take up the issue of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit
)PLANS.
)
)Here is an illustrative quote:
)
)"The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to
)provide the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to
)receive the Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and
)the initiates perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was
)approaching the Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception
)had to be prepared for.
)
)The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we
)adopt not only certain physiological characteristics, but also
)soul-spiritual ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of
)conception, we adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent.
)Because we are in a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure
)of lovemaking, inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the
)embryo as soon as
)sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and
)why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
)
)In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it
)was necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way.
)Joseph and Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable
)of an Oriental technique which provides for sexual intercourse
)without passion or hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is
)experienced as a sacrifice. In this way, the purest body and
)soul-substance was provided for
)the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was
)born 'without sin.'"
)
)Guess who wrote this ... Tarjei Straume (at:
)http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html)
)
)Best,
)
)Peter Zegers
)
)
)
)
)-----------------------------------------------
)Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
)Online epost-applikasjon
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 509
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By jfk3 sprint.ca
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: two schools' description of WE
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re:Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: vindictiveness and ill will
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: two schools' description of WE
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
RE: two schools' description of WE
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: vindictiveness and ill will
By tastraum uncletaz.com
the 1993 Humanist article
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dan dandugan.com
RE: two schools' description of WE
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By awaldenpond home.com
RE: two schools' description of WE
By dan dandugan.com
RE: two schools' description of WE
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Latest Local School Ad...
By lizanderrol home.com
Sexuality & Anthroposophy 2
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: vindictiveness and ill will
By winters_diana hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:16:59 -0400
From: "lubert das" (jfk3 sprint.ca)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
----- Original Message -----
From: "dottie zold" (dottie_z yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) ) ) Ad
) ) ) - U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
) ) )
) ) ) Dan
) ) ) ) How the threefold plant is like the threefold
) ) man
) ) ) ) upside down.
) ) ) )
) ) ) Dottie
) ) )
) ) ) Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it
) ) is
) ) ) so funny to me because I have always thought the
) ) trees
) ) ) had their heads in the ground and their legs
) ) flying in
) ) ) the air. Check it out next time when you pass a
) ) tree
) ) ) :)
)
) L,
) ) It is funny, if left at that; not like it hasn't
) ) occurred to a great many
) ) people, but would you find it that funny if it was
) ) taught to you, along
) ) with seed, leaf, stem, and root comparisons, as
) ) "scientific fact", or as
) ) "proof"?
) )
) Hi,
)
) You know, I was a funny kind of child when I was
) younger. It seems I have grown into a funny kind of
) adult, along the way, with a very strong
) independant/stubborn streak. So I would have to say
) that I would listen and see where it feels right to
) me.
)
) I would also have to say I have been taught many
) things in the public school sector that are not true
) especially in regards to our history. Not to mention
) the media aspects that ommit very important data that
) one would have to take into consideration in order to
) judge the validity of a story. (yes a little tanget,
) however, relevent I would say) And then all the little
) white lies I was told as a child. Not to mention all
) the big lies in regards to why blacks and white should
) not intermarry and how Jews killed God. I mean the
) list goes on and on.
)
) And I have to say that many of my friends often notice
) the similarity of a leafs structure to that of our own
) veins and such. I mean don't you find it interesting
) that the similarities are there? Would you contemplate
) the possibilities of such a thing?
)
) So for me to be taught the possibility that stems,
) seeds, leaves and so forth are indicative of man, I
) would have to say I would have loved to have
) contemplated that one as a child. And I probably would
) have driven my teachers crazier than I have already.
)
) Peace,
)
) Dottie
)
It's not a matter of contemplating it, it's provided as if it should be on
an equal level with the scientific information it is taught along with. It
is also not taught, importantly, as analogy, allusion, metaphor, or simply
as an illustration to aid in understanding botanic structure as well as
human; it is taught as truth, not up for questioning. It would be nice to
contemplate "as a child", but it is not taught in this case to children,
but to teenagers. In their senior year, when taught Evolution, they are at
least presented with non-scientific, often religious views on the subject,
even if as competing Theories with the largely accepted scientific ones;
only that much respect is granted their critical faculties.
How would you "feel" about being taught in a _History_ class that "Jews
killed God"? As historical fact? What in you made you question this idea
when you did receive it?
L.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:59:08 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Peter Z to Dottie:
)If I got it wrong, I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that
)Steiner had a very negative view on sexuality.
What is "a very negative view on sexuality"? It seems to be something
that all major religions and spiritual systems have in common. The
common denominator is that sensuality and hedonism should be overcome
by the individual in order to prepare for the spiritual world, or
heaven or paradise or purgatory or what the case may be. This
anti-hedonistic striving is found in Buddhism, Christianity, Islam
etc. in different forms.
Thomas Aquinas wrote (in "On Fornication") that every emission of
semen that is not an endeavor to procreate, is a sin against nature.
This is obviously the Vatican's position (with their ban on
contraceptives and so on), but they never offer a rational
explanation for their view.
RS seems to have shared Aquinas' position, but he never moralized
about it, just like he never moralized about diet or anything else
connected with lifestyles or ethics. It was his view that in the
present epoch, it is the task of humanity to overcome sensuality. To
this he added that the practitioners of black magic used the "morass"
of sensuality, and that in the future (i.e. as seen from a century
ago), evil connected with the forces of reproduction (read: sex
crimes) would increase considerably.
With the above in mind, it's amazing that the critics are still
endeavoring to tie RS to black magic and sexual magic. And now the
come up with his "very negative view on sexuality". Make up your
minds, you can't have it both ways.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:33:52 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) With the above in mind, it's amazing that the critics are still
) endeavoring to tie RS to black magic and sexual magic. And now the
) come up with his "very negative view on sexuality". Make up your
) minds, you can't have it both ways.
)
) --
) Tarjei
Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is what secret
societies are all about. The underlings are taught that they cannot
indulge in any of their human desires.
But those who "know", who are in the know, at a "higher spiritual level"
can do whatever they like. The leaders are those who are aware of
special kinds of occult knowledge that entitles them to greater
priviledges because their karmic destiny is assured. The hierarchical
structure is a spiritual one, invisible to the general public or general
membership. Those higher up in the organization have more "spiritual"
and "physical" priviledges.
The whole purpose of the karmic process is to improve one's spiritual
status, so that they will be reincarnated to a higher level, get a
better place in heaven.
How that is determined by mere mortals is questionable.
-Su
PS. Maybe Sharon can comment on this, or Dan?
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:42:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
)Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
))
)) With the above in mind, it's amazing that the critics are still
)) endeavoring to tie RS to black magic and sexual magic. And now the
)) come up with his "very negative view on sexuality". Make up your
)) minds, you can't have it both ways.
))
)) --
)) Tarjei
Su:
)Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is what secret
)societies are all about.
AP is not, and has never been, a secret society.
)The underlings are taught that they cannot indulge in any of their
)human desires.
There are no "underlings" in the anthroposophical movement.
)But those who "know", who are in the know, at a "higher spiritual level"
) can do whatever they like. The leaders are those who are aware of
)special kinds of occult knowledge that entitles them to greater
)priviledges because their karmic destiny is assured. The hierarchical
)structure is a spiritual one, invisible to the general public or general
)membership. Those higher up in the organization have more "spiritual"
)and "physical" priviledges.
In other words, RS indulged in a hedonistic lifestyle, and the same
is the case with his posterity like "prominent" AS members and so on?
Yawn.....
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
Dottie
) ) So, it seems your papers try to discredit RS by
) ) claiming his ideology is the same as Hitlers. Yet
) when
) ) the tables are turned you cry foul.
Peter Z.
) Sigh. It now must sound like a mantra, but I
) nevertheless want to point out that neither Peter
) Staudenmaier nor myself ever said that
) anthroposophists are nazi's. Show me where one of us
) ever said so.
Dottie
Peter, have you and Peter S. not said that RS and
Hitler have the same ideology? Has it also not been
said by your papers that RS and others from his
movement openly embraced people who were later found
to be higher ups in the Nazi movement, genociding the
Jews.? Did you not say that RS thought the Jews should
cease to exist? Now couple those last two thoughts
together and what is the logical conclusion you are
trying to get your readers to understand? Hello...
Why do you possibly think the illustrators of your
article connected your paper with the Gotheanum and
the nazi flag? Have you truly no clue that your papers
say that Nazi thought and AP thought go hand in hand?
And that RS was making the rounds discussing this
while the war beat was escalating?
This is why I find your articles to be very circular.
You imply something and then say 'oh but we didn't say
that' yet it is implied throughout the whole paper.
And it is too overt to be subliminal. It's just there.
Peter Z.
) Dutch and secular humanist (atheist) respectively.
) Hope this satisfies you curiosity.
Dottie
Well, not really curious so much as needing to know in
order to not lump you together in my mind of people
who knowingly lie about a thing. YOu just have no
interest in understanding a man who spoke from his
spiritual world view.
You absolutely pulls his words around your perceptions
which have nothing to do with what he was trying to
convey at the moment.
Peter
I think it is irrelevant.
Dottie
Did you find it irrelevant that a few of the men who
haerkened to the beat of the nazi war drum had been
known to be German and also be APs? Like you are Dutch
and an Atheist. And I had no idea that Secular
Humanist was another word for Atheist. So Dan Dugan is
an atheist also?
And it is way relevant when I am trying to understand
why a person who responds to things that seem to go
over his head in spiritual understanding. I mean, no
disrespect, but you post things that can clearly be
seen not to degrade/accuse RS although in the moment
that is your intention.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:49:26 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: two schools' description of WE
) Limiting choices for
) ) younger children was something I found attractive about waldorf.
) )
) ) David
)
) Paula: Limiting choices is one thing, but when you are told
) quite sternly
) that "Children shouldn't be allowed ANY choices", this takes
) things a bit
) far. This was the enforced version here.
With my children I am very keen to preserve their unselfconsciousness.
My children are oblivious to clothes and what they are wearing ninety
percent of the time. Until recently I had to dress them or they would
have walked around all day in their pajamas or nothing at all. Now they
will sometimes grab their own clothes and put them on. If I were to
tell them what to wear this would be putting an adult spin on the
importance of clothes and outward appearances. It is true that some of
their friends have at times commented on the fact that my children's
clothes are sometimes inside out or back-to-front or both (so far this
hasn't bothered either one) and I wonder where those children got their
awareness of clothes.
When there is a party or a festival they have clothes that they like to
wear (usually from their costume box). Sometimes I have asked that they
wear something different but I usually explain that it is just for my
sake and because of such and such a reason I like to see them in such
and such clothes. My reasons are always those of vanity, i.e. they look
very handsome when they are in nicely matching shorts and shirts and
sometimes I want to show off my children's good looks. This is not a
very lofty motive to control my children's clothes and so I try to
succumb as rarely as possible.
As far as I can tell they have learned to crawl without my instructions,
they even learned to walk and run without any help from me. They
learned to talk and I never told them when to do that. They play and
laugh and are wonderful kids, I never told them they had to do any of
those things. They like healthy food most of the time, they are usually
kind and thoughtful of others. They do this completely of their own
volition. I do not see any need to step in and start bossing them
around.
The only purpose I can see for bossing children around is to get them
used to being bossed around. My children are highly motivated and
morally developed without my instruction and I am keen that they
continue on their merry path of childhood.
Looking back at my first paragraph I remembered that for the longest
time wearing skirts was a very popular form of attire for both of my
boys. When the oldest would say things like boys don't wear skirts, I
would point out to them that in fact most boys in the world do wear
skirts or long dress-like shirts and in fact some of the most valiant
warriors in the world wore skirts.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
L,
It
) is also not taught, importantly, as analogy,
) allusion, metaphor, or simply
) as an illustration to aid in understanding botanic
) structure as well as
) human; it is taught as truth, not up for
) questioning.
Dottie,
Well here would be the big issue: Not open for
questioning. RS makes it very clear that his world
views concepts are open completely to questioning
oneself within.
And it seems this is where the dogma of a thing may be
the biggest issue. And how it is taught in the Waldorf
system I wouldn't know. It's almost as if you are
saying the students must believe this or else...is
that what you are saying?
Also in knowing that there are at least three
different versions of Waldorf in the public/private
domain(probably a one or two more) I think it would be
important to know in which shcool you feel it is
taught as absolute fact and not open for discussion.
And how is it being taught? Is it like the Fairy/Gnome
thing that has many on this list laughing or freaked
out depending on your interpretation? Is it taught
like the history of mythology is taught?
If David or Neal read my posts or yours, maybe they
could shed some light on your point.
L,
It would be nice to
) contemplate "as a child", but it is not taught in
) this case to children,
) but to teenagers.
Dottie
Oh okay. Teenagers are old enough to be able to look
at a thing and contemplate it. And like I said before
there are many different understandings of how we came
about and what we are linked too. I find nothing wrong
with that. However if they are not allowed to question
such a thing that would not be good. I had so many
questions that my teachers stopped calling on me at
one point. I was pretty confused about that as I
really was an inquisitive child. I was basically shut
up from growing intellectually while I was in a public
school. And a big part of that is that I turned to and
excelled in sports so I turned to that world instead,
unfortunately.
In their senior year, when taught
) Evolution, they are at
) least presented with non-scientific, often religious
) views on the subject,
) even if as competing Theories with the largely
) accepted scientific ones;
) only that much respect is granted their critical
) faculties.
Dottie
Once again I must say that if a child has been through
many years in a Waldorf school they must be pretty
ready to hear something like the above. I don't think
it would surprise anyone of them. And as far as being
seniors I am sure they took it in and will take in
many others opinions regarding the same thing.
L
) How would you "feel" about being taught in a
) _History_ class that "Jews
) killed God"? As historical fact? What in you made
) you question this idea
) when you did receive it?
Dottie
I would probably have fought like hell with the
teacher to really understand what was being said. This
was pretty much the only area that I spoke out:
needing to know the whys and how a teacher knew such a
thing.
And are you sure that what is taught is that Jews
killed God? I have never heard RS speak on this in
that manner. I would take issue with that if I had
found it in any of his books. Do you have a reference
where he says 'the Jews killed God". That seems highly
unlikely to me.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
--- Su)
) Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is
) what secret
) societies are all about. The underlings are taught
) that they cannot
) indulge in any of their human desires.
Dottie
Ha that is so funny. You must know that with that
statement most(being polite) of the religious groups
and most of the higher ups in business hold true to
your statement above.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:01:49 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re:Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
)Dottie:
)
) ) Oh Jeez Peter. Nobody tried to discredit PLANS.
) ) Unfortunately Lisa responded to my comment before
) ) realizing what I was saying.
)
)If I got it wrong, I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that Steiner had
)a very negative view on sexuality.
)
DL: I am confused as to how the above is a "fact" - isn't whether it is a
negative view or a positive view a subjective decision? Beauty being in the
eye of the beholder and all. You might think it's a negative view, but does
that make it so?
Shalom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:07:24 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Dan - could you approach any of the below with more than just snide asides?
For example, if you disagree with a comment - explain why you disagree. If
you think a comment is deceptive, explain why. Right now all we have our
unsupported sound bites from you.
Shalom
DL
))Dan quoted:
))More than ever, our children need to grow up strong, independent, highly
))educated, compassionate & creative.
)and then wrote:
)Platitudes.
)
))Our rigorous,
)
)What a joke.
)
))developmentally
))appropriate curriculum
)
)An outright deception.
)
))has been successfully taught in Waldorf schools
))worldwide for over 70 years.
)
)Too bad it hasn't been examined till now.
)
)***
)
))Waldorf schools use a developmental curriculum that follows the progress
))of
))civilization as the child ages.
)
)I doubt anybody reading that will appreciate the complexity and
)weirdness of the theory behind it. Steiner wants to take the child
)step by step through his "evolution of consciousness," the
)Theosophical evolution of the Aryan race.
)
))Preschoolers and Kindergartners listen raptly to stories, see puppet
))shows,
))bake bread, make soup, model beeswax, build houses, dig and construct and
))play outside. This lays the groundwork for intense involvement in later
))learning. At this age, proper preparation for life is full engagement in
))joyful play.
)
)Are parents going to notice that there's -no teaching- promised here?
)
))Grade school children start the day with the Main Lesson, a two-hour
))immersion in a subject, which changes every few weeks. This immersion in
))a
))subject encourages attention, focus, and deep learning.
)
)New Age buzzword alert: "deep."
)
))Skills are also
))taught in language arts, mathematics, and foreign languages; specialty
))subjects include singing and playing an instrument, handwork, painting,
))modeling, music, drama, physical education and Eurythmy.
)
)All good things, of course no one is mentioning how strictly limited
)the approach to all of these subjects is, nor how weird Eurythmy is.
)
))Harvard's Howard Gardner, author of several influential books (among them
))The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach),
))sees
))Waldorf education as consistent with his theory of multiple human
))intelligences. "I like very much the determinedly developmental
))perspective
))of Waldorf schools -- the realization that human development in general,
))and
))each child's development in particular, has a kind of organic rhythm to
))it,
))and its disturbance can be very damaging," he says in the Sept. 25, 2001
))issue of the Boston Globe.
)
)What does Gardner know about Waldorf?
)
))Grade 1
))Literature of Fairy tales - Nature studies
)
)Nature studies? Walks in the woods where questions are answered with
)fantasy answers about fairies and gnomes? Moral animal tales?
)
)) - Two foreign languages -
))Handwriting - Alphabet - Vowels and consonants - Arithmetic - Add,
))subtract,
))multiply & divide - Form drawing
)
)People probably think that "form drawing" means sketching something.
)Little do they know it's supposed to be therapy.
)
)) - Knitting.
))
))Grade 2
))Literature of world legends, folk tales & fables - Reading - Sentence
))writing - Saint stories - Form drawing - Arithmetic - Modeling.
))
))Grade 3
))Old Testament stories - American Indian Legends - Arithmetic - Farming -
))Measurement - Cursive writing - House building - Grammar - Music notation
))-
))Sewing.
))
))Grade 4
))Norse myths
)
)In 1920's Germany Norse mythology was supposed to be the ancient
)texts of the Aryan race, "evolution" from the Jewish stories of the
)previous year.
)
)) - Fractions - Zoology
)
)The famous "Man and Animal" block: Anthroposophy.
)
)) - Local geography - Woodwork - Local
))history - Cross stitch - Orchestra - Composition
))
))Grade 5
))Ancient civilizations up to Greece
)
)The first four sub-races of the Aryan root race.
)
)) - U.S. geography - Literature - Botany
)
)How the threefold plant is like the threefold man upside down.
)
)) -
))Sentence construction - 4-needle knitting - Decimals - String instruments
))
))Grade 6
))Roman & medieval history
)
)The fourth sub-race to the fifth.
)
)) - Geology - Percent, geometry, algebra - Hand
))sewing - South American geography - Woodworking - Choir - Astronomy
))
))Grade 7
))Renaissance & Reformation - Combustion
)
)My son had the combustion lesson block, and I also attended a
)demonstration lesson. They burned things and described the smoke and
)ashes. Nothing about oxidation. In seventh grade.
)
)) - Age of Exploration - Mechanics -
))Algebra - Woodworking - European geography - Choir - Nutrition &
))physiology
)
)Steiner's threefold physiology.
)
))- Optics
)
)Newton was wrong, Goethe was right.
)
)) and acoustics.
))
))Grade 8
))Modern history - Anatomy
)
)Been to a demonstration anatomy lesson. All about the forms of the
)threefold skeleton. How the skull is spherical, the limbs linear, and
)the trunk in between. Anthroposophy.
)
)) - Drama - Machine sewing - World geography -
))Woodworking - Organic chemistry
)
)You recall the organic chemistry test I posted that was about how
)sugar relates the four elements.
)
)) - Choir - Physics - Meteorology
)
)It was very important to Steiner that there are only four kinds of clouds.
)
)) - Poetics
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:33:57 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Liz wrote:
)Come to think of it it could very well have been a class thing. We )were
)living in a very poor neighborhood in London and so we were not )one bit
)envious of those other children with their violent schools and )violent
)families. I don't think many of their parents read very )much.
I think you're right class is an important variable. It's sort of a middle
class or upper middle class luxury to say, "Don't push my child." (I think
sometimes what's behind this is, "Let *me* push him instead." - not meaning
you, obviously, Liz). But to children whose parents are not able or are too
overwhelmed to help the children learn to read, it may be crucial for the
school to "push" - even to push in the more aggressive ways that Sarina, for
instance (and I too), would ordinarily rather not see, that is, push even
children who are resistant.
This is another reason I'd hate to see Waldorf gain much headway in public
schools. In Waldorf, ironically many parents who don't want their children
"pushed" are actually fairly bombarding them at home, at least by Waldorf
standards; there is no way the child will come out illiterate even if the
school isn't helping much.
But if *neither* the school nor the home is pushing literacy, this is going
to be a sad outcome for some children. Yes, some will learn anyway, but the
reality is many don't. They do *not* have plenty of adults hanging around
ready to help.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:38:57 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: vindictiveness and ill will
Tarjei quoted:
)and Hohlenberg in 1931:
)Like in so many other manifestations of the materialistic mode of
)thinking, one either believes without further notice to be able to
)transfer one's experiences with rational domestic animal breeding to
)human conditions, and on the other hand those kinds of endeavors are
)all too often used as a cover for narrow party-fanaticism and
)national prejudices, when this or that race or ethnological type to
)which an author himself belongs, is presented as a priori superior to
)others and predestined to rule. There are not many scientific fields
)where so much nonsense has seen the light of day as in racial
)research.
Saying that other peoples' racial views are "nonsense" certainly doesn't
mean the person doesn't espouse his own nonsense. He is complaining that
other peoples' views are incorrect but note that he does not say that the
whole idea of "racial research" is bogus.
Steiner said that we shouldn't feel pleased with ourselves for incarnating
into a particular, supposedly superior race, because next time we may
incarnate into a not-so-superior race. This belief obviously does not
exclude holding prejudiced characterizations of various races, in fact in
Steiner's case it presupposes it. What Hohlenberg said here is perfectly
compatible with that.
Steiner often sets his audience up to accept *his* racial views by asserting
that everyone else's are "prejudice" or based on not thinking clearly, etc.
Do the "real work" involved, read Steiner, get a so-called objective,
spiritually "true" version of the different characteristics of the different
races. Don't use it for "narrow party-fanaticism" (i.e., ideas he personally
disagrees with. This is how I read the part about domestic animal breeding
too: don't make the mistake of looking to the animal world for analogies,
because that would of course be materialistic.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:17:26 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
I don't think I expressed myself well, here. We were told, very clearly,
that children should NOT be allowed ANY decisions. I was also told if my
children made a request, say for a certain shirt while getting dressed, I
should ignore them, hum and make sure I give them something else to
reinforce this so-called "freedom from decisions".
I find that children make decisions constantly, no matter what you try to
enforce. I also find it a burden to be the *sole* decision maker, supreme
commander, whatever, and I find no reason to assume this role. I despise
issuing commands, but will do so when it is required (almost always safety
related--I do not find injuries acceptable teaching points).
My children also don't take notice of the clothes laid out for them almost
all of the time, but occasionally one will express a request to wear a
specific shirt, or "my shorts with all the pockets", and I have no problem
with this. I have also taught them how to locate the tags to get them on
"front side front" and have no problem with that either. They do get them
on backwards from time to time and I have no comment about that EITHER.
They have become aware of backwards/frontward in a natural way--the clothes
don't feel right to them and they want to learn how to get them on so that
they will wear comfortably. To me, learning "the tag goes in the back" is
no different that the W teacher stating "food stays at the table". Same
principle. I found more judgmental teaching about clothing at the W school
than we ever had at home. My son became VERY aware of certain principles
regarding clothing styles, rules, etc.
The other area where I have gone against the grain is in being responsive to
my children. We were taught, in addition to the need to be authoritarian,
to gradually become less responsive to our children. I can't remember the
exact working, but it was something along the lines of "slowly start
ignoring your children's questions and requests and gradually, they will
begin ignoring you." No fooling. I am not speaking of jumping to meet
every demand, which is an impossibility anyway, and I never wanted to foster
that scenario. The extreme illustration of the super-over-involved parent
who jumps to serve each demand is always held up as the "ghost of things to
come" if we do not adopt this advice, but I always find these rigid extremes
so ridiculous.
My children love and need to share their joys and trials with us and we are
grateful to share with them (we are very grateful they are here!).
Interaction with one's children is not a crime, nor should it be considered
damaging. This last is not a comment on what Liz said, but a comment
speaking to what we have been told by the "experts".
Paula
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:02:04 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: RE: two schools' description of WE
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) Hi, list friends!
)
) I was researching something about Waldorf education on the Web and found
) a
) nice WS site that represents the Santa Cruz Waldorf School.
)
) Curious as to whether this particular WS provides what I and other
) critics
) would call "full disclosure" (up front information to prospective
) parents
) that the school is based on Anthroposophy, at least), I clicked on the
) button labeled "About Waldorf Education.
)
)
) Here is what follows. Note that the SC Waldorf School credits the Rudolf
) Steiner School in New York City for the description below. (That means,
) of
) course, that two schools at least are using this text block.)
)
) If the word "Anthroposophy" appears, I sure couldn't find it. In fact,
) the
) only place that the words "Rudolf Steiner" appear are in the credit line
) above the text.
)
) Critics, whaddya think? Waldorf supporters, what do *you* think?
)
) -- Lisa
I think that you were rather selective in your citing.
If you start at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School home page and select the
link for "About Waldorf", you will find a page with four subtopics. The
first one, "Philosophy", is the one you quoted here. The second
subtopic is "Rudolf Steiner", which includes the paragraph, "Dr. Rudolf
Steiner (1861-1925) was a respected and well-published scientist and
thinker, with particular fame for his work with Goethe's scientific
writings. The roots of Waldorf Education come from the
spiritual-scientific research of Steiner. According to Steiner's
'Anthroposophy', a human is a threefold being of body, soul, and spirit,
whose capacities unfold in developmental stages on the path to
adulthood."
Ok, so we have Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and "body, soul, and
spirit", only one link away from the page that you cited. Now, at the
end of that page, we have, "For further information about the Waldorf
movement or Rudolf Steiner, please see the links page." The links page
is also one of the primary links at the school home page. On the links
page, we find links to AWSNA, Bob and Nancy's site, the Rudolf Steiner
Archive and e.lib, Rudolf Steiner College, Anthroposophic Press, the
Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Camphill Communities of
California, and the Rudolf Steiner Foundation.
Thus, in a matter of no more than three or four clicks from the page
that you commended to our attention, we have direct access to an
enormous volume of Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophic material on the
web.
What do I think? I think that the school presents its vision of what is
distinctive and important about Waldorf education in the document that
you quoted, *and* provides enough links so that even the most casual web
browser could be deep in the heart of Anthroposophy in minutes. In
short, I would say that, yes, this school definitely provides "up front
information to prospective parents that the school is based on
Anthroposophy, at least", and much more besides.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) L
) ) How would you "feel" about being taught in a
) ) _History_ class that "Jews
) ) killed God"? As historical fact? What in you made
) ) you question this idea
Dottie
I almost missed this point. It has always been very
clear to me that Christ came for this end. So to me a
few Jews actually betrayed their old ways of thinking,
and not God or Jesus. From the beginning of the story
it can be seen Christ is aware of the end. The Jews
were a part of the mystery of Golgotha as had been
deemed necessary at that point. Imo.
Not to mention the fact that the woman who first said
it to me was not a very open kind of person. She was
kind of judgemental in many different areas so I
naturally questioned her judgement.
Kind of reminds me of the woman who told me that the
blacks had lied to President Lincoln. When I asked
what they had lied about she noted; they promised if
they had been set free from slavery they would all
return home, and obviously from looking around us,
they had not.
And then of course my neighbors who taught me that Dr.
King was the cause of the problems between the whites
and the blacks; before, the blacks and the whites
accepted their place in society and Dr. King messed it
all up.
So all in all I have had to learn through personal
experiences with mankind what the truths in life are
as most students of life have to. If I had taken what
was taught me I have no idea what kind of life I might
be leading today.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:49:28 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
)--- Su)
)) Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is
)) what secret
)) societies are all about. The underlings are taught
)) that they cannot
)) indulge in any of their human desires.
)
)Dottie
)
)Ha that is so funny. You must know that with that
)statement most(being polite) of the religious groups
)and most of the higher ups in business hold true to
)your statement above.
Normally I would have refrained from commenting on this, but it is a
classical example of insinuations and innuendoes taken out of thin
air, because _anything goes_ in the crusade against anthroposophy,
absolutely anything. What is suggested here is that the "higher ups"
in the anthroposophical movement engage in sex orgies and the like.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:51:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vindictiveness and ill will
)Tarjei quoted:
)
))and Hohlenberg in 1931:
)
))Like in so many other manifestations of the materialistic mode of
))thinking, one either believes without further notice to be able to
))transfer one's experiences with rational domestic animal breeding to
))human conditions, and on the other hand those kinds of endeavors are
))all too often used as a cover for narrow party-fanaticism and
))national prejudices, when this or that race or ethnological type to
))which an author himself belongs, is presented as a priori superior
))to others and predestined to rule. There are not many scientific
))fields
))where so much nonsense has seen the light of day as in racial
))research.
Diana:
)Saying that other peoples' racial views are "nonsense" certainly
)doesn't mean the person doesn't espouse his own nonsense. He is
)complaining that other peoples' views are incorrect but note that he
)does not say that the whole idea of "racial research" is bogus.
So, what does Hohlenberg say about his own view on racisl research in general?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:05:35 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: the 1993 Humanist article
The 1993 Humanist article was written by H?kan Blomqvist and was
published in Humanist no.2, 1993 with the title "10 reasons not to
send your children to Waldorf school." (I remember seeing it now.)
Several responses were published in the next issue by - I think -
Cato Schi?tz, Svein B?hn, Markus Lindholm, and Oddvar Granly.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:17:11 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
Dottie
) Peter, have you and Peter S. not said that RS and
) Hitler have the same ideology? Has it also not been
) said by your papers that RS and others from his
) movement openly embraced people who were later found
) to be higher ups in the Nazi movement, genociding the
) Jews.? Did you not say that RS thought the Jews should
) cease to exist? Now couple those last two thoughts
) together and what is the logical conclusion you are
) trying to get your readers to understand? Hello...
Could you please READ the articles before you jump to conclusions?
SHOW me where we make these statements you say we make tp PROVE you
actually read the articles. It was Steiner himself who said that the
Jews had to disappear, we didn't make it up. We are basing our
research on his written work (published by anthroposophists), not
rumors.
) Why do you possibly think the illustrators of your
) article connected your paper with the Gotheanum and
) the nazi flag? Have you truly no clue that your papers
) say that Nazi thought and AP thought go hand in hand?
) And that RS was making the rounds discussing this
) while the war beat was escalating?
It was Peter Staundenmaier who wrote the article. Peter and I joined
forces for replying to Peter Normann Waage. You haven't even seen the
illustration (sorry I can't scan it Dan, I don't own a scanner). Idon't
understand the last part of this. You claim to have a better
understanding of what we wrote than us, the authors themselves. Well,
maybe you do, but please SHOW it to us.
) This is why I find your articles to be very circular.
) You imply something and then say 'oh but we didn't say
) that' yet it is implied throughout the whole paper.
) And it is too overt to be subliminal. It's just there.
Please SHOW what we actually said instead of giving your
idiosyncratic interpretations. I don't think you will do this, since
I asked you a few times before.
) Peter Z.
) ) Dutch and secular humanist (atheist) respectively.
) ) Hope this satisfies you curiosity.
)
) Dottie
)
) Well, not really curious so much as needing to know in
) order to not lump you together in my mind of people
) who knowingly lie about a thing. YOu just have no
) interest in understanding a man who spoke from his
) spiritual world view.
You are wrong, I am trying to understand the writings of Steiner. But
sometimes they are just too badly written or formulated to make any
sense (which some people mistake for being "deep"). I am also trying
to understand Steiner's historical and social surroundings, unlike
the anthroposophists who think Steiner was sui generis.
) You absolutely pulls his words around your perceptions
) which have nothing to do with what he was trying to
) convey at the moment.
SHOW this to me. How would you know? were you there? Did you ask him
posthumously?
You asked about my native language and my background. I answered:
) I think it is irrelevant.
)
) Dottie
)
) Did you find it irrelevant that a few of the men who
) haerkened to the beat of the nazi war drum had been
) known to be German and also be APs?
No, because I was researching the connection between anthroposophy
and nazism. Germany was the obvious choice for this kind of research,
but as you may have guessed from my other posts I am also looking
into the Norwegian case right now. Do you think this is not a
legitimate field of research? Why? I didn't write the documents I
found and quoted myself, they are there for everyone to check.
) Like you are Dutch
) and an Atheist. And I had no idea that Secular
) Humanist was another word for Atheist. So Dan Dugan is
) an atheist also?
Ask Dan. Secular humanist is used as a label by both atheists and agnostics.
) And it is way relevant when I am trying to understand
) why a person who responds to things that seem to go
) over his head in spiritual understanding.
I don't see this spiritual understanding as being "over my head", I
just happen to disagree with it.
) I mean, no
) disrespect, but you post things that can clearly be
) seen not to degrade/accuse RS although in the moment
) that is your intention.
Examples?
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:54:21 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) But if *neither* the school nor the home is pushing literacy,
) this is going
) to be a sad outcome for some children. Yes, some will learn
) anyway, but the
) reality is many don't. They do *not* have plenty of adults
) hanging around
) ready to help.
You are equating not pushing reading to Waldorf. The fact is that most
early childhood education experts today know that early reading is not a
requirement for later literacy. And that children that are pushed are
often likely to hate reading and that defeats the purpose.
Whereas I agree with people who criticize public Waldorf schools on the
basis of its foundation in Anthroposophy, I am worried at how some
critics think that just because Waldorf Schools do it it must be bad.
I am very much in favor of public schools that do not push reading and
provide an arts based education along the lines that Waldorf schools
promote themselves as. But without the holy stuff please.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:01:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
)Dan
)) How the threefold plant is like the threefold man
)) upside down.
))
)Dottie
)Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it is
)so funny to me because I have always thought the trees
)had their heads in the ground and their legs flying in
)the air. Check it out next time when you pass a tree
It is pretty funny. Do you know what I'm talking about, in the
Waldorf botany block?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:35:17 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: two schools' description of WE
Tarjei:
)I most certainly favor objective criticism in general,
Liz:
)I am surprised that you say this and then you favor a Waldorf school )for
)your children.
Just chiming in, I have wondered this too. Just from what we know of your
personality here, Tarjei, there is just no way you would put up with a
teaspoonful of the bullshit and pious rigmarole in a Waldorf school, either
for yourself when you were a child, or for your own child now. Just my
casual impression. There are so many parents who think Waldorf is so
wonderful *until* they get inside a classroom.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:40:02 -0700
From: "walden" (awaldenpond home.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
After trying to follow this thread I find:
)--- Su)
)) Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is
)) what secret
)) societies are all about. The underlings are taught
)) that they cannot
)) indulge in any of their human desires.
)
)Dottie
)
)Ha that is so funny. You must know that with that
)statement most(being polite) of the religious groups
)and most of the higher ups in business hold true to
)your statement above.
And then from Tarjei..
)Normally I would have refrained from commenting on this, but it is a
)classical example of insinuations and innuendoes taken out of thin
)air, because _anything goes_ in the crusade against anthroposophy,
)absolutely anything. What is suggested here is that the "higher ups"
)in the anthroposophical movement engage in sex orgies and the like.
Did I miss an important post somewhere? Anyone? Dr. Freud?
Mystified,
Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:26:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: two schools' description of WE
Neil Faiman, you wrote,
)If you start at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School home page and select the
)link for "About Waldorf", you will find a page with four subtopics. The
)first one, "Philosophy", is the one you quoted here. The second
)subtopic is "Rudolf Steiner", which includes the paragraph, "Dr. Rudolf
)Steiner (1861-1925) was a respected and well-published scientist and
)thinker, with particular fame for his work with Goethe's scientific
)writings. The roots of Waldorf Education come from the
)spiritual-scientific research of Steiner. According to Steiner's
)'Anthroposophy', a human is a threefold being of body, soul, and spirit,
)whose capacities unfold in developmental stages on the path to
)adulthood."
Can you justify "scientist," here, or "spiritual-scientific research"?
How do you expect someone not familiar with Anthroposophy to read those words?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:23:33 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: two schools' description of WE
Neil Faiman:
))If you start at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School home page and select the
))link for "About Waldorf", you will find a page with four subtopics. The
))first one, "Philosophy", is the one you quoted here. The second
))subtopic is "Rudolf Steiner", which includes the paragraph, "Dr. Rudolf
))Steiner (1861-1925) was a respected and well-published scientist and
))thinker, with particular fame for his work with Goethe's scientific
))writings. The roots of Waldorf Education come from the
))spiritual-scientific research of Steiner. According to Steiner's
))'Anthroposophy', a human is a threefold being of body, soul, and spirit,
))whose capacities unfold in developmental stages on the path to
))adulthood."
Dan Dugan:
)Can you justify "scientist," here, or "spiritual-scientific research"?
I believe you and I went through that in 1999. It should be in the archives.
)How do you expect someone not familiar with Anthroposophy to read those words?
I believe any alert reader will recognize that "spiritual-scientific"
does not mean orthodox-scientific. It will be attractive to people
with a positive attitude to New Age in general and to an expansion of
the scientific mode of cognition or conception into the spiritual
realm. It should not look misleading to people who do not believe in
the spiritual, or who believe that the spiritual is not accessible
through research.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:08:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
Peter Z:
)I am trying to understand the writings of Steiner. But sometimes
)they are just too badly written or formulated to make any sense
)(which some people mistake for being "deep").
In other words, when you don't understand something, it's because
those who do are stupid.
) I am also trying to understand Steiner's historical and social
)surroundings, unlike the anthroposophists who think Steiner was sui
)generis.
Stewart Easton and other anthroposophical RS-biographers display a
keen interest in his historical and social surroundings. The same
must be said about many of the editors of RS' works.
It looks like you confuse admiration and positive appreciation for RS
and his works with lack of interest in his background and culture
because you find this incompatible for some bizarre reason.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:24:27 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Latest Local School Ad...
) )play outside. This lays the groundwork for intense
) involvement in later
) )learning. At this age, proper preparation for life is full
) engagement in
) )joyful play.
)
) Are parents going to notice that there's -no teaching- promised here?
Dan, many of those scientific experts you are so fond of quoting here
are pointing out how the higher the mammal the more 'play' its young
partake in. Play is now being linked to all kinds of important
developments in human thinking. 'teaching' has become one of those
negative buzzwords in the alternative education communities.
) )Harvard's Howard Gardner, author of several influential
) books (among them
) )The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools
) Should Teach), sees (snip)
) What does Gardner know about Waldorf?
I wondered the same thing. His title the Unschooled mind suggests that
he is referring to the unschooling movement amongst homeschoolers.
Unschooling and Waldorf are only similar on a superficial level. In
unschooling the children are basically in charge of what and when they
are going to study. And learning is found within life experiences not
in controlled environments like the Waldorf classroom. I think it shows
how good Waldorf is at presenting itself as something other than it
really is.
I remember when I asked how teachers keep the children quiet and doing
what the teachers wanted in a Waldorf school, the best answer people
could give me was that because the teaching is developmentaly
appropriate the children want to do it so there are no discipline
problems. That was a joke. People are just so used to children being
punished in our society that they don't even see things like time-outs
as punishment, they think it is just like giving children a little break
or something.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:37:21 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Sexuality & Anthroposophy 2
Dear critics,
Whether the idea that 'sin' is an appropriate description for joyful
sex, is indeed a subjective matter depending on your own personal
beliefs/convictions. As an atheist who doesn't have a use for the
concept of 'sin' I don't agree with the christian idea that joyful sex
is sinful (and even many christians are challenging this traditional
idea nowadays). I don't think it is true that all religions see
repression of sexual desire as something positive or necessary. I might
be wrong but I remember having read somewhere that Buddhism, Hinduism,
Islam, and Judaism allow for a more joyful view on sexuality than
traditional Christianity (and most occultists I might add). But since
Straume made the original claim, it is up to him to defend it.
In what I read about sexual magic the stated aim is not pleasure or joy
but spiritual improvement (as strange as this must have sounded for
puritans like Steiner). I don't attach any credence to the malicious
rumors about Steiner's sexlife, I base my research on his written works.
For my part I think it is very clear from his writings that Steiner
advocated puritanism, which is in line with his catholic upbringing in
Austria. Frankly, Steiner's private sexlife doesn't hold any importance
for me. I don't think a secret sexcult in Anthroposophy (even if only in
its supposed higher echelons) would have been a secret very long. I am
concentrating on Steiner's social and political ideas and influence.
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) )Dan
) )) How the threefold plant is like the threefold
) man
) )) upside down.
) ))
) )Dottie
) )Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it
) is
) )so funny to me because I have always thought the
) trees
) )had their heads in the ground and their legs flying
) in
) )the air. Check it out next time when you pass a
) tree
Dan
) It is pretty funny. Do you know what I'm talking
) about, in the
) Waldorf botany block?
Dottie
Not exactly but I have been having alot of
conversations lately with my friends in regards to
nature and its interestingly 'human nature'.
For me it was pretty funny reading your bias against
some of the teachings of RS because it does not fit
your Secular Humanistic beliefs. Which by the way I
wanted to ask if that means you are an atheist? I
still have not made time to check it out in the
dictionary.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:49:28 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: vindictiveness and ill will
I wrote:
)Saying that other peoples' racial views are "nonsense" certainly
)doesn't mean the person doesn't espouse his own nonsense. He is
)complaining that other peoples' views are incorrect but note that he does
)not say that the whole idea of "racial research" is bogus.
Tarjei:
)So, what does Hohlenberg say about his own view on racisl research in
)general?
I have no idea. My point was, well my point is right there above.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 510
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: two schools' description of WE
By faiman jlc.net
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: "Jewry"
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re:Re: "Jewry"
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: two schools' description of WE
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
jive, gibberish, and evidence
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: two schools' description of WE
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By jfk3 sprint.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:39:27 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei conjectures:
)It appears to me that what Peter Z may have against this, is what he
)has against Christianity in general.
Don't you mean Christendom?
Ahrimanic greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:11:45 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
on 10/1/01 7:26 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) Neil Faiman, you wrote,
)
)) [snip]
)
) Can you justify "scientist," here, or "spiritual-scientific research"?
Why in the world should I want to justify it?
) How do you expect someone not familiar with Anthroposophy to read
those words?
)
) -Dan Dugan
I would expect that anyone who was going to be sensitive to the esoteric
side of Steiner would go "'Spiritual-scientific'?? What's that supposed to
mean?" and would then go follow some of the other links and find out.
Lisa questioned whether the Santa Cruz Waldorf School web site met the
Critics' standard for full disclosure -- "up front information to
prospective parents that the school is based on Anthroposophy, at least."
The paragraph I quoted satisfies Lisa's "at least" directly on the school's
web site. Going beyond that, anyone with a scintilla of curiosity about the
foundations of the educational system they were investigating here would,
within minutes of opening this site, have at least an introduction to what
Anthroposophy is about, with clear directions to how to learn more, all from
the comfort of their own computer.
Regards
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 01:16:34 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Liz wrote:
)Dan, many of those scientific experts you are so fond of quoting here
)are pointing out how the higher the mammal the more 'play' its young
)partake in. Play is now being linked to all kinds of important
)developments in human thinking.
Play is good. I don't think the Waldorf critics are opposed to play. It is
not mutually exclusive with teaching.
)'teaching' has become one of those negative buzzwords in the )alternative
)education communities.
Oh, give me a break, "teaching" is a negative buzzword? Can you say,
"dumbing us down"?
)Unschooling and Waldorf are only similar on a superficial level.
Unschooling and Waldorf are *not* similar in any way.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Irrelevant? (was Sexual...)
) Dottie
)
) ) Peter, have you and Peter S. not said that RS and
) ) Hitler have the same ideology? Has it also not
) been
) ) said by your papers that RS and others from his
) ) movement openly embraced people who were later
) found
) ) to be higher ups in the Nazi movement, genociding
) the
) ) Jews.? Did you not say that RS thought the Jews
) should
) ) cease to exist? Now couple those last two thoughts
) ) together and what is the logical conclusion you
) are
) ) trying to get your readers to understand? Hello...
)
Peter Z.
) Could you please READ the articles before you jump
) to conclusions?
Dottie
Uh Peter, I have read the articles and several times.
And I am also not going just by the articles I am also
refering to your and Peter S. posts here on this list.
Which by the way can be found throughout the web under
the various names of the people who have been somewhat
quoted in your papers.
Peter Z.
SHOW me where we make these
) statements you say we make tp PROVE you actually
) read the articles.
Dottie
Ooops. You're sounding like me. God forbid:)
Peter Z.
It was Steiner himself who said
) that the Jews had to disappear, we didn't make it
) up. We are basing our research on his written work
) (published by anthroposophists), not rumors.
Dottie
Oh this is how you do it. Okay lets play this game.
You interpreted his words in a manner in which he did
not convey. He said the culture of the Jews in the way
they isolate themselves and such had to give away to a
more progressive one. He did not say the Jews people
themselves should cease to exist. No matter what
language you try to pass the interpretation by it does
not work.
Dottie
) ) Why do you possibly think the illustrators of your
) ) article connected your paper with the Gotheanum
) and
) ) the nazi flag? Have you truly no clue that your
) papers
) ) say that Nazi thought and AP thought go hand in
) hand?
) ) And that RS was making the rounds discussing this
) ) while the war beat was escalating?
)
Peter Z.
) It was Peter Staundenmaier who wrote the article.
Dottie
Oh so you are blaming him. Okay. How bout we turn the
tables on you with the guilt by association thing you
are trying to get across with RS and some nazi
members?
Peter Z.
) Peter and I joined forces for replying to Peter
) Normann Waage. You haven't even seen the
) illustration (sorry I can't scan it Dan, I don't own
) a scanner).
Dottie
Oh yes I have. And it's implication is disgusting.
Peter Z.
I don't understand the last part of
) this. You claim to have a better understanding of
) what we wrote than us, the authors themselves. Well,
) maybe you do, but please SHOW it to us.
)
Dottie
Uh jeez Peter. You are stepping all over it here. You
claim to have a better understanding of RS than he
himself did. Even better than those who have been
studying him for over thirty years. And those who have
been the translators of his words. Whew. Of course
they are naive. I forgot about how your proof depends
on convincing others, that people who are pro RS, are
so because they are unaware that they are in a cult or
are just plain naive. Yeah, I got it. Or possibly
their reading skills aren't up to par. Nothing to do
with the fact that you are an Atheist and have no
interst in understanding any of his words regarding
the spiritual things.
Peter Z.
) Please SHOW what we actually said instead of giving
) your idiosyncratic interpretations. I don't think
) you will do this, since I asked you a few times
) before.
Dottie
Yeah, that's why you ask again right? No, I got this
game down. I take the time to show something and then
your authoritive personality deems it not to be
relevant or clear. That would be understandable except
it is not only with me that you say this to. I am in
good company with the gentlemen from over seas: Sune,
Tarjei, and Charlie, and unfortunate for them I am
sure.
Dottie
) )
) ) Well, not really curious so much as needing to
) know in
) ) order to not lump you together in my mind of
) people
) ) who knowingly lie about a thing. YOu just have no
) ) interest in understanding a man who spoke from his
) ) spiritual world view.
)
Peter Z.
) You are wrong, I am trying to understand the
) writings of Steiner.
Dottie
Peter are you trying to understand them in the manner
the Author wished to convey? Can you possibly look at
his words from a spiritual view point? I find that
hard to believe with the posts I have seen from you. I
have no judgement if you are an atheist or a whatever
but if you are not intersted in understanding the
things he spoke of you can not be considered to be
giving an accurate account of his Spiritual
Philosophy. And that is what it is in connection with
the political you are trying to bring together. He
spoke of things from a spiritual understanding.
Peter Z.
But sometimes they are just too
) badly written or formulated to make any sense (which
) some people mistake for being "deep").
Dottie
Cop out. This is your Secular Humanistic opinion. It
has no bearing on the truth of those who seek the
spiritual aspects of life whether it be from RS,
Buddha, Krishna or Paramahansa Yogananda. You are an
athiest and it leaves you with little understanding of
the philosophy of the spiritual workings of our
Universe.
Peter Z.
) ) You absolutely pulls his words around your
) perceptions
) ) which have nothing to do with what he was trying
) to
) ) convey at the moment.
)
Peter Z.
) SHOW this to me. How would you know? were you there?
) Did you ask him posthumously?
)
Dottie
Peter, you just do not get it. You are committed to a
different world view than that of RS. Period. Your
words reflect your ignorance of anything other than
this world. Which is cool with me. No problem. But
when you try to pin something on a man whom you have
no understanding it means alot. It shows arrogance.
Peter Z. (on his world view and language)
) ) I think it is irrelevant.
) )
) ) Dottie
) )
) ) Did you find it irrelevant that a few of the men
) who
) ) haerkened to the beat of the nazi war drum had
) been
) ) known to be German and also be APs?
)
Peter
) No, because I was researching the connection between
) anthroposophy and nazism.
)
Dottie
Right. And what led you to contemplate the history
between RS and nazism?
Peter Z.
) Ask Dan. Secular humanist is used as a label by both
) atheists and agnostics.
)
Dottie
I have been thinking about this today. Do you think
the atheist were getting a bad rap and so they changed
the name so it wasn't so apparant to those around them
and possibly then they wouldn't be harrassed by those
believing in a God or Christ?
But there seems to be quite a difference in thinking
between the two groups. I wonder who copped to whom?
Dottie
) ) And it is way relevant when I am trying to
) understand
) ) why a person who responds to things that seem to
) go
) ) over his head in spiritual understanding.
)
Peter Z.
) I don't see this spiritual understanding as being
) "over my head", I just happen to disagree with it.
Dottie
You know, I probably wouldn't bother you about it so
much if your perceptions regarding some of the things
RS wrote weren't so off the mark. I mean you truly do
put things up meant to convey something sinister when
in actuallity it shows the opposite.
And I don't know if you can intelligently disagree
with something you take the pains to not know. And by
that I mean AP and its founder RS.
Dottie
) ) I mean, no
) ) disrespect, but you post things that can clearly
) be
) ) seen not to degrade/accuse RS although in the
) moment
) ) that is your intention.
)
Peter Z.
) Examples?
Dottie
Peter do you truly just respond to my posts without
any kind of understanding to what I am saying. I have
repeatedly responded to your posts when you put
something forth that shows your ignorance. It seems
you just throw back a denial without any kind of
thought.
Don't waste my time with 'example comments' when they
are in just about every post I have replied to you.
You check it out and get back to me.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:40:12 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "Jewry"
Tarjei writes:
)Because I grew up with this language. When we learned about religions
)in school, "?j?dedommen" was one such religion, next to "hinduismen",
)"buddhismen" etc.
)
)Period.
Did they teach you about a religion named "Zionism"?
Question mark.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:04:55 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re:Re: "Jewry"
Tarjei again:
)Peter Z:
)
))Dear Mr. Straume,
))
))What is the Norwegian word for "Jewry"?
)
)"J?dene" (the Jews). The Norwegian language is not as rich as English
)and has fewer words.
)
)This is totally idiotic semantic drivel, but these webpages will show
)that I'm right - "j?dedom" or "j?dedommen" is Danish-Norwegian for
)Judaism:
)
)http://www.hf.uio.no/iks/ariadne/Idehistorie/framesetepoke2.htm?epoke2/e2_joededom.htm
)
)http://www-lu.hive.no/krl/jud-kr-h.html
)
)http://fuv.hivolda.no/prosjekt/synnevavolstad/KORTOM/Jodedommen.htm
)
)http://www.gyldendal.no/religion/html/jode.asp
)
)http://home.hib.no/ansatte/tto/KREL-web/TT/JODEDOM2.htm
)
)http://www.sdu.dk/hum/timjensen/Rel/jodedom.html
)
)Any search by yourself would have told you that. Why didn't you bother?
At least two of these websites do not support your claim, Tarjei; they refer
to secular and cultural Jews as part of "jodedom" (if "kulturell" and
"sekulaer" mean what I think they mean). Care to reformulate your claim?
On a related note, I stumbled across a nice quote that indicates even the
English distinction between "Jewry" and "Judaism" isn't always so clear.
It's from Daniel Barenboim: "Judaism is not easily explained: it is part
religion, part tradition, part nation, and partly an immensely various
people." (Barenboim, "Germans, Jews, and Music" new York review of Books
3/29/01 p. 50)
I ask once again: In what sense is it "misleading" to translate "jodedom"
as "Jewry"?
)Let's face it: Hohlenberg and other leading anthroposophists from the
)1930's in Norway were virulently anti-Nazi and strongly opposed to
)the blood-and-soil ethos.
I don't think anybody on the list has challenged that assertion.
)Unending semantic nonsense does not help.
I don't think the distinction between Judaism and Zionism counts as semantic
nonsense. Can you explain why you still haven't grasped it?
)Sorry about that. Pin the swastika on someone else. End of discussion.
I'm glad to see you're finally dropping the non-issue of whether a swastika
should be pinned to you or any other latter-day Norwegian anthroposophist.
Can you tell us why you brought it up in the first place?
Judaistic greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:04:32 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
The only improvement I might offer is to have them put the pertinent
information on the opening page and not make people have to "page around"
looking for what they should know.
Paula
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Faiman" (faiman jlc.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
) on 10/1/01 7:26 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
) ) Neil Faiman, you wrote,
) )
) )) [snip]
) )
) ) Can you justify "scientist," here, or "spiritual-scientific research"?
)
) Why in the world should I want to justify it?
)
) ) How do you expect someone not familiar with Anthroposophy to read those
words?
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
)
) I would expect that anyone who was going to be sensitive to the esoteric
) side of Steiner would go "'Spiritual-scientific'?? What's that supposed to
) mean?" and would then go follow some of the other links and find out.
)
) Lisa questioned whether the Santa Cruz Waldorf School web site met the
) Critics' standard for full disclosure -- "up front information to
) prospective parents that the school is based on Anthroposophy, at least."
) The paragraph I quoted satisfies Lisa's "at least" directly on the
school's
) web site. Going beyond that, anyone with a scintilla of curiosity about
the
) foundations of the educational system they were investigating here would,
) within minutes of opening this site, have at least an introduction to what
) Anthroposophy is about, with clear directions to how to learn more, all
from
) the comfort of their own computer.
)
) Regards
)
) Neil Faiman
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:18:01 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
At 5:49 PM -0700 10/1/01, dottie zold wrote:
)--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)) )Dan
)) )) How the threefold plant is like the threefold
)) man
)) )) upside down.
)) ))
)) )Dottie
)) )Well I had to stop here. You are too funny. And it
)) is
)) )so funny to me because I have always thought the
)) trees
)) )had their heads in the ground and their legs flying
)) in
)) )the air. Check it out next time when you pass a
)) tree
)
)Dan
)) It is pretty funny. Do you know what I'm talking
)) about, in the
)) Waldorf botany block?
)
)Dottie
)
)Not exactly but I have been having alot of
)conversations lately with my friends in regards to
)nature and its interestingly 'human nature'.
So admit it, Dottie, you don't know what you're talking about. You
have no idea about the Anthroposophical content of the Waldorf botany
block.
)For me it was pretty funny reading your bias against
)some of the teachings of RS because it does not fit
)your Secular Humanistic beliefs. Which by the way I
)wanted to ask if that means you are an atheist? I
)still have not made time to check it out in the
)dictionary.
Stop trying to make it personal and talk about the topic, Dottie.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:27:03 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) )Tarjei Straume wrote:
) )
) ))
) )) With the above in mind, it's amazing that the critics are still
) )) endeavoring to tie RS to black magic and sexual magic. And now the
) )) come up with his "very negative view on sexuality". Make up your
) )) minds, you can't have it both ways.
) ))
) )) --
) )) Tarjei
)
) Su:
)
) )Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is what secret
) )societies are all about.
)
) AP is not, and has never been, a secret society.
It is a secret society, when there are secret communications between
sophs and I've seen them.
When there are secret pedagogical meetings in the schools.
When Eugene Schwartz has actually said that Waldorf is not straight
about informing the public about its intent and beliefs.
When so many families have encountered secrecy and an intent to teach
the beliefs of reincarnation and karma to their children,without their
consent.
When there is a secret language, and code of behavior, and prescribed
color code for dressing, and for artwork, and for diet.
There is a secret society when people like you deny it.
)
) )The underlings are taught that they cannot indulge in any of their
) )human desires.
)
) There are no "underlings" in the anthroposophical movement.
Then who sent you a check for your "good work" Tarjei? Who do you work
for? Who do you report to?
)
) )But those who "know", who are in the know, at a "higher spiritual level"
) ) can do whatever they like. The leaders are those who are aware of
) )special kinds of occult knowledge that entitles them to greater
) )priviledges because their karmic destiny is assured. The hierarchical
) )structure is a spiritual one, invisible to the general public or general
) )membership. Those higher up in the organization have more "spiritual"
) )and "physical" priviledges.
)
) In other words, RS indulged in a hedonistic lifestyle, and the same
) is the case with his posterity like "prominent" AS members and so on?
It depends on what hedonism means to you, Tarjei. Maybe it just means
having a normal marital or heterosexual relationship with children.
Maybe it means just having a normal homosexual relationship.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:30:28 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
dottie zold wrote:
)
) --- Su)
) ) Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is
) ) what secret
) ) societies are all about. The underlings are taught
) ) that they cannot
) ) indulge in any of their human desires.
Dottie
You must know that with that
) statement most(being polite) of the religious groups
) and most of the higher ups in business hold true to
) your statement above.
You are talking about normal human heterosexual relationships or normal
human homosexual relationships?
I would say even Anthroposophists indulge, though they wouldn't want to
admit to this.
Shall we define normal?
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:35:25 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: jive, gibberish, and evidence
Tarjei says:
)Your version of RS' biography and philosophy is not an "established"
)version.
Can you name an anthroposophist, other than yourself, who disagrees with it?
))Goodrick-Clarke's book is hardly a main source for my arguments on
))anthroposophy's relationship to the voelkisch side of Nazism (I
))don't even mention it in my article on anthro & ecofascism).
)) More important, it says nothing at all about the Nazis inciting
))rage against Steiner.
)
)It was explained how the early Nazi and Hitler mentor Dietrich Eckart
)used his polemical propaganda skills to incite public rage against RS
)in Germany.
No, the book says nothing at all about this. In fact it never mentions
Eckart and Steiner or anthroposophy in the same chapter, much less in the
same context, with the exception of Goodrick-Clarke's dismantling of
Ravenscroft's pseudo-anthroposophical inanities. I refer you again to Neil's
comprehensive list of quotes from the book about Steiner.
)This was obviously too unpalatable for Peter S and Peter Z who
)embarked upon a mindless semantic game about the definition of
)"j?dedom" in a desperate endeavor to pin the swastika - or at least a
)little piece of it - on Hohlenberg.
I haven't said anything about Hohlenberg's political views. Nor do I recall
Peter Z. saying Hohlenberg was a Nazi. Most antisemites aren't Nazis and
don't wear swastikas.
)They denied that "j?dedom" means
)Judaism
Neither of us has denied this; indeed we have both explicitly confirmed it.
How did you manage to miss that? All we've been saying is that the word
*also* means Jewry. Since you are the one who raised this issue, you might
try a little harder to pay attention.
)My question is: What is the motive behind such obvious malice and
)will to smear and slander by any conceivable means?
This is a remarkable sentence. We point out that your descriptions of
Goodrick-Clarke's book are false and that your quibbling with accurate
translations is frivolous, and you think we're slandering some guy who's
been dead for decades? Do you think you're a reincarnation of Hohlenberg?
)All this bullshit is only a ploy to do away with the quote by
)Hohlenberg that the Peters on this list don't like, namely, and for
)the third time:
)
)**************************************************
)
)those kinds of endeavors are all too often used as a cover for narrow
)party-fanaticism and national prejudices, when this or that race or
)ethnological type to which an author himself belongs, is presented as
)a priori superior to
)others and predestined to rule. There are not many scientific fields
)where so much nonsense has seen the light of day as in racial
)research.
)
)**************************************************
)
)Those are the words they refuse to comment on.
I didn't realize you wanted my commentary on this bit of fluff. Let's
pretend that your hunch is right and Hohlenberg really was sincerely opposed
to racism. What would this have to do with anything that I've written or
that Peter Z. has written about racist anthroposophists? Your line on this
sounds like somebody who keeps quoting Abe Lincoln in order to show that no
Republican has ever been a racist. I don't see the logic in that.
)Those are the words
)that these swastika-swinging slander-mongers cannot stand to hear
)from an apop who lived in the 1930's and 1940's,
I've heard lots of similar stuff from other anthros in the 30s and 40s. It
doesn't erase the record of racist anthros from the same period. Why are you
having trouble with this basic concept?
)so they're repeating
)old nauseating garbage from the same old pile of polemical lies they
)have been waddling in like mudducks all along.
You lost me in that string of colorful metaphors. You think we're lying
about Karutz et al.? Or perhaps you think the racist anthros and the Nazi
anthros weren't *really* anthros?
All of the mistakes you made in the above passages could have been
avoided if you had kept in mind the standards of evidence and argument I
mentioned a few days ago. Since you consider these standards to be "jive",
"gibberish", and "drivel", could you give the rest of us some hints on what
criteria we ought to use when reading your posts?
Thanks in advance,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:40:37 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) )--- Su)
) )) Oh, but you *CAN* have it both ways, Tarjei. That is
) )) what secret
) )) societies are all about. The underlings are taught
) )) that they cannot
) )) indulge in any of their human desires.
) )
) )Dottie
) )
) )Ha that is so funny. You must know that with that
) )statement most(being polite) of the religious groups
) )and most of the higher ups in business hold true to
) )your statement above.
)
) Normally I would have refrained from commenting on this, but it is a
) classical example of insinuations and innuendoes taken out of thin
) air, because _anything goes_ in the crusade against anthroposophy,
) absolutely anything. What is suggested here is that the "higher ups"
) in the anthroposophical movement engage in sex orgies and the like.
)
) --
) Tarjei
Gee Tarjei, your mind goes to the orgy, and I wonder why?
I am talking about normal human relations, which do include sex, for
most people, except perhaps those involved in oppressive belief systems
where sex is considered dirty, forbidden, or evil.
You are the one who not just insinuated but stated it outright.
Let's look back at the original post:
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear critics,
) Taking into consideration Steiner's negative views on sexuality in
) )general it is remarkable that anthroposophists and their defenders
) )take up the issue of homosexuality in their efforts to discredit
) )PLANS.
In choosing the quote below, I believe Peter was trying to illustrate
that according to Steiner (Straume's interpretation of Steiner), those
who "conceive" are hedonistic, so what's the point? Might as well be
homosexual, since at least no conception will take place:
)
) Here is an illustrative quote:
)
) "The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to provide
) the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the
) Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates
) perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the Earth, a
) very special and unusual kind of conception had to be prepared for.
)
) The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we )adopt
) not only certain physiological characteristics, but also )soul-spiritual
) ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of )conception, we
) adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent. )Because we are in a
) state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure )of lovemaking, inherent
) selfish tendencies enter the soul of the )embryo as soon as
) sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and
) )why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
Bad habit, I reckon....
)
) In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it )was
) necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way. )Joseph and
) Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable )of an
) Oriental technique
Of course, it *had* to be Oriental, since they know best....
)which provides for sexual intercourse without passion or hedonistic
))pleasure.
Often wondered why God would make it fun if he intended it not to be...
)On the contrary, it is experienced as a sacrifice.
Of course this makes perfect sense;create man in your own image, create
this miraculous system of reproduction, but then---take it away!!
So it seems homosexuality would actually be more practical; no
hedonistically conceived progeny...
)In this way, the purest body and soul-substance was provided for
) the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was )born
) 'without sin.'")
) Guess who wrote this ... Tarjei Straume (at:
) http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html)
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
This is the post that Tarjei and Dotty are harping on. This is their
belief system. Yes or no?
Am I talking about orgies here? I don't think so.
The purpose of your argument is to obfuscate.
Thanks,
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 22:00:08 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Tarjei writes:
)The virtual "lecture" by RS in Oslo that you describe as an intro to
)your article about anthroposophy and ecofascism is presented as the
)centrally explanatory (or descriptive) core of your article.
No, it isn't. Writers call this an "opening device". I don't refer to it in
the body of the article and it plays no role in my argument. I used it
merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology. The core
of the article concerns the cozy relationship between anthroposophists and
the "green wing" of the Nazi party.
)Sune has documented how this description of yours is total
)fabrication.
No, he hasn't. The only thing he actually disagrees with is my
*interpretation* of the lecture, not its existence.
)In spite of this, you have done nothing to produce a
)genuine and authentic source of reference to establish the existence
)of the virtual lecture,
You think Steiner never gave this lecture?
)nor have you explained how the virtual
)"public" (?) lecture, separated from the published cycle, can be so
)contradictory to the cycle RS held for members etc. etc.
I can't explain that because it isn't true. The published version of the
lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the
word "sub-race".
)With this background, your reference to your own work as "historical
)scholarship" is a pompous hoax and an embarrassment to the profession.
I don't see how it could be an embarrassment to professional historians,
since I'm not one. But let's get to the point: How could you tell the
difference between historical scholarship and its counterfeits, Tarjei? You
vehemently reject the tools of historical inquiry as embodiments of
Ahrimanic materialism, and you insist that only occultists can legitimately
study occult movements. You can't make even basic sense of historical texts
(e.g. Goodrick-Clarke) and you hold a wide range of irrational views on
historical events (e.g. that Hitler was a sorcerer who used 'black magic' to
take power etc). You frequently impute to others opinions they do not hold,
and when pressed to clarify your own opinions you are uncharacteristically
struck dumb. All of these things make you a very interesting interlocutor,
but they do not suggest a refined appreciation for the virtues of historical
scholarship. In light of this, I don't see what criteria you might employ to
distinguish a hoax from an argument. Could you share with us your own
conception of scholarly integrity?
Yours for historical scholarship,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:58:55 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su wrote:
) Of course this makes perfect sense;create man in your own image, create
) this miraculous system of reproduction, but then---take it away!!
)
) So it seems homosexuality would actually be more practical; no
) hedonistically conceived progeny...
)
) )In this way, the purest body and soul-substance was provided for
) ) the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was )born
) ) 'without sin.'")
) ) Guess who wrote this ... Tarjei Straume (at:
) ) http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html)
) )
) ) Best,
) )
) ) Peter Zegers
)
) This is the post that Tarjei and Dotty are harping on. This is their
) belief system. Yes or no?
)
) Am I talking about orgies here? I don't think so.
)
) The purpose of your argument is to obfuscate.
)
Newpaul
Just an aside. Su I think normal is hedonism and homosexuality and
whatever feels good. That is if normal reflects man left to his own
devices without a higher spiritual and moral law. This was the case in
most of the pagan societies mentioned in the old testament. Some even
sacrificed their children to the gods of the harvest.
The Christians and jews believe that the concept of good and the moral
basis for behavior comes from God. Evil as we know it comes from
ourselves apart from God and coincidentally under the influence of
Satan. Where Anthroposophy fails is in giving authority to man and in
telling man he is divine. Unless a man looks to a higher authority then
himself, he will have no concept of sin or clear parameters of right and
wrong only of what is socially acceptable and what "feels good" and what
satisfies his own desires.
This is my view and it is probably a Christian world view. I say it
only to point out that unless one truly accepts God's moral authority
there are no absolutes. As I study anthroposophy and Steiner, I see
that the foundation of "the wisdom of man". It has a predictable
consequence that blurs the lines of religion, science, morality, and
traditional world views, etc. The emancipation has been the liberation
of the soul. We have read several accounts on this list of parents of
Waldorf kids taking up with Waldorf Teachers. And since everyone lives
by karma it was clear that the marriage had completed its useful
purpose. Gee, I can probably relate to that one as well.
I am not trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, but just to make the
statement the our moral basis for human behavior is further proof of the
existence of God. It is interesting that the first thing the 3rd Reich
did on its way to building the new nationalism in Germany was to
effectively cripple the influence of the churches and of the synagogues.
The new basis for the society was not in its submission to God's law
but in a new revelation about the wisdom and evolution of man, and the
destiny of the German people - sound familiar? IMO it seems to happen
every time you take God out of the equation.
Hopefully this might help clear up the confusion between Su ,Tarjei.
Dottie, and Peter.
Newpaul
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Dan
) So admit it, Dottie, you don't know what you're
) talking about. You
) have no idea about the Anthroposophical content of
) the Waldorf botany
) block.
Dottie
Yeah I have no problem admitting that. I nver claimed
I did. All I did was say that I thought your biases
were funny in the way you responded to the ad. Nothing
wrong with that. And it reminded me of the way I felt
about trees being upside down.
Never said anything about its teachings in AP and what
the Waldorf botany block means. But you can bet your
bottom dollar I am about to find out real quick :)
Dan
)
) Stop trying to make it personal and talk about the
) topic, Dottie.
)
Dottie
Oops. I was thought this was funny and not in a
condescending manner that you seemed to have taken. I
apologize.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su
) You are talking about normal human heterosexual
) relationships or normal
) human homosexual relationships?
)
Dottie
Lost me here.
Su
) I would say even Anthroposophists indulge, though
) they wouldn't want to
) admit to this.
)
Dottie
Indulge in what?
Su
) Shall we define normal?
Dottie
In regards to what?
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su
) I am talking about normal human relations, which do
) include sex, for
) most people, except perhaps those involved in
) oppressive belief systems
) where sex is considered dirty, forbidden, or evil.
)
Dottie
What is it not normal for one to choose not to be in a
sexual relationship? Or are you applying it only to
those who are a part of oppresive belief systems?
Su )
) This is the post that Tarjei and Dotty are harping
) on. This is their
) belief system. Yes or no?
)
Dottie
Oh Su. What the heck are you talking about? Have you
even read the post where Zeger mentions he may have
misunderstood my intention in response to Lisa and
PJIs anti gay stance?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:24:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: two schools' description of WE
At 9:11 PM -0400 10/1/01, Neil Faiman wrote:
)on 10/1/01 7:26 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
)) Neil Faiman, you wrote,
))
))) [snip]
))
)) Can you justify "scientist," here, or "spiritual-scientific research"?
)
)Why in the world should I want to justify it?
Can you explain "scientist"? Is that true?
) ) How do you expect someone not familiar with Anthroposophy to read
)those words?
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)
)I would expect that anyone who was going to be sensitive to the esoteric
)side of Steiner would go "'Spiritual-scientific'?? What's that supposed to
)mean?" and would then go follow some of the other links and find out.
Fair enough.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:44:07 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 10/1/01 8:46:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
Newpaul:
(( I am not trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, but just to make the
statement the our moral basis for human behavior is further proof of the
existence of God. It is interesting that the first thing the 3rd Reich
did on its way to building the new nationalism in Germany was to
effectively cripple the influence of the churches and of the synagogues.
The new basis for the society was not in its submission to God's law
but in a new revelation about the wisdom and evolution of man, and the
destiny of the German people - sound familiar? IMO it seems to happen
every time you take God out of the equation.
))
Atheists, hard or soft (no pun intended) are not, ipso facto, predisposed to
fascism. No more than theists.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:01:00 -0400
From: "lubert das" (jfk3 sprint.ca)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
----- Original Message -----
From: "dottie zold" (dottie_z yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) L,
) It
) ) is also not taught, importantly, as analogy,
) ) allusion, metaphor, or simply
) ) as an illustration to aid in understanding botanic
) ) structure as well as
) ) human; it is taught as truth, not up for
) ) questioning.
)
) Dottie,
)
) Well here would be the big issue: Not open for
) questioning. RS makes it very clear that his world
) views concepts are open completely to questioning
) oneself within.
To whom does He make this clear? "Questioning oneself within" seems a far
cry from rejection of material that a student finds absolutely
objectionable in context. The latter would be "insubordination" in a
student, not conscientious objection. Students put together a Main Lesson
book, a compilation of lessons taught and their illustrations, some poetry,
etc...they are graded in part on their Book, its completion and its
quality. There was not an option available to the student (U.S.) to omit
any part of the required elements of the Book based on person preferences
or objections and to still expect to receive a good mark. Students do not
have the same authority that adults do in this school and that is made very
clear.
)
) And it seems this is where the dogma of a thing may be
) the biggest issue. And how it is taught in the Waldorf
) system I wouldn't know. It's almost as if you are
) saying the students must believe this or else...is
) that what you are saying?
Bingo! If it's that much of a problem, find another school. There are
undoubtably a variety of different levels of acceptance among different
students, in different areas. Some, whom I am aquainted with, took the
position that their parents saw the school as the best alternative (willing
to overlook the nonsense), they are there for better and worse, should pay
lipservice to the B.S., but try to learn the real academics which will aid
in college/university entrance.
)
) Also in knowing that there are at least three
) different versions of Waldorf in the public/private
) domain(probably a one or two more) I think it would be
) important to know in which shcool you feel it is
) taught as absolute fact and not open for discussion.
) And how is it being taught? Is it like the Fairy/Gnome
) thing that has many on this list laughing or freaked
) out depending on your interpretation? Is it taught
) like the history of mythology is taught?
"Are you or were you ever a member of the....."
My answer would be: at LEAST 3 established private schools, Mid-West and
East Coast. Been to others, some more rigid and insane than the rest. It
is not a case of "feeling" or of whether it is up for discussion. It is
embarrassing and shameful (not to mention dull) to some students who either
know, feel or believe differently, or who have managed (with great ease, i
might add) to educate themselves beyond the often pathetic lesson plans, to
listen quietly and attentively to a teacher who at one point is giving a
creditable lesson in Biology (for example) and the next is talking out of
their arse (Galen and mediaeval humors are superior to modern medicine,
"the heart is not a pump"--a personal favorite). I wonder if it is not so
much an attempt to dumb-down students as it is for those who, taught
otherwise, knowing better, attempt to dumb-down themselves and seek a sort
of confirmation in convincing those who, there to learn, often do not know
(yet) how to accurately judge for themselves the quality of what they are
being taught. Example: "the Fairy/Gnome thing", the kids know better, the
teachers would like to believe that they themselves don't. The teachers
would like the kids to not know better. Beavis and Butthead are cartoons
and should not be emulated, they're not real; but fairies and gnomes on the
other hand...
History of Mythology is not taught, that would be sociological and a bit
too relativist for some. Blocks of mythologies are taught in progression.
Botany and Biology, etc... are a part of that progression (read Dan's
original post). The intent behind it is to construct a narrative in
keeping with RS' deranged evolutionary theories of consciousness, race,
history, and a Eurocentric, Christocentric position which sees ALL previous
to it as directly, consequently, leading to it.
)
) If David or Neal read my posts or yours, maybe they
) could shed some light on your point.
)
) L,
) It would be nice to
) ) contemplate "as a child", but it is not taught in
) ) this case to children,
) ) but to teenagers.
)
) Dottie
)
) Oh okay. Teenagers are old enough to be able to look
) at a thing and contemplate it. And like I said before
) there are many different understandings of how we came
) about and what we are linked too. I find nothing wrong
) with that. However if they are not allowed to question
) such a thing that would not be good. I had so many
) questions that my teachers stopped calling on me at
) one point. I was pretty confused about that as I
) really was an inquisitive child. I was basically shut
) up from growing intellectually while I was in a public
) school. And a big part of that is that I turned to and
) excelled in sports so I turned to that world instead,
) unfortunately.
)
)
) In their senior year, when taught
) ) Evolution, they are at
) ) least presented with non-scientific, often religious
) ) views on the subject,
) ) even if as competing Theories with the largely
) ) accepted scientific ones;
) ) only that much respect is granted their critical
) ) faculties.
)
) Dottie
)
) Once again I must say that if a child has been through
) many years in a Waldorf school they must be pretty
) ready to hear something like the above. I don't think
) it would surprise anyone of them. And as far as being
) seniors I am sure they took it in and will take in
) many others opinions regarding the same thing.
)
) L
) ) How would you "feel" about being taught in a
) ) _History_ class that "Jews
) ) killed God"? As historical fact? What in you made
) ) you question this idea
) ) when you did receive it?
)
) Dottie
)
) I would probably have fought like hell with the
) teacher to really understand what was being said. This
) was pretty much the only area that I spoke out:
) needing to know the whys and how a teacher knew such a
) thing.
)
) And are you sure that what is taught is that Jews
) killed God? I have never heard RS speak on this in
) that manner. I would take issue with that if I had
) found it in any of his books. Do you have a reference
) where he says 'the Jews killed God". That seems highly
) unlikely to me.
L: Do not misunderstand me on this point. I am afraid it may have been
unclearly conveyed or received. I will accept responsibilty for that and
clear it up here and now. RS does not to my knowledge teach this nor do
any teachers I am aquainted with, nor do i know of any reference, and was
not referring to any quote.
I was using the quotation as an example from your previous post, regarding
what you found to be objectionable in your education, in an attempt to
point out that when You were taught something wrong (not true), and you had
questions, felt that you were shut down by those teaching you who failed to
respond (truthfully?), or through omittances, that you yet felt that it was
wrong.
My question would follow, on what basis did you feel it was wrong? What
recourse to authority did you have? After all, those people teaching you
were your immediate authorities and knew better than you, a student, what
was right and wrong. Who were you to question? (Dottie:"I would have to
say that I would listen and see where it feels right to me.")
Don't make the assumption that Waldorf teachers treat students as equals or
that they do not seek to capitalize (more than most) on the idea of
themselves as (religious)authority (RS trains em that way).
)
) Peace,
)
) Dottie
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 511
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy 2
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dingman mindspring.com
"Scientist" (was: two schools' description)
By faiman jlc.net
Christianity & fascism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: "Scientist" (was: two schools' description)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Unschooling, etc.
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: Latest Local School Ad...
By lizanderrol home.com
The arrogance of Anthroposophists
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: "Jewry"
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re:Re: "Jewry"
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By jfk3 sprint.ca
Mr. Straume is a liar
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
Re: "Jewry"
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
Peter Z's ignorance
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:Peter Z's ignorance
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Peter Z's ignorance
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Unschooling, etc.
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: The arrogance of Anthroposophists
By dottie_z yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:09:39 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy 2
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Dear critics,
)
) Whether the idea that 'sin' is an appropriate description for joyful
) sex, is indeed a subjective matter depending on your own personal
) beliefs/convictions. As an atheist who doesn't have a use for the
) concept of 'sin' I don't agree with the christian idea that joyful )sex
) is sinful (and even many christians are challenging this )traditional
) idea nowadays).
I think you are right here.
)I don't think it is true that all religions see
) repression of sexual desire as something positive or necessary.
Correct, as far as I understand.
) I might
) be wrong but I remember having read somewhere that Buddhism, )Hinduism,
) Islam, and Judaism allow for a more joyful view on sexuality than
) traditional Christianity (and most occultists I might )add).
This is where I would disagree with you on some major details but to the
same end. ALL these religions have extremist factions that believe that
sexual love is bad, irreverent, and harmful to the "spirit" or "soul".
All of these religions have those extreme believers that understand sex
to be a detriment to society, in ANY form. If you examine *any* of these
religions you will find these types of beliefs regarding sex.
)But since
) Straume made the original claim, it is up to him to defend it.
Straume defends his purity clause, regarding the virgin birth of Christ,
which is a common one for Christians, with even more emphasis on the
virginal quality, and how purity plays a role in spiritual development
for anthroposophists because of the role of karma and incarnation.
) In what I read about sexual magic the stated aim is not pleasure or )joy
) but spiritual improvement (as strange as this must have sounded )for
) puritans like Steiner). I don't attach any credence to the )malicious
) rumors about Steiner's sexlife, I base my research on his )written
) works.
I would disregard the gossip about Steiner's sex life too, since no one
really knows what he did in the bedroom. He did express a desire (I read
it somewhere) to "experience" other forms of love,I think. I know I read
it somewhere. And it seems he was a member of OTO, though that has been
debated ad infinitum here.
But even if that were not true, it seems to be the case that Steiner
encouraged his minions to maintain celibacy, and there are definitely
Anthros who believe this to be the road to their spiritual
enlightenment. It's kind of a phony method of enlightenment when you see
that their real time practices as human beings are not all that
enlightened. And it doesn't pertain to all anthros.
It seems that those in higher levels of the organization don't have such
constraints, at least from my own observation.
) For my part I think it is very clear from his writings that Steiner
) advocated puritanism, which is in line with his catholic upbringing )in
) Austria. Frankly, Steiner's private sexlife doesn't hold any )importance
) for me.
Exactly. I think it's more interesting to talk about the sex practices
of those who came after Steiner, and how they believe that Steiner
wanted them to practice this part of their lives.
)I don't think a secret sexcult in Anthroposophy (even if only in
) its supposed higher echelons) would have been a secret very long. I )am
) concentrating on Steiner's social and political ideas and )influence.
No, it's definitely not a sex cult, in fact it downplays sex for it's
members, at least those that are low on the totem pole, or for a select
few. Others who may be in a relationship are only with other anthros, so
they can "share" their weird ideas with them. This means they shed
husbands, wives, and so forth to take up with other anthros who are
spiritually evolved. I guess that way if they reproduce it will be with
the blesings of the guru, and any products of their union will be "pure"
and perhaps virginal.
But the other point is that what is good for the underlings of the
society is not needed for the spiritually evolved. I am not sure who
makes these decisions but it seems not to be a society of equals.
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:01:39 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
ray fulk wrote:
)
) In a message dated 10/1/01 8:46:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
) dingman mindspring.com writes:
)
) Newpaul:
) (( I am not trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, but just to make the
) statement the our moral basis for human behavior is further proof of the
) existence of God. It is interesting that the first thing the 3rd Reich
) did on its way to building the new nationalism in Germany was to
) effectively cripple the influence of the churches and of the synagogues.
) The new basis for the society was not in its submission to God's law
) but in a new revelation about the wisdom and evolution of man, and the
) destiny of the German people - sound familiar? IMO it seems to happen
) every time you take God out of the equation.
) ))
)
) Atheists, hard or soft (no pun intended) are not, ipso facto, predisposed to
) fascism. No more than theists.
)
) Ray
Newpaul
But the case can be made that fascists have a predisposition toward
paganism, the occult, and atheism.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:39:17 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: "Scientist" (was: two schools' description)
I quoted from the Santa Cruz Waldorf School's web page about Rudolf
Steiner this paragraph:
"Dr. Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) was a respected and well-published
scientist and thinker, with particular fame for his work with Goethe's
scientific writings. The roots of Waldorf Education come from the
spiritual-scientific research of Steiner. According to Steiner's
'Anthroposophy', a human is a threefold being of body, soul, and spirit,
whose capacities unfold in developmental stages on the path to
adulthood."
Dan Dugan asked, "Can you justify 'scientist,' here, or
'spiritual-scientific research'?" and I replied, "Why in the world
should I want to justify it?"
Dan persists, "Can you explain 'scientist'? Is that true?"
First, I'll note that the point of my original message was to respond to
Lisa's query about whether SC Waldorf School was providing "full
disclosure", and to conclude that the answer was yes. I didn't write to
suggest that defend their site in its entirety, nor to suggest that
everything on it is unchallengeable, and I don't really feel any
obligation to do so now. However, since Dan is particularly concerned
about their use of the word "scientist" here, I'll offer my personal
opinion.
(1a) I don't know what the connotations of "scientist" would have been
in Steiner's time and place. It seems that his academic background and
his work editing Goethe's writings would give him some scientific
credentials. But,
(1b) I think that the word "scientist" today generally conveys the sense
"a professional practitioner of the natural sciences". In that sense, I
do not think that it is appropriate to refer to Steiner as a scientist
in the current sense of the word.
(2a) I suspect that Anthroposophists tend to refer to Steiner as a
scientist in the sense of Shepard's _Scientist of the Invisible_. The
Anthroposophical contention, following Steiner, is that "the spiritual"
is subject to objective investigation in a manner consistent with the
practices of natural science, and that such investigation deserves to be
called scientific. However,
(2b) As Dan and others on this list have repeatedly pointed out, there
is much more to science, as it is conceived today, than objective
observation. Whether "spiritual science" as Steiner described and
practiced it was a "science" in German in 1920, I don't think it is what
most people would think of as a science in English in 2000.
(3) Therefore, I think that referring to Rudolf Steiner as a "scientist"
without clarification or qualification would be misleading in modern
English.
(4) In the actual context, the sentence referring to Steiner as a
scientist is immediately followed by the sentence saying that the roots
of Waldorf education come from Steiner's "spiritual-scientific
research". That's a clarification or qualification.
In summary, I will cheerfully grant your quibble about the use of the
word "scientist" here, while noting that it isn't going to make a
practical difference to anyone who doesn't read the tabloid headlines in
the supermarket checkout lines to get their news.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:02:27 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Christianity & fascism
Newpaul wrote:
"But the case can be made that fascists have a predisposition toward
paganism, the occult, and atheism."
I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. A "case can be
made", of course, but on what grounds?
Predisposition: state of mind or body favourable (to) ["The Advanced
Learner's Dictionary of Current English", London 1963].
Was Fascism/Nazism a product of Atheism, Paganism, or Occultism? Did
Germans, Austrians and so many other people stray from the right path of
Christianity and therefore become Nazis and Fascists?
Historically the relationship between Fascism/Nazism and Christianity
(Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) is rather more complex. If we
accept Roman Catholicism in our definition of Christianity (which I do)
it is for example amply documented that the Popes welcomed the fascist
dictatorships in Italy (Mussolini), Spain (Franco), Croatia (Pavelic),
and even Germany (see for example John Cornwell, "Hitler's Pope", Saul
Friedl?nder, "Pie XII et le troisi?me reich").
George L. Mosse wrote about the churches in Germany: "The anti-Semitism
of the Third Reich was more pernicious when it entered into the dogma of
the established churches. Many ecclesiastics, both Protestant and
Catholic, felt a personal allegiance to the party, the state, and the
Germanic ideology and openly voiced their convictions from the pulpit.
Others believed that the German task, like that of the Holy Crusade,
could be accomodated within the Christian dogma. Still others saw in the
Nazi victory a revitalization of the German spirit and were grateful to
the party, its ideology, and its leaders. Wilhelm Niem?ller, a man of
high intelligence, soon to become a leader in the Protestant resistance,
has recalled with considerable frankness what May Day 1933 meant to him:
then, with the Nazis in office and Germany sure of becoming a true
Volksgemeinschaft (community of the Volk), that day became "a day of
joy, a day which aroused new hopes." Throughout the country many
congregations, devout Catholics and Protestants, joined the festivities,
marched alongside the proudly victorious Nazi troops, and saw no
conflict between their faiths and the Nazi ideology. With a few
exceptions, among which the Dahlemer Pfarrernotbund (Dahlem Emergency
Association of Ministers), organized by Martin Niem?ller in 1934, was
the most prominent, the congregations accepted the state directive that
a Jew, regardless of his conversion or baptism into another faith,
remained a Jew. That this effectively denied the validity of the
sacrament of baptism did not prevent its acceptance by many a dioces."
(George L. Mosse, "The crisis of German ideology" p. 307, 308).
Whatever Hitler's personal beliefs (I don't think he was an atheist), he
was very pragmatic in his policy towards the churches. Not all Nazis
were Pagans or Occultists by the way. Many of them were in favor of an
"Aryan" or "German Christendom". The difference between the two strains
(Pagan/Occultist and Aryan-Christian) in Nazism is sometimes very hard
to define (see Stefanie von Schnurbein, "Religion als Kulturkritik:
Neugermanisches Heidentum im 20. Jahrhundert" Heidelberg 1992, pp.
229-230).
In short, I think a very complicated matter like the subject Newpaul
touched upon can't be treated so superficially.
Regards,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:12:06 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Lubert makes a number of good points, responding to Dottie, that mesh with
my personal observations in Waldorf.
Dottie, if you're reading this, I've noticed this too, that you speak of
yourself having been a curious, inquisitive student, asking a lot of
questions, and I too have thought that you'd have been made quite unhappy in
a Waldorf school. Things like "questioning oneself within" - well, maybe
Steiner recommended this for adults, but certainly not for children!
Lubert:
)It is not a case of "feeling" or of whether it is up for discussion. )It
)is embarrassing and shameful (not to mention dull) to some students )who
)either know, feel or believe differently,
Not all children look around them and see gnomes or angels everywhere. There
is a very straightforward attempt to reinforce certain views of the world
and not others, and surely some children feel at home there, if like Dottie
they are inclined to spiritual perceptions, but I know it is very painful
for the children who can't or won't conform to this.
Lubert:
)I wonder if it is not so much an attempt to dumb-down students as it )is
)for those who, taught otherwise, knowing better, attempt to dumb-)down
)themselves
Interesting thought. I do believe that many Waldorf teachers want the
air-tight, careful belief structure *for themselves* - line up those
spiritual beings, rank them and assign them each an era and a mission - that
the comfort of such a belief system is a greater motivation than an actual
desire to indoctrinate others.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:47:32 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: "Scientist" (was: two schools' description)
Niell wrote:
) In summary, I will cheerfully grant your quibble about the use of the
) word "scientist" here, while noting that it isn't going to make a
) practical difference to anyone who doesn't read the tabloid
) headlines in
) the supermarket checkout lines to get their news.
I also found the use of scientist with regard to Steiner misleading in
the school's description. I was once told a story about a time when
Steiner was invited to the lab of a famous scientist who encouraged
Steiner to take a peek through his microscope at a flower or something.
Steiner balked saying that he refused to look up mother nature's skirt.
This is just a story that someone told me so I can't give any guarantees
as to its veracity. If it is true, it gives the impression that even in
his day there may have been plenty of scientists who would have balked
at having Steiner included in their ranks.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Diana
)
) Lubert makes a number of good points, responding to
) Dottie, that mesh with
) my personal observations in Waldorf.
)
) Lubert:
) )It is not a case of "feeling" or of whether it is
) up for discussion. )It
) )is embarrassing and shameful (not to mention dull)
) to some students )who
) )either know, feel or believe differently,
Diana
) Not all children look around them and see gnomes or
) angels everywhere. There
) is a very straightforward attempt to reinforce
) certain views of the world
) and not others, and surely some children feel at
) home there, if like Dottie
) they are inclined to spiritual perceptions, but I
) know it is very painful
) for the children who can't or won't conform to this.
Dottie
Hi Diana,
Well at this point one would have to ask/wonder why
are the parents of the child not aware that their
child is not happy with a school that follows this
stream of thought?
I realize that many people have different world views.
And I personally was not taught in my public school
anything that I really agreed with. I can remember
feeling ashamed that I was not like everyone else. And
that I did not see things the way others did.
But I must say if one is in a Waldorf school these
things are going to be taught or so it seems. It is
really up to the parent to take their child out of
school they obviously are paying money for if their
child feels they are being pushed to believe a certain
thing.
I get that L, and others hold comletely different
views of the world and I also think it is important to
not assume that because it does not match our
understandings that it will not be something the kids
will accept or reject.
I am interested in knowing L's, experience with
Waldorf and how he came into contact with it? Do you
have a child in the school or have you been a student?
And to Diana, in what manner do you believe the
teachers are forcing the kids to believe? I mean when
I was in school I was taught things given tests and
that was that. End of discussion on to the next.
Diana
...that
) the comfort of such a belief system is a greater
) motivation than an actual
) desire to indoctrinate others.
Dottie
And it is interesting because a parent has to know by
the higher grades whether or not their child is happy
in the school or feels it is not something the child
feels in line with or the family itself. Unfortunately
for us a children there is not much say as to what
religion or non religion or upbringing we wish to
have. Even up until we graduate. So we have to go
along with our families outlook whether or not it is
something we feel comfortable with internally.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:07:47 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: Unschooling, etc.
) Oh, give me a break, "teaching" is a negative buzzword? Can you say,
) "dumbing us down"?
"Dumbing us down" works. In the circles of alternative schools that I
am mostly interested in, however, I am sorry to say that the word
"teaching" has aquired so many negative connotations that it is rarely
used. The buzzwords that are common are facilitating, modeling,
child-led etc. You can see what I mean at any Sudbury school site.
My quible had more to do with Dan's pointing out that there is no
mention of "teaching" in the brochure. When I or anyone is cooking or
gardening or swimming or even just walking down the street with my kids
there is a lot of teaching going on where the adult is the one in the
role of teacher. If you get the toy cars or the legos or many other
toys that are presently lying around the floor of my house and want to
participate with the kids then you can bet on it they will have a lot to
teach you. There is no need to call it teaching in those contexts.
) Unschooling and Waldorf are *not* similar in any way.
I disagree. As I have said before I was unschooled and I did almost
everything on the Waldorf curriculum at about the same time that it is
taught in Waldorf schools and these were things that I found and did for
myself. So on a superficial level, there is similarity. This
superficial resemblance could be enough to cause someone to assume that
the similarities are deeper if they are unfamiliar with the actual
implementation of the curriculum. It would also help if they read
Eugene's article on authority. If they are able to see beyond his tone
of being an authority.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:30:29 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Latest Local School Ad...
) Well at this point one would have to ask/wonder why
) are the parents of the child not aware that their
) child is not happy with a school that follows this
) stream of thought?
Sometimes the children are not aware that they are unhappy until you
pull them out. Sometimes the children are mostly happy and they are
able to live with the bits that disturb them, for better of worse, I'm
not sure which.
I was confident that I would be able to tell when my children were no
longer happy at school and that they would let me know when it is time
to pull them out. Perhaps I am right and this would have happened. The
teachers are not going to let me find out. I am pulling them out as of
the 12th of this month. I gave them two weeks to get used to the idea.
The hardest part for me has been the fact that both of my children do
not want to quit school. The teachers have made it clear that my
husband and I are not welcome at the school. My inability to hide my
poor opinion of their directorial skills is not acceptable to them. Of
course they do not say this, their reasons for not wanting us on campus
is that they are concerned that our feelings for Waldorf education will
make it difficult for our children to be happy at school! I wonder why
my kids are so happy then?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 20:10:44 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: The arrogance of Anthroposophists
Dear critics,
Whenever I say that I don't agree with one of Steiner's statements, I am
answered by anthroposophists that I can't disagree because I don't
understand what Steiner said. This is deduced from the fact that I am
not an anthroposophist myself. Which leads to the impasse of circular
reasoning: "you don't agree with Steiner because you don't understand
him and therefore you don't agree with his views. If you would
understand him, you would agree." Since according to them I don't
understand him (which actually means that I don't understand him the way
they think I should understand him), everything I say about him is based
on misunderstandings, if not outright lies. Only anthroposophists can
really understand him. Others can't judge Steiner and should shut up.
Whenever an *anthroposophist* says something they don't like, they just
as easily dismiss him or her (e.g. Haverbeck, Bondarew, Schaub, Uehli,
Stibbe). They are not "real" anthroposophists according to them. I once
even heard from an anthroposophist the claim that whenever Steiner made
or wrote a racist or antisemitic remark, he wasn't a "real"
anthroposophist. This systematic solipsism in assessing who is a "real"
anthroposophist and who is not, is an exclusive privilege of anthro's.
Other people also have to accept the "truth" of the anthro's about other
issues since anthro's claim for example to know better than Jews,
Christians, and Buddhists the (esoteric) meaning of their religions.
Atheism is according to them of course a "disease". One wonders what the
cure for this "disease" would be? Does anyone know if Steiner had any
suggestions for a cure?
In his biography of Steiner, Johannes Hemleben describes a very
interesting encounter between Rudolf Steiner and the Catholic priest
Wilhelm Neumann. According to Steiner there was a third *invisible*
presence, Catholic orthodoxy, that prevented Neumann from agreeing with
Steiner's viewpoints. So instead of acknowledging that Neumann had a
mind of his own, Steiner believed Neumann was under the influence of an
invisible being (See Johannes Hemleben, "Rudolf Steiner". Reinbek bei
Hamburg, 1963 p. 31). The same attitude is adopted by the followers of
Steiner when they say that all critics are under the influence of
Ahriman or Lucifer (or both?).
So in the end only anthroposophists know the truth, the rest of us is
"ignorant" or mislead by demonic forces. Only anthroposophists know the
secrets and the true meaning of all religions, and are therefore allowed
to make statements about it (and also on biology, medecine, pedagogy,
agriculture, sexuality, languages, art, economics, politics, physics,
evolution, sports ...). Others, especially atheists, shouldn't give an
interpretation of Steiner's ideas. Anthroposophists know everything and
others know nothing at all (or only very little).
I never made the claim that I know better than Rudolf Steiner what he
was trying to say; since he is long dead we - including our
anthroposophists - can't really be too sure about what he was *trying*
to say. We have to work from what he actually wrote. There simply is no
authorative interpretation which can't be challenged. As I said before,
anthro's are more than welcome to challenge my interpretations, but not
on the assumption that only *they* know the one and only correct
interpretation without giving any argumentation for this.
Anthroposophists are fighting amongst themselves most of the time about
the true meaning of what Der Doktor said and wrote. Recently there was
yet another split in the Dutch AS about the correct interpretation of
some of Steiner's remarks on races. Each side of course claims that the
people of the other side are not "real" anthroposophists.
The point of view that only adherents of a particular creed can make
meaningful statements about their own creed, would lead to
insurmountable problems. In fact it would mean the end of any meaningful
scientific investigation of its history, its doctrine, and its social
influence. Public debate and critique would be made impossible. This is
already a reality in J?rna, Sweden, where the anthroposophists are the
second-biggest employer in the municipality. A concerned local
politician has complained about the pressure on the local media from the
anthro's. They are trying to prevent the local papers from writing
critically about the enterprises of the anthro's (recently there was a
labor strike at a Waldorfschool in Sweden).
Regards,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:11:25 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Dottie:
)Well at this point one would have to ask/wonder why
)are the parents of the child not aware that their
)child is not happy with a school that follows this
)stream of thought?
Because they often are not aware that the school *does* follow this stream
of thought. And because especially young children often aren't capable of
putting into words what is troubling them.
)I realize that many people have different world views.
)And I personally was not taught in my public school
)anything that I really agreed with. I can remember
)feeling ashamed that I was not like everyone else. And
)that I did not see things the way others did.
So then, maybe you'd have been a happy kid in Waldorf. I can sort of see
that. But since you have so much experience feeling like you didn't fit in
in school, I figured you could relate to kids who might feel that way in
Waldorf.
)But I must say if one is in a Waldorf school these
)things are going to be taught or so it seems. It is
)really up to the parent to take their child out of
)school they obviously are paying money for if their
)child feels they are being pushed to believe a certain
)thing.
A 4-year-old is not going to come home and say, "Mom, I'm being pushed to
believe things I don't agree with." Not most 8- or 10-year-olds either.
Maybe older kids.
)And to Diana, in what manner do you believe the
)teachers are forcing the kids to believe?
Sorry, no more time, maybe I'll pick this up later. I guess the basic answer
is, you present a world view, and you don't encourage, or sometimes even
allow, the kids to discuss it or ask questions. You smile and change the
subject if they have an opinion to express. As for "forcing," well, it
doesnt' always work of course.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:44:31 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "Jewry"
)Tarjei writes:
)
))Because I grew up with this language. When we learned about religions
))in school, "?j?dedommen" was one such religion, next to "hinduismen",
))"buddhismen" etc.
))
))Period.
)
)Did they teach you about a religion named "Zionism"?
)
)Question mark.
)
)Peter S.
)
Curious.......are you implying that Zionism is a religion?
No punctuation.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:06:12 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re:Re: "Jewry"
Peter S:
)At least two of these websites do not support your claim, Tarjei;
)they refer to secular and cultural Jews as part of "jodedom" (if
)"kulturell" and "sekulaer" mean what I think they mean). Care to
)reformulate your claim?
The ethnic meaning of "j?dedom" is not common usage. That's why most
of the search results corroborate my point.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:06:24 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su:
)It is a secret society, when there are secret communications between
)sophs and I've seen them.
A secret society is never open for anyone to join. A secret society
is also often secret, i.e. unknown to the public.
Anyone can join the AS. The only criterion is that one recognizes
spiritual science as a true and legitimate science. That does not
make it secret.
--
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, 2 Oct 2001 22:06:46 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Calling Peter's Bluff:
Tarjei:
))The virtual "lecture" by RS in Oslo that you describe as an intro to
))your article about anthroposophy and ecofascism is presented as the
))centrally explanatory (or descriptive) core of your article.
Peter S:
)No, it isn't. Writers call this an "opening device". I don't refer
)to it in the body of the article and it plays no role in my
)argument. I used it merely for the Norway hook and to introduce
)Steiner's terminology. The core of the article concerns the cozy
)relationship between anthroposophists and the "green wing" of the
)Nazi party.
Tarjei:
Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of a
lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever
provided a source or rererence to this forgery of yours. This is
nothing less than con artistry on your behalf. If the opposite is
indeed the case, please provide adequate documentation and referenes
to this non-existent lecture.
This "opening device" of yours is not just an in ordinary
introduction to "Steiner's terminology" like you untruthfully claim
it is. It alleges and "describes" speculatively invented happenings
in time and space that are blank lies in every meaning of the word.
Tarjei:
))Sune has documented how this description of yours is total
))fabrication.
Peter S:
)No, he hasn't. The only thing he actually disagrees with is my
)*interpretation* of the lecture, not its existence.
Tarjei:
Abe Lincoln should have taught you that you can't fool all the people
all the time. Take a close look at Sune's page at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
Sune did not only publish his three parts' article on his website,
but he referred to it many times on this list before he was
unsubscribed for calling you a known liar.
Tarjei:
))In spite of this, you have done nothing to produce a
))genuine and authentic source of reference to establish the existence
))of the virtual lecture,
Peter S:
)You think Steiner never gave this lecture?
Tarjei:
You know even better than I do that the lecture you have invented was
never held by RS. It does not help to argue _as though_ it really
existed as long as you cannot provide a single reference source -
along with exact date and title - to corroborate your bluff.
Tarjei:
))nor have you explained how the virtual
))"public" (?) lecture, separated from the published cycle, can be so
))contradictory to the cycle RS held for members etc. etc.
Peter S:
)I can't explain that because it isn't true. The published version of
)the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it.
Tarjei:
There is _no_ "published version of the lecture". None. You even said
so yourself. Monday 10 September, you wrote:
*************************************************
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.
*************************************************
Tarjei:
How about that? Now you're talking about a public version of a
non-existent lecture that you yourself has said was never published!
)The sole discrepancy is the word "sub-race".
Tarjei:
Gibberish and fabrication. Sune has scanned and published the entire
lecture cycle at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm,
and on his aforementioned page he demonstrates clearly and
unequivocally that the invented "lecture" from this cycle is proven
to be a lie.
Tarjei:
))With this background, your reference to your own work as "historical
))scholarship" is a pompous hoax and an embarrassment to the profession.
Peter S:
)I don't see how it could be an embarrassment to professional
)historians, since I'm not one. But let's get to the point: How could
)you tell the difference between historical scholarship and its
)counterfeits, Tarjei?
Tarjei:
Very simply: In his introduction - or "opening device" if you prefer
- Sune describes some of the most elementary criteria for "historical
scholarship" at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
You are constantly referring to your own work as "scholarship" in the
academic sense, but on this page, Sune demonstrates with many
examples why your work does not meet these standards.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:03:03 -0400
From: "lubert das" (jfk3 sprint.ca)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
----- Original Message -----
From: "dottie zold" (dottie_z yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
) Diana
) )
) ) Lubert makes a number of good points, responding to
) ) Dottie, that mesh with
) ) my personal observations in Waldorf.
) )
) ) Lubert:
) ) )It is not a case of "feeling" or of whether it is
) ) up for discussion. )It
) ) )is embarrassing and shameful (not to mention dull)
) ) to some students )who
) ) )either know, feel or believe differently,
)
) Diana
) ) Not all children look around them and see gnomes or
) ) angels everywhere. There
) ) is a very straightforward attempt to reinforce
) ) certain views of the world
) ) and not others, and surely some children feel at
) ) home there, if like Dottie
) ) they are inclined to spiritual perceptions, but I
) ) know it is very painful
) ) for the children who can't or won't conform to this.
)
) Dottie
)
) Hi Diana,
)
) Well at this point one would have to ask/wonder why
) are the parents of the child not aware that their
) child is not happy with a school that follows this
) stream of thought?
L:
EZ answer: It is a school for the parents not for the students. Some, who
agree wholeheartedly with the teaching and philosophy behind it are more
than willing to overlook what might sound like the usual childhood
complaints regarding school, homework, teachers, bullying, etc...coming
from their children, because they are often more involved in working out
their own salvation (not necessarily in fear and trembling, more likely in
Eurythmy, Basketweaving, or study groups).
) I realize that many people have different world views.
) And I personally was not taught in my public school
) anything that I really agreed with. I can remember
) feeling ashamed that I was not like everyone else. And
) that I did not see things the way others did.
)
) But I must say if one is in a Waldorf school these
) things are going to be taught or so it seems. It is
) really up to the parent to take their child out of
) school they obviously are paying money for if their
) child feels they are being pushed to believe a certain
) thing.
L:
Get real, Dottie. That is a very liberal-minded and very contemporary
conclusion: let's get some input from Billy on how he thinks his school
runs. Commendable, but Billy's opinion does not really amount to a hill of
beans, where cult parents are concerned. As some on the list have
attested, it takes a real disaster before they begin to open their eyes.
The schools and philosophy behind them make the claim of certainty (of
methodology). For parents that can have a great appeal, even more for those
already predisposed towards authoritarian systems of thought. In that
case, the school and the parents know best, and the "truth" will be
disseminated in their quarterly meetings. For non-cult parents, it's
pretty clear how they are treated to a different version of the same
"truth", (an homogenized, pasteurized version, replete with 'sins of
ommission').
) I get that L, and others hold comletely different
) views of the world and I also think it is important to
) not assume that because it does not match our
) understandings that it will not be something the kids
) will accept or reject.
)
) I am interested in knowing L's, experience with
) Waldorf and how he came into contact with it? Do you
) have a child in the school or have you been a student?
)
"Are you or have you ever been a memeber of...". Nope sorry, decline to
respond for now; a bit on the sensitive side socially.
) And to Diana, in what manner do you believe the
) teachers are forcing the kids to believe? I mean when
) I was in school I was taught things given tests and
) that was that. End of discussion on to the next.
)
) Diana
) ...that
) ) the comfort of such a belief system is a greater
) ) motivation than an actual
) ) desire to indoctrinate others.
)
) Dottie
)
) And it is interesting because a parent has to know by
) the higher grades whether or not their child is happy
) in the school or feels it is not something the child
) feels in line with or the family itself. Unfortunately
) for us a children there is not much say as to what
) religion or non religion or upbringing we wish to
) have. Even up until we graduate. So we have to go
) along with our families outlook whether or not it is
) something we feel comfortable with internally.
L:
They are in the business of saving souls, shaping karmic destiny, what does
a child's or teenager's Happiness, Feelings, or Personal Views, have to do
with their bigger picture? They decide the definition of all three. They
know and do Best. Any problems or conflicts are not the school's or any
individual teacher's fault, they are the child's (or influences on the
child, which amounts to the same thing). A student takes them to task for
their quaint notion that 'trees reflect Man' as both unscientific (Lavater
might like it though, and he's taught there, too, by the way) and fit for
kindergarten not high school Biology, there is something Wrong with the
student. Progressive? Not by a long shot. Your statement above is an
excellent indication, IMOIMOIMO (and not a negative one at that), of what I
find among many (well-meaning) cult-parents, teachers and supporters alike
in Waldorf (and out), a trend which also runs through RS' thought: a marked
ambivalency towards authority. Claiming greatest freedom and creativity
for all, while 'establishing' it within a closed,
hierarchically-structured, hyper-controlled system. Claiming 'democraticly
progressive', while covertly practicing a patriarchal, reactionary,
soft-core authoritarian ideology. It makes for wonderful contradictions,
and fits well into a particular heritage. I would be interested to know if
anyone has any pointers towards studies, surveys, specifically of Waldorf
parents, teachers, students, and their sociological backgrounds (U.S. or
other, any date).
Piece,
L.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:52:46 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Mr. Straume is a liar
Dear critics,
Straume is now really going insane. He now accuses Peter Staudenmaier of
"inventing" a lecture by Steiner
(http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1708453244&start=10282).
Everyone who would take the trouble of reading Peter's article
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" (published in the Norwegian magazine
"Humanist, the Swedish magazine "Folkvett", and on the homepages of
SIMPOS [http://www.stelling.nl/simpos] and PLANS), can check it. Peter
clearly gives the title: "Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im
Zusammenhang mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie" (The Mission of
Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic
Mythology).
Several others quote from this lectures-cycle:
Andreas Speit gives the same title:
Rudolf Steiner: Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit
der
germanisch-nordischen Mythologie. Dornach/ Schweiz, 1990
http://www.akdh.ch/ps/ps_73-Speit.html
Two anthro-pages:
Rudolf Steiner GA121: Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang
mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie. Dornach 1950.
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/6047/beuysbibliothek.html
Rudolf Steiner: Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit
der germanischnordischen Mythologie. 5. Aufl. Dornach 1982
[=Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 121], Vorrede.
http://www.celtoslavica.de/bibliothek/steiner-mitte.html
Several others as well. Just search on Steiner, mission, volksseelen and
you get a lot of hits.
How can Straume be serious about this? I suspect he is not and is
knowingly trying to discredit Peter Staudenmaier.
Regards,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:34:47 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
SU
))It is a secret society, when there are secret communications between
))sophs and I've seen them.
TARJEI
)A secret society is never open for anyone to join. A secret society
)is also often secret, i.e. unknown to the public.
)
)Anyone can join the AS. The only criterion is that one recognizes
)spiritual science as a true and legitimate science. That does not
)make it secret.
STEINER
Within this whole stream, the initiation of Mani, who also initiated
Christian Rosenkreutz in 1459, is considered to be of a 'higher
degree'; it consists of the true understanding of the nature of evil.
This initiation and all that it entails will have to remain
completely hidden from the majority for a long time to come. For
where even only a tiny ray of its light has flowed into literature it
has caused harm, as happened with the irreproachable Guyau, of whom
Frederich Nietzsche became a pupil.
***
For information only. It cannot be stated directly in this form at present.
[[Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie
Steiner von Sivers. Anthroposophic Press, New York 1988 pp. 16-17]
Esoteric matters of any kind, even if they were disreputable, have
always been treated confidentially. This has always been so, down
through the ages.
[Steiner, 1922, CT-2 p. 47]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:14:42 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "Jewry"
D L asked:
)Curious.......are you implying that Zionism is a religion?
No, quite the contrary. I was teasing Tarjei for confusing Judaism with
Zionism. But maybe you could ask him the same question, since he doesn't
seem disposed to answer my queries on the matter.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:16:04 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Tarjei thinks he is
)Calling Peter's Bluff:
and expands on this theme:
)Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of a
)lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever
)provided a source or rererence to this forgery of yours.
I think you're off your rocker, Tarjei. Steiner gave the lecture in June
1910 in Oslo, exactly as I wrote in my opening paragraph. Can you tell us
why you think this is a "forgery"?
)This is
)nothing less than con artistry on your behalf. If the opposite is
)indeed the case, please provide adequate documentation and referenes
)to this non-existent lecture.
Waage himself refers to it in the piece you translated (though he seems to
think that the book Steiner published eight years later is an unedited
transcript of the 1910 lecture series, which it isn't). You could just check
that book yourself; the editors give the dates of the original lectures.
)This "opening device" of yours is not just an in ordinary
)introduction to "Steiner's terminology" like you untruthfully claim
)it is. It alleges and "describes" speculatively invented happenings
)in time and space that are blank lies in every meaning of the word.
What "happenings" did I describe?
)Abe Lincoln should have taught you that you can't fool all the people
)all the time. Take a close look at Sune's page at
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm
)
)Sune did not only publish his three parts' article on his website,
)but he referred to it many times on this list before he was
)unsubscribed for calling you a known liar.
Yes, and I answered all of his posts at the time. (Sune, unsurprisingly, did
not see fit to add links to my responses in his website version.) You could
go look up my reply on this list from 5/1/01. But I don't think you
understood Sune's point. He charges me with misunderstanding and
misrepresenting the lecture, not with fabricating it.
)You know even better than I do that the lecture you have invented was
)never held by RS.
No, I don't know that. If you're trying to say that you read Steiner's
lectures on "national souls" differently, this is an odd way of going about
it.
)It does not help to argue _as though_ it really
)existed as long as you cannot provide a single reference source -
)along with exact date and title - to corroborate your bluff.
What kind of source would you like, if the published version isn't good
enough for you?
)There is _no_ "published version of the lecture". None. You even said
)so yourself.
Yes, there is. Read again what I wrote:
)Monday 10 September, you wrote:
)
)*************************************************
)
)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.
)
)*************************************************
)
)Tarjei:
)
)How about that? Now you're talking about a public version of a
)non-existent lecture that you yourself has said was never published!
I said that no *transcript* of the spoken lecture has been published. The
book that Steiner published (now GA 121) is, of course, based on the
original lectures. This is what the rest of us mean when we refer to the
published version of the lectures.
))The sole discrepancy is the word "sub-race".
)
)Tarjei:
)
)Gibberish and fabrication. Sune has scanned and published the entire
)lecture cycle at
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm,
That would be the published version. Get it? Sune took this straight from
the English version of the book.
)and on his aforementioned page he demonstrates clearly and
)unequivocally that the invented "lecture" from this cycle is proven
)to be a lie.
No, he demonstrates that his understanding of the content is very different
from mine. What exactly is it that you think is a "lie" here?
)Very simply: In his introduction - or "opening device" if you prefer
)- Sune describes some of the most elementary criteria for "historical
)scholarship" at
)
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
That isn't a response to my question. I asked how *you* could distinguish
scholarship from fraud. I think Sune, unlike you, is frequently capable of
making this distinction. His general comments on the elementary criteria for
scholarship, however, are quite naive. No historian tries to tell "the whole
truth", for example, or even believes that such a thing is possible.
)You are constantly referring to your own work as "scholarship" in the
)academic sense, but on this page, Sune demonstrates with many
)examples why your work does not meet these standards.
No, all he does is go on and on about how nice and wonderful Steiner's ideas
on "national souls" are. His arguments about my article are mostly foolish,
as anyone who compares my brief description of the 1910 lecture with the
book version can see. Could you explain what any of this has to do with
"fabrication" etc etc?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:26:58 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Peter Z's ignorance
Peter Z obviously hasn't followed the discussion between Sune and
Peter S about the RS lecture cycle on folk souls in Oslo.
From this position of ignorance, he proceeds to write a confused post
about what he doesn't know, and so he writes:
)Peter clearly gives the title: "Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im
)Zusammenhang mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie" (The Mission of
)Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic
)Mythology).
Peter Z is not referring to the lecture in question here, but to the
cycle published at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm
(with kind permission from Rudolf Steiner Press). This cycle bears
the title that he cites above.
Peter S has been babbling about a non-existence lecture that is not
in this cycle. In this connection, Sune was unsubscribed for calling
a spade a spade.
Sometimes it's a good idea to read before you post.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:02:29 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Peter Z's ignorance
Mr. Straume,
So please tell me as clearly as possible which lecture Peter
Staudenmaier "invented" according to you? I have to admit that I
sometimes get a bit confused with all the references and
crossreferences you are bringing up all the time. I guess I am not
the only one who has trouble following your "reasoning." You are able
to turn a simple question into an esoteric experience and
philological puzzle. Please try to be clear for a change, especially
when you start to accuse someone of dishonesty.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:03:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
I wrote:
))Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of a
))lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever
))provided a source or rererence to this forgery of yours.
Peter S:
)I think you're off your rocker, Tarjei. Steiner gave the lecture in
)June 1910 in Oslo, exactly as I wrote in my opening paragraph. Can
)you tell us why you think this is a "forgery"?
You're talking about and describing a lecture that is not in the
cycle on folk souls that he held for members in Christiania (Oslo)
and that are published in full at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm.
In the lecture you're talking about, RS is allegedly telling a large
public audience that the Aryan race is the *superior* root-race. You
are ascribing to RS things he has never said, and when confronted
with this, you talk about an unpublished lecture without a title that
is not included in the cycle. Hello?
Sune has tried to locate this mysterious public lecture of yours, but
it does not exist, and there is no record of it ever having been
held. In other words, it's your invention as a ploy to legitimize
your outrageous article.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:38:01 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of a
) lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever
) provided a source or rererence to this forgery of yours.
the quote
'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. The lecture was titled "The
Mission of Individual European National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic
Mythology." In the Oslo lecture
and throughout his Norwegian tour
Steiner presented his theory of
"national souls" (Volksseelen in
German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid
particular attention to the
mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit.
"The "national souls" of Northern and
Central Europe were, Steiner
explained, components of the
"germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's
most spiritually advanced ethnic
group, which was in turn the vanguard of
the highest of five historical "root
races." This superior fifth root race,
Steiner told his Oslo audience, was
naturally the "Aryan race."
Tarjei I am very surprised at your argument. You are questioning
whether or not this lecture actually happened yet the content of this
quote is widely documented as Steiner's philosophy of national souls,
the Aryan race, and his racist theories of root races. All of this *is*
unquestionably documented in other lectures and books.
I could see making a big issue of this if it was not already proven to
be Steiner's belief. Are you just into wasting time, or are you
attempting to deny what Steiner believed?
At least occasionally, I would hope that you and Sune should pull your
heads out of the sands of Anthroposophy. This is a stupid argument that
makes no difference.
Newpaul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 20:53:02 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Tarjei writes:
)You're talking about and describing a lecture that is not in the
)cycle on folk souls that he held for members in Christiania (Oslo)
)and that are published in full at
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm.
)
)In the lecture you're talking about, RS is allegedly telling a large
)public audience that the Aryan race is the *superior* root-race. You
)are ascribing to RS things he has never said, and when confronted
)with this, you talk about an unpublished lecture without a title that
)is not included in the cycle. Hello?
Hello, Tarjei. The lecture is included, in revised form, at the site you
point to above. It's chapter six in the book version, based on Steiner's
lecture of June 12, 1910. In the English edition, that's roughly pages
90-110 or so. If you disagree that Steiner here designates the "Aryans" as
superior to the other "root races" he describes, then by all means present
an argument to that effect. It's childish to pretend that the lecture
doesn't exist if all you mean is that you read its content differently.
)Sune has tried to locate this mysterious public lecture of yours, but
)it does not exist, and there is no record of it ever having been
)held. In other words, it's your invention as a ploy to legitimize
)your outrageous article.
If Sune really is trying to "locate" it, he's not looking very hard, since
he scanned the book in himself. Why does this strike you as "mysterious"?
Last I heard from him, Sune simply insisted that my interpretation of
Steiner's Aryan supremacism was incorrect, not that the whole lecture was an
invention of mine (though Sune at one point also claimed that Steiner
doesn't use the terms "root race" and "Aryan" in this chapter, which is
obviously untrue). If you find his interpretation of this text more
persuasive than mine, I encourage you to tell us why. If not, then what
exactly are you talking about?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:07:29 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Liz, you wrote,
)You are equating not pushing reading to Waldorf. The fact is that most
)early childhood education experts today know that early reading is not a
)requirement for later literacy.
Certainly some do, but most?
)And that children that are pushed are
)often likely to hate reading and that defeats the purpose.
This is often said but have you evidence for it?
)Whereas I agree with people who criticize public Waldorf schools on the
)basis of its foundation in Anthroposophy, I am worried at how some
)critics think that just because Waldorf Schools do it it must be bad.
Granted, they screw up some things so thoroughly it's hard to see the
good. But I'm sure there are some things they do well. I wish some
serious study would be given to Waldorf.
)I am very much in favor of public schools that do not push reading and
)provide an arts based education along the lines that Waldorf schools
)promote themselves as. But without the holy stuff please.
Amen on the holy stuff, anyway. Debra can tell you about a very good
arts-based charter in her neighborhood.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:11:22 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Z's ignorance
Tarjei writes:
)Peter Z obviously hasn't followed the discussion between Sune and
)Peter S about the RS lecture cycle on folk souls in Oslo.
I don't think Peter Z. was on the list last May, when this exchange took
place. Come to think of it, neither was Tarjei. In any case it's Tarjei who
is confused here; he keeps getting both Sune's and my positions wrong. My
position was, and is, that even the published version of Steiner's lecture
cycle on "national souls" supports my sketch, with the sole exception of the
term "sub-race". If Tarjei would like to take issue with this position, I
invite him to do so.
))Peter clearly gives the title: "Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im
))Zusammenhang mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie" (The Mission of
))Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic
))Mythology).
)
)Peter Z is not referring to the lecture in question here, but to the
)cycle published at
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm
)(with kind permission from Rudolf Steiner Press). This cycle bears
)the title that he cites above.
Yes, this is the published version.
)Peter S has been babbling about a non-existence lecture that is not
)in this cycle. In this connection, Sune was unsubscribed for calling
)a spade a spade.
This is silliness. I don't agree with Sune's reading of the text, which is
based on the lecture, but that doesn't compel me to claim that Sune invented
a lecture that Steiner never gave.
)Sometimes it's a good idea to read before you post.
Agreed. I recommend that Tarjei read the book version of this lecture cycle
and then tell us how he thinks my depiction departs from its contents.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:00:37 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Unschooling, etc.
Liz:
)In the circles of alternative schools that I am mostly interested in,
) )however, I am sorry to say that the word "teaching" has aquired so )many
)negative connotations that it is rarely used. The buzzwords that )are
)common are facilitating, modeling, child-led etc. You can see )what I mean
)at any Sudbury school site.
Well, it's semantics then. To me "teaching" includes facilitating, modeling
and all that nice stuff. It doesn't mean ramming information down children's
throats, as it seems to mean in unschooling terms. Good teachers have always
seen themselves as facilitators etc.
)My quible had more to do with Dan's pointing out that there is no
)mention of "teaching" in the brochure. When I or anyone is cooking or
)gardening or swimming or even just walking down the street with my kids
)there is a lot of teaching going on where the adult is the one in the
)role of teacher.
Yeah, I know, unschoolers think education is happening just by having your
kids hang around while you cook, shop, or hang out at the pool. Personally I
don't buy it. I have a definite strong sympathy with homeschooling (in fact
I'm considering it), but I think the "unschoolers" are kidding themselves.
Yes, your kids can learn measurement while you're cooking, or changing the
oil in your car, whatever. You can teach your kids a lot of useful life
skills, for sure. I don't get how you learn Latin grammar this way, or
trigonometry, or European history. I don't buy it that every kid will piece
together a well-rounded curriculum for themselves without any guidance, just
making a weekly trip to the library or something. I suppose some probably
do.
I wrote:
)Unschooling and Waldorf are *not* similar in any way.
Liz:
)I disagree. As I have said before I was unschooled and I did almost
)everything on the Waldorf curriculum at about the same time that it is
)taught in Waldorf schools and these were things that I found and did )for
)myself.
Reading what you wrote again I can see that there are superficial
similarities - it's just that the philosophy behind them are utterly
different.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:13:33 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Liz wrote:
)You are equating not pushing reading to Waldorf. The fact is that most
)early childhood education experts today know that early reading is not )a
)requirement for later literacy.
We would have to define "early" first. Practically every parent who signs up
for Waldorf agrees that children should not read "early." They assume this
means at 4 or 5. By "early" Steiner meant 7 or 8.
And no, I am not equating it with Waldorf. While I don't believe any other
system is as staunchly flat-out opposed to a small child reading as Waldorf,
I realize there is a trend toward emphasizing play instead of academics in
preschool again. But it's not relevant to my argument. I'd make the same
arguments against such a virulently anti-literacy bias wherever I found it.
)And that children that are pushed are often likely to hate reading )and
)that defeats the purpose.
Where does this idea come from? I suspect that children who hate reading
haven't received good instruction (and this would include the home
influences as well as the school). I really doubt that it would be possible
to trace it to an early age of instruction, rather than the method of
instruction or quality of the teaching. It is more likely that the teacher
did not know how to teach this particular child, and the child develops
unpleasant associations with reading - why should it make a difference
whether this happened at age 5, or age 6 or age 7?
I actually think it's a myth, these poor "pushed" children who hate reading.
How come I know so many people who read early and continued to read avidly
for the rest of their lives?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Anthroposophists
--- Peter
) Dear critics,
)
) Whenever I say that I don't agree with one of
) Steiner's statements, I am
) answered by anthroposophists that I can't disagree
) because I don't
) understand what Steiner said. This is deduced from
) the fact that I am
) not an anthroposophist myself.
Dottie
Absolutely not true. I am not an AP and it makes no
difference. You have a completely different world
view. Your posts reflect an unwillingness to even
contemplate the fact that he spoke of things from a
spiritual understanding of the Universe.
Peter
Which leads to the
) impasse of circular
) reasoning: "you don't agree with Steiner because you
) don't understand
) him and therefore you don't agree with his views.
Dottie
Nobody is saying you have to agree with his views. You
must however, as one who is writing on the political
scene at a very devestating time in our world, be able
to decipher the difference from spiritual perceptions
and physical perceptions according to what a speaker
was meaning to convey to his audience. You have not
been able to do so as far as I can see.
Peter
If
) you would
) understand him, you would agree."
Dottie
Where is that quote from? Is that your perception of
what I am saying? If so you are completely wrong. You
do not have to agree with anything RS has said, but
you also can not imply things, that have no bearance
in truth, according to his thoughts and be considered
credible.
Peter
Since according to
) them I don't
) understand him (which actually means that I don't
) understand him the way
) they think I should understand him), everything I
) say about him is based
) on misunderstandings, if not outright lies.
Dottie
I used to think it was possible you were lying. But
now I can't really hold it that way as you have a
completely different world view than RS and other
spiritual teachers.
Peter
Only
) anthroposophists can
) really understand him. Others can't judge Steiner
) and should shut up.
Dottie
Oh please. Now can you really misunderstand me as much
as you seem to misunderstand RS. Anybody can judge RS
but at the very least you must attempt to see if your
judgements are correct or if somehow they may biased.
This is the BIG issue Historians seem to have with
Historical Revisionists; they tend to try and push
their points of view versus being open to the fact
that their studies may not add up in the end to what
they had hoped they would. You it seems are in the
latter box.
Peter
The same attitude is adopted
) by the followers of
) Steiner when they say that all critics are under the
) influence of
) Ahriman or Lucifer (or both?).
Peter,
I would have to say we all are under the influence of
the Luciferic element and also that which is called
the Ahriman element. AP's are definitely not without
those elements in their lives. I believe it is an
impossibility just about.
Peter
) So in the end only anthroposophists know the truth,
) the rest of us is
) "ignorant" or mislead by demonic forces.
Dottie
Oh you are so barking up a funny tree tonight. I have
said you are ignorant when you post something that is
obviously considered positive to spiritual
enlightement yet you mean it as an insult. You seem to
have no understanding. But I imagine that is by
choice. You have made a choice to be an atheist. Okay.
Who cares, not me?
As far as being mislead by demonic forces, please. It
is all good in the end. No worries. Got my word on it.
Peter
Only
) anthroposophists know the
) secrets and the true meaning of all religions,
Dottie
All this judgement of AP's tonight. Kind of
interesting. Who ever said that?
Peter
Others, especially atheists,
) shouldn't give an
) interpretation of Steiner's ideas.
Dottie
Peter, you can not give an credible opinion on
something you are completely opposed to. How can you
intepret something you have no interest in
contemplating. And I imagine it is pretty clear why an
Atheist might not be considered the best resource for
understanding the words of a man considered to be one
of the most enlightened men of his time.
I mean do you think a Christian would be the best
source to explain the thought process/mind set of an
Atheist writer or speaker? Not even a possibility.
Peter
since he is long dead we -
) including our
) anthroposophists - can't really be too sure about
) what he was *trying*
) to say.
Dottie
Peter speak for yourself. AP's have a pretty decent
understanding. I as a Christian have a good
understanding. You personally have taken a different
belief system that is completey opposed to the one RS
was devoted to.
I am very clear about what he is saying and the gist
of it is very similar to what Christ was saying: The
gift is within and love your brother like yourself.
Peter
) Anthroposophists are fighting amongst themselves
) most of the time about
) the true meaning of what Der Doktor said and wrote.
Dottie
See, that is great. Free thinking within the movement,
very cool.
Peter
Each side of
) course claims that the
) people of the other side are not "real"
) anthroposophists.
Dottie
Too bad. There is dogma in any great spiritual
teachers words. It is an unfortunate thing that
happens time and time again.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 512
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Latest Local School Ad...
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Historical revisionism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
Dottie
) )But I must say if one is in a Waldorf school these
) )things are going to be taught or so it seems. It is
) )really up to the parent to take their child out of
) )school they obviously are paying money for if their
) )child feels they are being pushed to believe a
) certain
) )thing.
)
Diana
) A 4-year-old is not going to come home and say,
) "Mom, I'm being pushed to
) believe things I don't agree with." Not most 8- or
) 10-year-olds either.
) Maybe older kids.
Dottie
We were speaking of high school seniors or juniors I
believe. And of course I agree a young student is not
going to come home and say those kinds of things.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Latest Local School Ad...
)
) L:
) Get real, Dottie. That is a very liberal-minded and
) very contemporary
) conclusion: let's get some input from Billy on how
) he thinks his school
) runs.
Dottie
Excuse me L, but we never said anything about Billy
giving input on how his school is run. This
conversation was about the fact that kids may not be
liking what they are taught. Well hello, but it is a
Waldorf school and he is now a senior, if his parents
don't get it by now I'd want to know what is up with
that? However, knowing that many times kids have to go
to the school of their parents choice that's the way
it goes.
L
Commendable, but Billy's opinion does not
) really amount to a hill of
) beans, where cult parents are concerned.
Dottie
Ooops. Okay cult parents? What's that supposed to
mean? I think I have misunderstood your intentions so
I just might bow out right now from this conversation.
L
For
) non-cult parents, it's
) pretty clear how they are treated to a different
) version of the same
) "truth", (an homogenized, pasteurized version,
) replete with 'sins of
) ommission').
Dottie
Yeah, I will bow out right now. Thanks.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:48:30 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 10/2/01 5:51:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
(( Newpaul
But the case can be made that fascists have a predisposition toward
paganism, the occult, and atheism. ))
I disagree entirely. Fascists are fascists whether they are christians, jews,
atheists, pagans, occultists etc (I cannot think of any buddhist fascists
probably for good reason). Numerous crimes against humanity have occured "In
the name of God" throughout history and in our times. People of different
faiths slaughtering each other and declaring all the time that God is on
their side. I can think of very few atheists who are/were fascists compared
to the litany of theists throughout history. Are theists therefore
predisposed to fascism? Is it because atheism is a new arrival and hasn't the
same amount of time to commit the same atrocities? No, morality/amorality is
a human condition whether one is a theist or not.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:42:44 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
Dear Ray,
You wrote: "I cannot think of any buddhist fascists probably for good reason".
You might want to read Brian Victoria's "Zen at War" (Weatherhill,
New York 1997) to get a more realistic image of Buddhism. The book is
about the support of ALL the Japanese Zen-masters (Suzuki a.o.) gave
to the imperialist wars of their nation. Also in Tibet, Myanmar and
Sri Lanka the Buddhists haven't been exactly pacifists. Of course one
could argue if this is Fascism, but I only wanted to point out that
Pacifism and Buddhism don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Best,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:43:41 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
Dear Ray,
You wrote: "I cannot think of any buddhist fascists probably for good reason".
You might want to read Brian Victoria's "Zen at War" (Weatherhill,
New York 1997) to get a more realistic image of Buddhism. The book is
about the support of ALL the Japanese Zen-masters (Suzuki a.o.) gave
to the imperialist wars of their nation. Also in Tibet, Myanmar and
Sri Lanka the Buddhists haven't been exactly pacifists. Of course one
could argue if this is Fascism, but I only wanted to point out that
Pacifism and Buddhism don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Best,
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:30:15 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Historical revisionism
Dottie wrote:
"Anybody can judge RS but at the very least you must attempt to see if
your
judgements are correct or if somehow they may biased. This is the BIG
issue Historians seem to have with Historical Revisionists; *they* tend
to try and push their points of view versus being open to the fact that
their studies may not add up in the end to what they had hoped they
would. You it seems are in the latter box."
I don't quite get what you are trying to say here about "historical
revisionism" (Holocaust deniers). Who is "they"?
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:12:59 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Su:
)
) )It is a secret society, when there are secret communications between
) )sophs and I've seen them.
)
) A secret society is never open for anyone to join. A secret society
) is also often secret, i.e. unknown to the public.
)
) Anyone can join the AS. The only criterion is that one recognizes
) spiritual science as a true and legitimate science. That does not
) make it secret.
)
) --
) Tarjei
Perhaps we should say that it is a secretive society, since aspects of
it are secretive, and hidden from view.
For instance, who decides if you have accepted spiritual science as true
and legitimate?
Why does AS base itself on occult knowledge?
Who sends you your check for several hundred dollars, acknowledging your
good works for the AS?
Why does a person like Eugene Schwartz, who is a very important Anthro
and educator, criticize Waldorf Schools as religious and secretive in
their presentation of the curriculum of the school, and you continue to
deny it?
This points to a secretive society, with a variety of agendas.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:25:06 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
ray fulk wrote:
) In a message dated 10/2/01 5:51:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
) dingman mindspring.com writes:
)
) (( Newpaul
) But the case can be made that fascists have a predisposition toward
) paganism, the occult, and atheism. ))
)
) I disagree entirely. Fascists are fascists whether they are christians,
) jews,
) atheists, pagans, occultists etc (I cannot think of any buddhist
) fascists
) probably for good reason). Numerous crimes against humanity have occured
) "In
) the name of God" throughout history and in our times. People of
) different
) faiths slaughtering each other and declaring all the time that God is on
)
) their side. I can think of very few atheists who are/were fascists
) compared
) to the litany of theists throughout history. Are theists therefore
) predisposed to fascism? Is it because atheism is a new arrival and
) hasn't the
) same amount of time to commit the same atrocities? No,
) morality/amorality is
) a human condition whether one is a theist or not.
)
) Ray
I think it is true that amorality doesn't seem to discriminate or select
one religious preference over another. Even so-called *religious*
persons can commit atrocities and lie and cheat and steal.
But Buddhist fascists are simply not called fascists. Killing is taking
place in Nepal, and other places, and it doesn't necessarily have a
name. Does it have to?
I am sure that taking children whom they declare are reincarnations of
various Buddhist saints and lamas, from their homes, their mothers,
and their families and raising them in lonely monasteries is a form of
abuse of children, and I wouldn't consider it at all the right thing to
do.
The abuse of people abounds in all religions. It is only a matter of
degree, and doesn't need a name.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 513
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Christianity & fascism
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dingman mindspring.com
RE: Unschooling, etc.
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Historical revisionism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Christianity & fascism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: "Jewry"
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Unschooling, etc.
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Unschooling, etc.
By lizanderrol home.com
"mentality" of public school
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Unschooling, etc.
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: "Jewry"
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
By winters_diana hotmail.com
The Jew Man Cometh
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: The Jew Man Cometh
By dottie_z yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:12:18 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Christianity & fascism
Peter Zegers wrote:
) Was Fascism/Nazism a product of Atheism, Paganism, or Occultism? Did
) Germans, Austrians and so many other people stray from the right path of
) Christianity and therefore become Nazis and Fascists?
)
) Historically the relationship between Fascism/Nazism and Christianity
) (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) is rather more complex. If we
) accept Roman Catholicism in our definition of Christianity (which I do)
) it is for example amply documented that the Popes welcomed the fascist
) dictatorships in Italy (Mussolini), Spain (Franco), Croatia (Pavelic),
) and even Germany (see for example John Cornwell, "Hitler's Pope", Saul
) Friedl?nder, "Pie XII et le troisi?me reich").
Newpaul
This is a complicated issue and you and I see it from different points
of view. You are a historian and scholar who searches through the
tapestry of historical evidence, sociological forces, economic and
cultural influences etc. There is much you have gleaned and my views
are undoubtedly an oversimplification to you. I accept that.
I have no footnotes, notations, or quotes to supply, but I have read
about Dietrick Bonhoffer the German evangelist who intentionally put
himself in harms way to rally a Christian response to the Nazis. One by
one, the churches withdrew their support yet he single-handedly continued
the resistance until arrested and placed in a death camp. There he
evangelized those
who wished to receive Christ and worked tirelessly until martyred by
the Nazis for his Christian beliefs.
As I recall, Bonhoffer observed that the churches began preaching a
sympathetic message they thought the congregations wanted to hear. It
no longer came with the conviction and absolutes from the Word of God.
They were in
effect, not motivated by serving God but in catering to the approval of
their congregations. Even today, there remain many weak churches who
refuse to trust the bible as the word of God and only preach what they
believe their members want to hear.
My take - the Nazis succeeded significantly because these weak churches
failed to stand on the word of God. This is not a gray area for an
evangelical christian. The churches should have been outspoken and
willing to risk taking a stand. I am sure they were unable to realize
the consequences of their inaction,
Peter Zegers
) Whatever Hitler's personal beliefs (I don't think he was an atheist), he
) was very pragmatic in his policy towards the churches. Not all Nazis
) were Pagans or Occultists by the way. Many of them were in favor of an
) "Aryan" or "German Christendom". The difference between the two strains
) (Pagan/Occultist and Aryan-Christian) in Nazism is sometimes very hard
) to define
Newpaul
My point in my simplified view, is that Anthroposophy, Nazism, and
Fascism, and Occultism, share a common relationship with the absolutes of
Judeo-Christian beliefs. They seek to operate outside of biblical
absolutes, yet they do not want to appear to be at odds with
Christianity. They replace the authority of God and his word with a
self referential authority. I find this particularly evident in
Anthroposophy. Of course Steiner's solution to being at odds with God's
word was to interpret the "esoteric hidden meanings" of all of the
gospels even to the formulation of a 5th Gospel written by himself,
suggesting to
his gullible followers that they could not know Jesus unless they first
understood the Mystery of Golgotha by becoming his followers. The
attempt by
Waldorf Schools and Anthroposophists to call themselves Christ
influenced is as much a deception as the fascist who goes to church on
Sunday. Both refuse to accept what they claim to believe in. Since I
have a Christian world view, my thoughts may appear over simplified to a
scholar like yourself. But it is just a result of top down thinking
rather than bottom up.
I appreciate your work and your presence on this list.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:39:26 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
ray fulk wrote:
)
) In a message dated 10/2/01 5:51:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
) dingman mindspring.com writes:
)
) (( Newpaul
) But the case can be made that fascists have a predisposition toward
) paganism, the occult, and atheism. ))
)
) I disagree entirely. Fascists are fascists whether they are christians, jews,
) atheists, pagans, occultists etc (I cannot think of any buddhist fascists
) probably for good reason). Numerous crimes against humanity have occured "In
) the name of God" throughout history and in our times. People of different
) faiths slaughtering each other and declaring all the time that God is on
) their side. I can think of very few atheists who are/were fascists compared
) to the litany of theists throughout history. Are theists therefore
) predisposed to fascism? Is it because atheism is a new arrival and hasn't the
) same amount of time to commit the same atrocities? No, morality/amorality is
) a human condition whether one is a theist or not.
)
Newpaul
Are you saying that man is inherently good and able to establish moral
standards of behavior without the divine influence of God? I will agree
that there have been periodic abuses by religious people, but the
evidence points to the fact that man's nature is evil and amoral and the
moral basis for our laws and behavior come from divine influence.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 06:53:46 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Unschooling, etc.
Diana:
) ... I don't get how you learn Latin grammar
) this way, or
) trigonometry, or European history.
I learned all of these things. I have yet to find a use for the first
two.
Now cooking....
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 06:58:43 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) )early childhood education experts today know that early
) reading is not a
) )requirement for later literacy.
)
) Certainly some do, but most?
My Mom was a Kindergarten teacher at the Munich International School, a
fancy private school, that likes to consider itself on the forefront of
education research. She keeps up with developments in the field of
early childhood education not only in the US but in England and Europe
as well. I trust her judgement regarding these things. So lets just
leave it at most 'good' child development experts.
) )And that children that are pushed are
) )often likely to hate reading and that defeats the purpose.
)
) This is often said but have you evidence for it?
No evidence other than myself and how I felt about anything anyone ever
pushed me to do against my will. Not very scientific.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
Dottie
) "Anybody can judge RS but at the very least you must
) attempt to see if
) your
) judgements are correct or if somehow they may
) biased. This is the BIG
) issue Historians seem to have with Historical
) Revisionists; *they* tend
) to try and push their points of view versus being
) open to the fact that
) their studies may not add up in the end to what they
) had hoped they
) would. You it seems are in the latter box."
)
Peter
) I don't quite get what you are trying to say here
) about "historical
) revisionism" (Holocaust deniers). Who is "they"?
)
Dottie
Peter, when Mr. Staudenmaier was here during my first
foray into this site he was claimed as a Historian.
Mr. Staudenmaier then declared that he was actually
not a Historian at all. Someone else mentioned the
fact that he was a Historical Revisionist and I went
onto the web searching for the meaning of that word.
What I found was something I considered to be along
the lines of how I viewed Mr. Staudenmaiers paper.
So the *they* pertains to a person researching History
with a preset judgement of what the outcome will be of
their study. Historical Revisionists or so it is
claimed have a inclination towards their own written
words versus the open ended truth of a certain thing.
They are searching for the truth in regards to their
perception of a thing clouded with their world view
which colors their findings.
And that is how I view your responses and that of Mr.
Staudenmairs papers.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su
) The abuse of people abounds in all religions.
Dottie
And in all of humanity. Religious or non religious it
makes no difference. And it is not just killing that
is abuse. I would imagine that there are no one group
left out of the killing fields.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Christianity & fascism
---) Newpaul
) This is a complicated issue and you and I see it
) from different points
) of view. You are a historian and scholar who
) searches through the
) tapestry of historical evidence, sociological
) forces, economic and
) cultural influences etc.
Dottie
Is Mr. Zegers a Historian? He may be and I have not
seen that posted on this list. But I would imagine
that I take issue with he or Mr. Staudenmaier being
put forth as a Historian as much as critics here take
issue with RS being put forth with the Scientist
label.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:34:12 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "Jewry"
)D L asked:
)
))Curious.......are you implying that Zionism is a religion?
)
)No, quite the contrary. I was teasing Tarjei for confusing Judaism with
)Zionism. But maybe you could ask him the same question, since he doesn't
)seem disposed to answer my queries on the matter.
)
)Peter S.
)
Peter - thanks for the clarification. Had me wondering there for a minute.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:51:39 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Historical revisionism
Dottie:
) So the *they* pertains to a person researching History
) with a preset judgement of what the outcome will be of
) their study. Historical Revisionists or so it is
) claimed have a inclination towards their own written
) words versus the open ended truth of a certain thing.
) They are searching for the truth in regards to their
) perception of a thing clouded with their world view
) which colors their findings.
)
) And that is how I view your responses and that of Mr.
) Staudenmairs papers.
Okay, that is clear now (didn't you say this once before?). Of course
I don't agree, but there is simply no common ground for reaching
agreement an anything between us. I emphasize historical research to
back up statements, I refer to studies on the subjects I discuss. The
only thing you keep replying ad nauseam is that Peter and I can't
understand people with a "spiritual understanding" (whatever that may
be). Where are the studies on which you base your assessments? How
can you be so sure about the truth, if you never bothered to do any
research of your own? Occultism hasn't been researched very much at
all by historians so far, it is a very fresh field. Of course one has
to be careful when entering new territories. And there is an
incredible amount of rumors, gossip, conspiracism, secrecy and
disinformation in the history of the occult. There are few reliable
studies. So how can you accuse us of "historical revisionism" (which
in its most generic meaning means challenging e!
stablished visions of a certain era in history, but nowadays is
mostly used for those frauds and pseudo-historians who deny that the
Holocaust took place) when there is no established vision among
historians in the first place. Please challenge our views, you are
more than welcome to do so. But give us a possibility to reply. You
seem to take your own point of view for granted (a spiritual
understanding gives access to the truth without having to bother with
evidence and so on). We have a less privileged position in this
"debate", and are treated as liars by you time after time.
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:30:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Unschooling, etc.
I wrote:
)... I don't get how you learn Latin grammar this way, or )trigonometry, or
)European history.
Liz:
)I learned all of these things. I have yet to find a use for the first
)two.
Two things: With all due respect, Liz, you are a sample of one. I guess I
take a sort of "public health" view of education (thinking of the analogy to
the vaccination question) - there is actually a reason for people to have a
common background of understanding their history and culture etc. - that it
is a bad sign when everybody figures they should do their own thing, and
attend to only what interests them personally. (I'm assuming that it is
obvious that many if not most kids, left to their own devices, are not going
to pick up a Latin grammar book.)
As for whether Latin grammar or trigonometry have uses, well, we have very,
very different views of what education is for if you have found these things
to be useless in your life. I know I'm an oddball. I thought trigonometry
was pretty cool (calculus is way over my head - as soon as they started
talking about the slope of a curve, they lost me). :) No, you don't apply
these things literally in your daily life, like cooking, but they certainly
expand your mind. I would *never* have cracked a trigonometry textbook if I
hadn't been required to.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:45:28 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Unschooling, etc.
) Two things: With all due respect, Liz, you are a sample of
) one. I guess I
) take a sort of "public health" view of education (thinking of
) the analogy to
) the vaccination question) - there is actually a reason for
) people to have a
) common background of understanding their history and culture
) etc. - that it
) is a bad sign when everybody figures they should do their own
) thing, and
) attend to only what interests them personally.
This is where we differ. The commonality of understanding such
superficial things as the history that is presented at the school level,
which has still not progressed far beyong names and dates, are not the
important aspects of community. The important aspect of community is
the goodwill a person has for others. I have had wonderful community in
places as diverse as Kuwait, Japan, Australia, Holland, North Africa,
England, Germany and California. The lack of shared schooling did not
affect the connection we found with other people.
One way that kids find community is through such mundane items as
Pokemon cards, soccer, marbles, tv shows, bugs, surfing... whatever they
find in common. Not math, history and latin grammer.
People use the same "public health" view of education to condemn
homeschooling. I could never understand how people can have such
negative views on welfare in America but when it comes to parental
rights to educate their children as they see fit everyone gets all upset
that the poor will suffer. We won't give the poor money for nothing,
but the quality of the lives of our children, that's okay to sacrifice.
The insanity of this mentality is probably due to the indoctrinating
effects of a public school education, which as far as I can see is
mostly there to convince the kids in its clutches that they will not
survive unless they give up their lives for twelve years to the boredom
of school. And don't forget to send your kids there too!
Now I've stepped on a few toes.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:06:48 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: "mentality" of public school
Liz says, in a very passionate and interesting post that touches on a number
of points:
The insanity of this mentality is probably due to the indoctrinating
effects of a public school education, which as far as I can see is
mostly there to convince the kids in its clutches that they will not
survive unless they give up their lives for twelve years to the boredom
of school. And don't forget to send your kids there too!
Lisa here: Liz, I recognize that you are not the only person who feels that
public school -- or, in fact, almost any kind of institutionalized "school"
at all -- is commensurate with ramming useless information down children's
throats, boring them nearly to death, and "indoctrinating" them with names,
dates and other "useless" information.
All I can say is: you did not attend the public schools I went to, nor
the school (non-public, but definitely traditional, college preparatory)
that my two daughters now attend.
As I child, I *loved* school. I liked most of my teachers, and enjoyed
having classmates my own age and stage of development. I welcomed the sense
of accomplishment that came when I tackled something that was difficult for
me (math!) and came through well.
Sure, there were a few boring teachers. But oddly, they do not stick in
my memory. Overall, though, the whole thing was such a good experience that
watching my own two head off each morning gives me a very good feeling,
indeed.
It seems to be the same for both my daughters, now that they are no
longer at a Waldorf school. The older girl, in 6th grade, wants to be
dropped off at school a half hour early, so she can talk to classmates and
work with them on a community service project that is ongoing. The little
one, in first grade, greets most every day as if going to school was as much
fun as a promised trip to the playground.
Frankly, Liz, *any* education at all would be "indoctrinating," if what
you mean by that is that it instills in a child a particular body of
knowledge and approach to that knowledge.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:10:44 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Unschooling, etc.
Liz:
)This is where we differ. The commonality of understanding such
)superficial things as the history that is presented at the school )level,
)which has still not progressed far beyong names and dates, are )not the
)important aspects of community.
Well, you are criticizing what is offered. I agree it is often not adequate,
I guess I haven't quite given up on the ideal.
)The important aspect of community is the goodwill a person has for )others.
) I have had wonderful community in places as diverse as )Kuwait, Japan,
)Australia, Holland, North Africa, England, Germany and )California. The
)lack of shared schooling did not affect the )connection we found with other
)people.
I quite believe you and I don't say schooling is *all* there is to it,
certainly, but arguing that people can find connections other ways, doesn't
argue *against* a value to shared schooling.
I guess I'm arguing we want *more* knowledge of each other, and I'd like to
think this is possible without everyone going off into their corner and
building a wall to protect our children. I wasn't just referring to learning
about our own society, if anything Americans are becoming painfully aware
that we need to know more about what is going on in remote places most of us
couldn't have located on a map a month ago.
)One way that kids find community is through such mundane items as
)Pokemon cards, soccer, marbles, tv shows, bugs, surfing... whatever )they
)find in common. Not math, history and latin grammer.
Sure they relate via common interests, I guess I am thinking of a
longer-term view. Of the value of learning things whose immediate,
let's-have-fun-this-afternoon, value may not be apparent.
)People use the same "public health" view of education to condemn
)homeschooling. I could never understand how people can have such
)negative views on welfare in America but when it comes to parental
)rights to educate their children as they see fit everyone gets all )upset
)that the poor will suffer.
We are probably wandering off-topic here, but I don't think it's irrelevant
that the poor do suffer when public education disintegrates.
)We won't give the poor money for nothing, but the quality of the )lives of
)our children, that's okay to sacrifice.
Well, you're not arguing with me here, because I agree that would be a
contradiction, but I'm not "negative on welfare" in the way you're referring
to. And I would not sacrifice the quality of my son's life, no, I am
seriously leaning toward taking him out of his school this year. The teacher
is doing her heroic best, but the class is huge (30), the student teacher
quit, my son is bored, and as he gets older the kids are tougher (and they
all seem to be bigger than him), and there is so damn much B.S., standing in
line, getting harangued at assemblies, etc.
)The insanity of this mentality is probably due to the indoctrinating
)effects of a public school education, which as far as I can see is
)mostly there to convince the kids in its clutches that they will not
)survive unless they give up their lives for twelve years to the boredom
)of school. And don't forget to send your kids there too!
)Now I've stepped on a few toes.
Mine? Well, I don't think I'm insane, and I'm about the last person you
would consider indoctrinated by the public schools. Or I guess you mean if I
hold out hope for public education, I must have been indoctrinated in public
school myself?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Re: Historical revisionism
--- Peter Z.
I emphasize historical research
) to back up statements, I refer to studies on the
) subjects I discuss. The only thing you keep replying
) ad nauseam is that Peter and I can't understand
) people with a "spiritual understanding" (whatever
) that may be).
Dottie
Peter, it is true this is going in a circle. I am sure
that you can understand people with a spiritual
understanding of things. However the problem lies in
when you try to insert your perception of something
that is said from a spiritual perspective. ie: you
think that because RS says the culture of the Jews
must die out he was saying the Jews themselves must
die out. That is not a true. And that is only one of
the many different things that have been said on this
list that do not add up to what RS was conveying to
people who came to listen to what he had to say.
Peter
Where are the studies on which you
) base your assessments? How can you be so sure about
) the truth, if you never bothered to do any research
) of your own?
Dottie
Why are you assuming that I have not done any
research? I have done plenty of it in regards to RS
and also Martin Luther King and Mary Magdalene. And I
also have a continued research going in relations to
Abraham Lincoln.
Peter
Occultism hasn't been researched very
) much at all by historians so far, it is a very fresh
) field.
and
So how can you accuse us
) of "historical revisionism" (which in its most
) generic meaning means challenging established
) visions of a certain era in history, but nowadays is
) mostly used for those frauds and pseudo-historians
) who deny that the Holocaust took place) when there
) is no established vision among historians in the
) first place.
Dottie
Bingo Bingo Bingo. This is exactly why I have a hard
time with you and Mr. Staudenmaier being called
Historic Revisionists. You are embarking on the study
of a man of occultic nature and your perception of the
'evidence or proof' as stated by both of you can not
be held up as truth. It is impossible given your world
view as an atheist for one thing. You and Mr.
Staudenmaier are trying to convince others from the
dead letter word that RS meant one thing that holds
meaning for you when he actually spoke from a
completely different understanding.
The only part where I can see you beholden to the
label of a historical revisionists is where you and
Mr. Staudenmaier have a pre set determination of where
your study will end up. So therefore it will. No way
around it. And that is unfortunate and what I consider
a complete waste of time, for minds such as yours and
that of Mr. Staudenmaier, as it is clear you both are
very well educated men.
Peter
You seem to take your own
) point of view for granted (a spiritual understanding
) gives access to the truth without having to bother
) with evidence and so on).
Dottie
You do discredit me Mr. Zegers. I am one who must see
it to believe it. I can contemplate a thing but I am
not committed to it unless it becomes self evident for
me in more ways than one.
Peter
We have a less privileged
) position in this "debate", and are treated as liars
) by you time after time.
)
Dottie
Dear Peter, I am not treating you as if you were a
liar. And if that is your perception I will double
check the manner in which I am communicating. It is
not my intent. I realize we have two different world
views and I take that into full consideration. I do
not hold that my world view is better or worse than
yours, just that it is different, and it can affect
the processes in which we develope our understandings
of a thing.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:07:30 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) Diana:
) How come I know so many people who read early and continued to read
avidly for the rest of their lives?
Sarina sez:
Well, that's an easy one, Diana: they most probably read early because
they taught themselves, not because they received instruction.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:18:32 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
How exactly does one teach oneself to read with NO instruction at all?
Curious,
Paula (BTW belated best wishes for your new little guy)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:11:28 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Tarjei:
))You're talking about and describing a lecture that is not in the
))cycle on folk souls that he held for members in Christiania (Oslo)
))and that are published in full at
))http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm.
))
))In the lecture you're talking about, RS is allegedly telling a large
))public audience that the Aryan race is the *superior* root-race. You
))are ascribing to RS things he has never said, and when confronted
))with this, you talk about an unpublished lecture without a title that
))is not included in the cycle. Hello?
Peter S:
)Hello, Tarjei. The lecture is included, in revised form, at the site
)you point to above. It's chapter six in the book version, based on
)Steiner's lecture of June 12, 1910. In the English edition, that's
)roughly pages 90-110 or so. If you disagree that Steiner here
)designates the "Aryans" as superior to the other "root races" he
)describes, then by all means present an argument to that effect.
)It's childish to pretend that the lecture doesn't exist if all you
)mean is that you read its content differently.
Tarjei:
Here is the passage about Aryans in that lecture
(http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits-6.htm):
****************************************
RS:
You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people
and its mission. In a profound occult sense the Biblical writer was
able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this people his own. If
you add to this the fact that Jahve cooperated with the Mars Spirits
who worked principally in the blood, you will understand why racial
continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to
the Semitic Hebrew people and why Jahve describes Himself as the God
who is present in the blood of the generations, in the blood of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When he declared himself to be the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He proclaimed that He was present in the
blood-stream of the Patriarchs. Whatsoever works in the blood,
whatsoever must be determined through the blood - the cooperation
with the Mars Spirits - that is one of the mysteries which give us a
deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind.
The blood of mankind is thus subject to a twofold influence; two
races emerge, the Mongolian race and the Semitic race. This points to
the existence of an important polarity in mankind and we must
emphasize the immense importance of this polarity if we wish to plumb
the depths of the Folk Souls.
We must now turn our attention to the Western centre and trace the
way in which dynamic forces of the Spirits and Beings who are centred
in Jupiter operate in man. These elect to work directly upon the
nervous system via the outer life of the senses. This is the one way.
In the other, the planetary forces work into the sympathetic nervous
system, entering indirectly into the solar plexus through the
respiratory system. Now the Jupiter forces work indirectly through
the sense impressions and from there radiate to those parts of the
central nervous system which are situated in the brain and spinal
cord. Here is the seat of those forces which determine the particular
racial character of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity.
This applies more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor
and Europe whom we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these
peoples the modification of the generic character which stems from
the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence upon
the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as Jupiter
Spirits. The Caucasians therefore are determined through the senses.
Now you will also understand why a people like the Greeks who were
consciously under the special influence of Jupiter or Zeus and who
felt themselves to be a focal point for the Zeus influence, were
predominantly determined by what flows into the nervous system via
the senses. The Greeks, of course, were also influenced by the forces
of the Elohim which stream in from the Sun. But the Greeks dedicated
everything that acts upon the senses to the service of Jupiter or
Zeus and so achieved greatness. To them all external forms, all forms
of external life were imbued with deeper meaning. They perceived the
spiritual in the physical and hence became the chief exponents of
sculpture and architectonic forms.
We have here indicated the very special mission of the Greek people
who are so preeminently the people of Jupiter or Zeus. Even at the
time when, especially under the influence of the new planetary
constellation, the cooperation of the Jupiter or Zeus forces with the
universal Elohim forces took place, they felt themselves to be the
people of Zeus.
All the peoples of South-West Asia, and especially the European
peoples are, on the whole, modifications of this Jupiter influence
and you can well imagine that as man has many senses, many
modifications are possible and that in the formation of the
individual peoples within this main race, peoples who were formed by
the influence of the senses upon the nervous system, one or other of
the senses may predominate.
Consequently the various peoples may assume the most diverse forms.
According as the eye or the ear or one of the other senses
predominates, so will the different peoples respond in this or that
way to the particular national tendency within the racial character.
In consequence of this they are faced with quite specific tasks. The
particular task of the Caucasian race is to find the way to the
spirit through the senses, for this race is orientated chiefly
towards the sense-world.
Here is disclosed something that introduces us to the deeper secrets
of occultism; it shows how, in those peoples who are subject to the
Venus forces, the initial steps in development, even in occult
development, must be concentrated on the respiratory system. Amongst
the peoples living more in the Western Hemisphere, on the other hand,
the initial steps must start from an enrichment and a
spiritualization of the life of the senses. This is experienced by
those peoples inhabiting countries more towards the West in their
stages of higher cognition, in Imagination, Inspiration and
Intuition, in so far as the Jupiter Spirit originally modified the
character.
*****************************************************************
Tarjei:
Nowhere does RS say that the Aryans are superior to Semites or any
other groups. In spite of this, you write in your "opening device" in
the article:
*****************************************************************
Peter S:
This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was
naturally the "Aryan race."
*****************************************************************
Tarjei:
Steiner told his Oslo audience no such thing. In other words, this is
a blatant lie.
Tarjei:
))Sune has tried to locate this mysterious public lecture of yours, but
))it does not exist, and there is no record of it ever having been
))held. In other words, it's your invention as a ploy to legitimize
))your outrageous article.
Peter S:
)If Sune really is trying to "locate" it, he's not looking very hard,
)since he scanned the book in himself. Why does this strike you as
)"mysterious"?
Tarjei:
RS actually looked through and corrected the lectures he held in Oslo
in 1910 for publication in 1918 (which he rarely did). Thus the book
version will probably differ here and there from the lectures. Of
course the uncorrected version was never published.
Do you have the uncorrected version, and if so, where did you get it?
You seem to have been confused about this, because you indicated that
Waage didn't know what he was writing about when he alluded to the
1918 edited publication.
But you have said that there should exist ONE SPECIAL lecture,
constituting the FIRST LECTURE OF A LECTURE TOUR OF NORWAY, that
should correspond to what you write about it as introduction to your
article 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' SEPARATE from the published
lecture series.
No one lecture in the PUBLISHED series in itself covers the ground
that your alleged lecture does.
The question is, did RS during the ACTUAL lecture series talk about
and explicitly mention 'Root races', 'sub-races', the superiority of
a 'German sub-race' in the way you indicate?
Everything in the published lecture series speaks against something
in that direction being the case. Has one or more 'anthroposophists'
SOMEWHERE written something in that direction that might the
'anthroposophical' source or sources for what you write and that you
point to without _specifically_ mentioning and _naming_?
The obvious conclusion is:
1. Either you have _completely_ made up the story you present. In the
discussion of it on this list, you once asked that Sune did not take
it into account when judging your article.
It points to that you are aware of the extremely loose ground for
what you write about the lecture series and that you have made up
your fake description of it almost exclusively based on the
(incorrect) title of the lecture series found in Hans M?ndl (p. 9),
Vom Geist des Nordens and some very loose skimming of what M?ndl
writes
(http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm).
It also indicates that very much the same very loose reading might be
the basis for your judging and arguing that the articles in GA 31 and
32 should be 'pan-Germanic' in an implied political sense.
2. Or you have mainly based it on what Peter Bierl writes 1999 in his book.
3. Or your description of the lecture series is actually based on
some description of them by some pan-Germanic oriented
'anthroposophical' author.
There also of course may be other possibilities. But unless you can
produce some hard evidence for your claim about what RS said about
the "superior Aryan race" to his listeners in Oslo, your lie is a
proven, established fact.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:12:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su:
)Perhaps we should say that it is a secretive society, since aspects of
)it are secretive, and hidden from view.
I guess if someone closes the door when going to the toilet, it
qualifies as secrecy.
)For instance, who decides if you have accepted spiritual science as true
)and legitimate?
They take your word for it. (I was a member thirteen years ago.)
)Why does AS base itself on occult knowledge?
The AS was established to make public knowledge that had hitherto
been kept secret. That is why it has been an open society from the
start.
The first serious opposition against RS began with people who wanted
to keep those things secret, and who resented his openness.
)Who sends you your check for several hundred dollars, acknowledging your
)good works for the AS?
A free and voluntary organization consisting of anthroposophists.
Anyone is free to establish any anthroposophy-inspired initiative or
organization. AP membership is not a requirement.
--
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, 3 Oct 2001 21:13:07 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: "Jewry"
)D L asked:
)
))Curious.......are you implying that Zionism is a religion?
)
)No, quite the contrary. I was teasing Tarjei for confusing Judaism
)with Zionism. But maybe you could ask him the same question, since
)he doesn't seem disposed to answer my queries on the matter.
)
)Peter S.
I don't have time for games. Tease someone else.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:57:01 GMT
From: "Peter Zegers"(peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
Dottie:
You wrote:
) However the problem lies in
) when you try to insert your perception of something
) that is said from a spiritual perspective. ie: you
) think that because RS says the culture of the Jews
) must die out he was saying the Jews themselves must
) die out.
Please send me a quote from my writings which states this loud and
unequivocally. Are you sure you didn't misinterpret the meaning of my
words? For the sake of the debate, please send me a quote! Or at
least a reference!
Peter Zegers
-----------------------------------------------
Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.no
Online epost-applikasjon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
) Dottie:
)
) ) However the problem lies in
) ) when you try to insert your perception of
) something
) ) that is said from a spiritual perspective. ie: you
) ) think that because RS says the culture of the Jews
) ) must die out he was saying the Jews themselves
) must
) ) die out.
)
Peter Z.
) Please send me a quote from my writings which states
) this loud and unequivocally. Are you sure you didn't
) misinterpret the meaning of my words? For the sake
) of the debate, please send me a quote! Or at least a
) reference!
)
Dottie
Okay from Sept 28th
Peter Z. " According to Steiner, the Jews had two
historical missions: the developement of montheism and
"the preparation of the physical reincarnation of the
Son of God." Since they have already fufilled these
missions, they no longer have justification for
existance from Steiners viewpoint."
End quote.
Okay and by the way, what do you mean by " the
***reincarnation of the Son of God?"
So here is one such quote where I have understood you
to understand RS as advocating the end of the life of
Jews. Which parlays into the logical conclusion that,
if you and Staudenmaier are writing papers that say RS
has advocated a state as such that Hitler agreed with,
he is at least an accomplice, wittinly or unwittingly,
to Hitlers activities.
So it appears from the above paragraph from one of
your posts that you believe RS believed the Jew man
should die out. If that is not what you meant to
convey could you please explain yourself.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:43:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
At 7:04 PM -0400 9/30/01, Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)Sunday Sept 30...
)
)http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/4-15/featurestory1.shtml
This article was actually published April 15, 2001, and was posted to
waldorf-critics then by Gary. When it was found again 9/30 it looked
new because the date on the page it's posted on is changed to the
current date every day, and there's no publication date in the
article. It was worth discussing again, anyway.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:04:48 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Tarjei writes:
)Nowhere does RS say that the Aryans are superior to Semites or any
)other groups. Steiner told his Oslo audience no such thing. In other words,
)this is
)a blatant lie.
No, it's an interpretation. Could you please learn the difference so we can
have a meaningful discussion about this?
)RS actually looked through and corrected the lectures he held in Oslo
)in 1910 for publication in 1918 (which he rarely did). Thus the book
)version will probably differ here and there from the lectures. Of
)course the uncorrected version was never published.
Precisely. Why did you dispute this yesterday?
)Do you have the uncorrected version,
No, of course not. Why don't you go back and read the exchange between Sune
and me. It will all seem much less "mysterious" to you then.
)You seem to have been confused about this, because you indicated that
)Waage didn't know what he was writing about when he alluded to the
)1918 edited publication.
When did I indicate this?
)But you have said that there should exist ONE SPECIAL lecture,
)constituting the FIRST LECTURE OF A LECTURE TOUR OF NORWAY, that
)should correspond to what you write about it as introduction to your
)article 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' SEPARATE from the published
)lecture series.
The spoken lectures are distinct from the published version, as you
recognize above.
)No one lecture in the PUBLISHED series in itself covers the ground
)that your alleged lecture does.
)
)The question is, did RS during the ACTUAL lecture series talk about
)and explicitly mention 'Root races', 'sub-races', the superiority of
)a 'German sub-race' in the way you indicate?
Yes, he did, as far as we know, and he does in the book version as well.
)Everything in the published lecture series speaks against something
)in that direction being the case.
No, it doesn't. The book presents an elaborate portrait of racial
stratification, with whites/Europeans/Aryans at the top, and gives special
attention to the superiority of Germans.
)Has one or more 'anthroposophists'
)SOMEWHERE written something in that direction that might the
)'anthroposophical' source or sources for what you write and that you
)point to without _specifically_ mentioning and _naming_?
Aside from Mandl's book, I don't remember what sources I drew on for the
opening paragraph, and I no longer have supporting my notes for the article.
I do know that I spent a good deal of time looking through back issues of
several anthroposophist publications from Switzerland, Germany and the UK (I
pointed to a few of them in my exchange with Sune), and it's possible that I
got my descriptions of the lecture from there. I did not get these
descriptions from anti-anthroposophist literature, as Sune surmises; in fact
I can't recall if Peter Bierl or Oliver Geden even discuss the 1910 lectures
on "national souls". But this is a moot point, since my summary of the
lecture is borne out by the book version.
)The obvious conclusion is:
)
)1. Either you have _completely_ made up the story you present.
What story?
)In the
)discussion of it on this list, you once asked that Sune did not take
)it into account when judging your article.
I don't understand that sentence.
)It points to that you are aware of the extremely loose ground for
)what you write about the lecture series
No, I'm not aware of that.
)and that you have made up
)your fake description of it
It isn't "fake", it's just a reading of the material that you disagree with.
)almost exclusively based on the
)(incorrect) title of the lecture series found in Hans M?ndl (p. 9),
)Vom Geist des Nordens and some very loose skimming of what M?ndl
)writes
Mandl didn't give an "incorrect" title. Why are you having trouble grasping
this?
)It also indicates that very much the same very loose reading might be
)the basis for your judging and arguing that the articles in GA 31 and
)32 should be 'pan-Germanic' in an implied political sense.
No, those articles don't require the same sort of interpretive work as the
1910 lectures. Steiner refers to himself as a pan-Germanist and argues in
very forceful terms for the victory of "the pan-German forces" (Steiner's
term). Why don't you just take a look at the articles yourself?
)2. Or you have mainly based it on what Peter Bierl writes 1999 in his book.
No, I didn't draw on Bierl's book for the opening paragraph. What does Bierl
say about the 1910 lectures?
)3. Or your description of the lecture series is actually based on
)some description of them by some pan-Germanic oriented
)'anthroposophical' author.
Could be, but I don't think so. Why would this be questionable in your eyes?
)There also of course may be other possibilities. But unless you can
)produce some hard evidence for your claim about what RS said about
)the "superior Aryan race" to his listeners in Oslo, your lie is a
)proven, established fact.
The evidence is right there in the book itself, which Sune has helpfully
posted. All interested readers may see for themselves whether my depiction
is supported by this text.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 02:32:15 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
))http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/4-15/featurestory1.shtml
)This article was actually published April 15, 2001, and was posted to
)waldorf-critics then by Gary. When it was found again 9/30 it looked
)new because the date on the page it's posted on is changed to the
)current date every day, and there's no publication date in the
)article. It was worth discussing again, anyway.
Oh criminey, no wonder it all sounded so familiar, it was so familiar it
made me queasy, why do all these people write the same thing?! LOL,
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:24:50 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: The Jew Man Cometh
dottie writes:
)So here is one such quote where I have understood you
)to understand RS as advocating the end of the life of
)Jews. Which parlays into the logical conclusion that,
)if you and Staudenmaier are writing papers that say RS
)has advocated a state as such that Hitler agreed with,
)he is at least an accomplice, wittinly or unwittingly,
)to Hitlers activities.
)
)So it appears from the above paragraph from one of
)your posts that you believe RS believed the Jew man
)should die out. If that is not what you meant to
)convey could you please explain yourself.
From the late nineteenth century onward, German antisemitism divided into
two chief branches. One held that Jewish culture and Jewish ways of life
should completely disappear, such that after several generations there would
be no more Jews left (since they would all have become "Germans"). The other
took an increasingly racialist stance, and held that Jews must be physically
eliminated from German territories, either by expulsion or extermination.
Steiner's positions (during the antisemitic phases of his career; he also
had a phase where he opposed antisemitism) aligned him with the former
tendency, not the latter tendency. This 'cultural' tendency constituted the
mainstream of German antisemitism during Steiner's lifetime.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 02:44:56 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Peter, just briefly noting here that part of why this exchange is getting so
confusing may be that this is actually Sune speaking here, not Tarjei,
although Tarjei is posting it. Maybe you realized this. (The first part of
the post is Tarjei, the quotes below seem to be Sune.)
Diana
"Tarjei":
)Everything in the published lecture series speaks against something
)in that direction being the case.
)Has one or more 'anthroposophists' SOMEWHERE written something in hat
) )direction that might the 'anthroposophical' source or sources for what
) )you write and that you point to without _specifically_ mentioning and
) )_naming_?
)In the discussion of it on this list, you once asked that Sune did not take
)it into account when judging your article.
)It points to that you are aware of the extremely loose ground for
)what you write about the lecture series
)and that you have made up your fake description of it almost )exclusively
)based on the (incorrect) title of the lecture series found )in Hans M?ndl
)(p. 9), Vom Geist des Nordens and some very loose )skimming of what M?ndl
)writes
)It also indicates that very much the same very loose reading might be the
)basis for your judging and arguing that the articles in GA 31 and 32 should
)be 'pan-Germanic' in an implied political sense.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 02:50:00 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
Dottie to Peter Z.:
)you think that because RS says the culture of the Jews must die out he )was
)saying the Jews themselves must die out.
Imagine translating this ridiculous argument to Christians, and you no
longer have any question it is anti-Semitic. Someone says "Christianity"
should die out, and then people quibble about whether this means Christians
(the people) should actually physically die, or it's just their culture and
beliefs that should die, no longer having a place among modern nations, hey
no problem in that case? It would be obvious that this was at best deeply
insulting to Christians and at worst a scary threat. "Spiritual"
explanations would be a joke.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:12:18 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) How exactly does one teach oneself to read with NO instruction at
all?
)
) Curious,
)
) Paula
Beats the heck outta me. Some kids just DO.
Here is an excerpt from an article on the Gifted Development Center
site:
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com
###
ACADEMIC SKILLS
Many gifted children show an intense interest in books at an early
age. (See Table 3.) One parent reported, "at 13 months, she would drag
one of us to read with her and sit fascinated until the whole book was
read." By the time these children were in third or fourth grade,
three-fourths of them continued to be interested in reading, compared
to one-fourth of the average group. Almost half of the parents of the
gifted students describe their children?s interests in reading as
"intense." A mother of a third grader wrote, "She always loved
reading. She likes Poe, Shakespearean quotes, poetry, Shel
Silverstein, Charlotte?s Web, etc." A fourth-grade boy sought out
"Encyclopedia Brown mysteries, anything on Einstein or a composer,
especially Beethoven." Several of the parents of the gifted mentioned
that their children enjoy informational books compared with only one
such reference in the average group.
TABLE 3
INTERESTS SHOWN BY GIFTED AND AVERAGE CHILDREN
Gifted Average
Intense Interest in Books 46% 10%
Interest in Math Games 48% 16%
Interest in Puzzles 91% 64%
Interest in Calculators 36% 13%
Interest in Computers (Not Video games) 90% 47%
Many Talents 16% 3%
Great Number of Interests 74% 50%
Willing to Invest Time in Interests 49% 19%
Significant differences were found in the ages at which gifted
children recognized letters, recognized words, sight read, and sounded
out new words as compared with average children. These differences are
shown in Table 2.
###
What this article doesn't mention specifically is the kids who
apparently learn to read completely on their own, but there are plenty
of resources out there for parents of gifted kids that do mention it.
If you are interested in more info. try
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/
)(BTW belated best wishes for your new little guy)
Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 03:23:34 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Paula:
)How exactly does one teach oneself to read with NO instruction at
)all?
Sarina:
)Beats the heck outta me. Some kids just DO.
Sure some kids do. My neighbor's little boy just started kindergarten and
while he doesn't strike me as an unusually talented child or gifted or
what-have-you, he reads just fine, and definitely nobody has taught him. His
mother is extremely busy and not the type to "push" at all. He was just
interested, and was always asking "What does that say?" Next thing she knew
he was reading - cereal boxes, instructions for games, advertisements. He
isn't some wonder child. He doesn't read A LOT or with intense interest in
anything particular, and he watches *PLENTY* of television. He just got this
figured out and that's that. He can't tie his shoes and he has no loose
teeth! I think a big factor is older siblings - he's the youngest and the
older kids have to study and he wanted to "study" too.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: The Jew Man Cometh
Peter
) From the late nineteenth century onward, German
) antisemitism divided into
) two chief branches. One held that Jewish culture and
) Jewish ways of life
) should completely disappear, such that after several
) generations there would
) be no more Jews left (since they would all have
) become "Germans").
Dottie
Peter, do you understand what you are saying here? A
Jew is born a Jew. Your ignorance in the subject in
which you are studying is just at an all time high.
This is unbelievable coming from someone who is
considered an academic scholar from the critics on
this list.
Peter
The other
) took an increasingly racialist stance, and held that
) Jews must be physically
) eliminated from German territories, either by
) expulsion or extermination.
) Steiner's positions (during the antisemitic phases
) of his career; he also
) had a phase where he opposed antisemitism)
Dottie
Oh my God. So now you have comitted yourself and Mr.
Zegers who has just said I must have misunderstood him
when I said he believed the above statement. He denied
that he said anything that put RS as wanting the Jews
exterminated. Well he only has to look as far as his
writing partner for the quote.
And lets not play the game "I'll give you a point but
I will take one also". I have now lost all respect for
your supposed scholarship. This is really too
incredible that you have played your card so out in
the open. You have been denying that you or Zegers
ever said anything about RS being in collusion with
Hitler yet here you are clearly stating the obvious.
But you know what, I realize I am not the audience you
are writing for. You are writing for those who share a
similar world view that you do or those still sitting
on the fence or have an agrievance with Waldorf.
And if you wanted to make a big splash you absolutely
picked the right man to attack. RS has an impeccable
reputation. He is considered one of the most
enlightened men of his century. So if one wanted to
propel their world view forward then it is obvious you
and Zegers would choose RS. Yeah, pretty obvious.
And then I wonder why the two of you? Who chose the
two of you for this job? Were you two considered to be
the top scholars among the Secular Humanists? If they
were looking for two people who would not get caught
lying due to their flexible vocabulary and way of
twisting words I can see they made a good choice.
Although I must say I do not like lumping Mr. Zegers
in the same bowl as you. There is a difference.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 514
-- Topica Digest --
Mixing up three Peters and a Corinna
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS
exposed)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RS exposed)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Cards On The Table (was 3 Peters)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Phases of Fantasy (was the J...)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: Re:Re: Cult-war in Europe
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RSexposed)
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Historical revisionism
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RSexposed)
By theosopost hotmail.com
What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
By peter_zegers runbox.no
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 00:34:29 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Mixing up three Peters and a Corinna
Dear Dottie,
Thanks for sending me the quote. I now see it is all based on a
misunderstanding. The quote you send me is from an article by Corinna
Poll, "Zero Tolerance for Esoterica" published in the German magazine
"Jungle World" on July 21, 2000. Poll gives a report on the presentation
on Anthroposophy by Peter Bierl. I quote the same passage again:
"Peter Bierl's presentation showed how a specific racism and
anti-Semitism was developed in Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy. At the
core of anthroposophical racism are the teachings of reincarnation,
according to which one has to go through the teachings of the "original
races" to to tread the path of the seven stages of enlightenment.
According to this doctrine, every race has a spiritual mission to
fulfill on earth - once they have done this, only the degenerated being
remains. Steiner asserted that the "Aryan original race" came from the
legendary continent of Atlantis which allegedly founded all high
culture. The basis for anthroposophical anti-Semitism is supposed to be
Christian anti-Semitism: according to Steiner, the Jews had two
historical missions: the development of monotheism and "the preparation
of the physical vessel for the reincarnation of the Son of God." Since
they have already fulfilled these missions, they no longer have
justification for existence from Steiner's viewpoint."
http://cisar.org/000721d.htm (Peter Zegers: The "mission" of the Jews,
September 28, 2001)
So you see, you are not actually quoting me, but a report by Corinna
Poll of a longer presentation by Peter Bierl. This makes it a bit hard
for me to comment on your interpretation of the quote (I didn't write
it, I haven't read the whole presentation, I wasn't present in Munich
when the presentation was held). But I still don't quite understand how
you came to your interpretation that Bierl would equate Steiner and the
nazis here. Bierl is quoting Steiner by the way when he mentions "the
preparation of the physical vessel for the reincarnation of the Son of
God." So you could better ask the anthro's for a "spiritual
understanding" of this. Mr. Straume seems to have some ideas on this
issue. I quote: "According to RS, the aim and purpose of the Hebrew race
was to prepare a bodily vehicle for Christ's incarnation. For this
reason, the most highly developed race on earth had to evolve: The Jews.
This is why so much emphasis is placed on the genealogy of Christ in the
Old Testament. Among the Hebrew sages, seers, patriarchs, incarnated the
greatest leading souls from every civilization in existence. This made
the Jews the most gifted and advanced people on the earth, and we still
see evidence of this today. (Much anti-Semitism is, I believe, caused by
envy of their skills and talents.)"
RS' take on Hewbrew lore can be found in "Genesis - Secrets of the
Bible Story of Creation" (ten lectures given in Munich 17-26 August
1910). The first lecture is available online at
Tarjei Straume, Hebrew culture in the light of Anthroposophy, September
28, 2001.
Here is a quote from Steiner himself on the Jews:
"Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more
justification within the modern life peoples, and the fact that it
continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are
unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of Jewish religion alone, but
above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking" (Rudolf
Steiner, GA 32, p. 152).
Unfortunately alot of material is only available in Steiner's native
language, German, so if you don't trust our translations, I can advise
you to ask a friend who knows German to translate from the German
editions for you. Please check our translations!
Peter Staudenmaier and myself addressed the issue of antisemitism in
Steiner more fully in our second reply to Peter Normann Waage, "The
Janus Face of Anthroposophy" that will hopefully be posted soon at the
PLANS website.
Some other quotes:
"The Babylonian Captivity was the time when the astral body of the
Hebrews developed, and what gives this astral body its impulse in the
final fourteen generations of the forty-two was implanted into it then.
That is why the Hebrews were led into the Babylonian Captivity where,
six hundred years before our era, Zarathas or Nazarathos was incarnated
as the teacher in the Mystery schools of the Babylonians. There, the
most prominent Hebrew leaders came in contact with Zarathas, the great
teacher of that era. Zarathas joined them and became their teacher. From
him the Hebrew leaders received the impulse that, in their last fourteen
generations, prepared them for the birth of Jesus." (Steiner, 1909, UH
p. 46)
"[Jesus felt]: All the forces of soul which I believed had been bestowed
upon me lead only to the realisation that in the evolution of the Jewish
people there is no longer the capacity to reach the heights of Divine
revelations." (Steiner, 1913, FG p. 67)
"The fact that Jehovah could not free himself from the spirits he had
evoked led to the transition of the Old Testament thinking into the
atheistic science of the modern age. This in the field of social
thinking has become marxism or something similar." (Steiner, 1918, TCT
pp. 32-33)
"Since, for the life between birth and death, what is connected with the
breathing remains unconscious, the Jewish culture was a folk culture,
not an individualized culture of humanity. It was a folk culture in
which everything is related to the descent from a common tribal father.
Jewish revelation is, in its essential nature, a revelation adapted to
the Jewish people, because it takes account of what is acquired during
the embryonic life and is modified only through an unconscious element,
the breathing process.
"What is the result of this fact in our critical times? The result is
that those who will not become adherents of the Christ wisdom that
brings into the human being the other element, acquired during the life
between birth and death apart from the breathing process, wish to
continue in their relationship to the Jehovah wisdom and to have
humanity established only on the basis of folk cultures. The present
clamor in favor of an organization consisting of individuals from mere
peoples is a retarded ahrimanic demand for the establishment of such a
culture, in which all the peoples represent only folk cultures, that is,
Old Testament cultures. The peoples in all parts of the world are to
become like the Jewish Old Testament people. This is the demand of
Woodrow Wilson." (Steiner, 1918, TCT pp. 165-166)
"[T]here must gradually develop in humanity what is connected with the
true Christ impulse, and what is related to the mere Jehovah impulse
must be superseded." (Steiner, 1918, TCT p. 167)
"Christ Jesus appeared amongst a people who worshipped Jahve or Jehovah,
that Jehovah-God who is connected with all that is natural
existence...Jahve is that God who can never, if man is connected with
Him alone, give man his completeness...He does not give man the
consciousness of his rebirth...So we see how modern humanity is led away
and diverted from Christ Jesus for Whom there is no distinction of
class, nation or race, but for Whom there is only a single humanity. We
see how the thoughts and feelings of modern humanity have been led aside
to that which has already been overcome by the birth of Jesus
Christ...And if it was the *one* Jehovah that the Jews worshipped when
Christ came, then the modern nations have returned to *many*
Jehovahs...In a beautiful way does the Christmas tree lead us back to
man's origin; in an ugly and hateful way does the national Jehovah
principle lead us back. In reality that which is only a Jehovah, through
an unconscious lie, is often addressed as Christ, and the name of Christ
is thus misused." (Steiner, 1920, SNI pp. 4-5)
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Racism_Jews.html
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
)
) Dottie to Peter Z.:
)
) )you think that because RS says the culture of the
) Jews must die out he )was
) )saying the Jews themselves must die out.
)
Diana
) Imagine translating this ridiculous argument to
) Christians, and you no
) longer have any question it is anti-Semitic.
Dottie
The point is, Diana, Peter is saying that RS said the
Jews should die out. Which by the way Mr. Zegers
denied he said this or that their papers implied this.
There are no people in the world like the Jews in
their culture nor in their religion that I am aware
of. You are born into it. It's not like changing from
being a Catholic to being a Muslim. It is your
birthrite.
You have been one that has continually, although not
this time, ridiculed me in that I believe Staudenmaier
and Zegers claimed RS was a nazi and wanted the Jews
exterminated. Well look no further than his very clear
post on The Jew Man Cometh for what he has been trying
to convey in an underhanded, constantly twisting,
manipulating, in denial, manner. Well he can not hide
from his circular ways of calling RS a nazi. It is all
in the post.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:14:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS
exposed)
Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your
arguments to the issues being discussed.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:17:03 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Fascism (OT)
Thankyou Peter, point taken. Sounds like an interesting read.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:28:29 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RS exposed)
Dan wrote:
)Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
)argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your
)arguments to the issues being discussed.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
)
DL queries - Which of the two (sporadically enforced) rules does this fall
under?
1) No ad hominem arguments. This means that you speak freely about the
topics, but not about the other subscribers.
-or-
2) All posts must be about Waldorf education or its foundation,
Anthroposophy. Do not post non-Waldorf jokes, heart-rending appeals about
the Taliban, etc.
Hmmmmm.......
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Cards On The Table (was 3 Peters)
Peter Z.
) So you see, you are not actually quoting me, but a
) report by Corinna
) Poll of a longer presentation by Peter Bierl.
Dottie
I remember reading the above passage and felt that you
were explaining the concept of Bierl which you agreed
with.
What is Bierl's world view? Is he also a Secular
Humanist? And this is exactly what I was speaking of
in regards to your ignorance of RS. It seems you put
this passage up to show the racism or such of RS. Yet
what it shows to those of us who are of a spiritual
understanding is a philosphy that has been thousands
of years old. And no one religion has claim to it.
Nor one spiritual group.
Peter
But I still don't
) quite understand how
) you came to your interpretation that Bierl would
) equate Steiner and the
) nazis here.
Dottie
Peter, have you read what your writing partner just
wrote in the post The Jew Man Cometh...which the
title, by the way, I think is in really bad taste.
Extremely bad taste.
He clearly connects RS with the Nazis. So how do you
define who a nazi is? How I define it is one who
wishes to exterminate the Jews. And that is the only
logical conclusion one can get from that post. What is
your interpretation of that? And are you in agreement
with his charge of RS wanting the Jews exterminated?
Or not?
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Phases of Fantasy (was the J...)
) Peter
(during the antisemitic phases
) ) of his career; he also
) ) had a phase where he opposed antisemitism)
Dottie
Oh yeah right. Okay lets see, RS has an atheist period
and then a non atheist one. And now suddenly he has a
antisemitic phase and also an anti semitic phase. Your
arguments get more desperate as the days go by.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:27:34 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 10/3/01 2:26:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sufrito53 yahoo.com writes:
Su
(( But Buddhist fascists are simply not called fascists. Killing is taking
place in Nepal, and other places, and it doesn't necessarily have a
name. Does it have to?
Agreed. I was refering to Zen buddhism which is a method of perception and
does not teach a doctrine. My bias.
I am sure that taking children whom they declare are reincarnations of
various Buddhist saints and lamas, from their homes, their mothers,
and their families and raising them in lonely monasteries is a form of
abuse of children, and I wouldn't consider it at all the right thing to
do. ))
What an interesting subject, particularly as it relates to the idea that we
choose our parents, teachers, culture on the basis of karma. I must say
though that the Dali Lama seems pretty well adjusted. Certainly the family
experienced loss and despair but I do not know the extent to which this was
mitigated by their belief system.
Food for thought. I am suspending any statements on the matter (not polite to
talk with your mouth full). But I do have a little story:
I played volleyball on a hill in Alaska with a Tibetan Lama (They arrived for
a couple of weeks to bless the greenpeace ship). He never quiet got the hang
of it. He thought the object of the game, I think, was to hit it as far and
as hard as you could. Well, he'd hit the ball, jump up and down clapping and
laughing and off he'd go to get the ball way down the hill. I went along to
help look for it in the tall grass and ask questions. One was about the
selection of the Dali Lama. Now he didn't speak much english so I didn't
quite get the answer to "How do you know you got the right one?" . I did say
that one would be arrested in these parts, to which he said that it is known,
it is the custom.
We found the ball bent over to pick it up, bonked heads, laughed, shook
hands (a western custom that thrilled him to no end --my friend who organized
the event touched him only with a feather to keep the mosquitos off. He was a
Lama after all).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:15:21 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 10/3/01 6:29:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
(( Newpaul
Are you saying that man is inherently good and able to establish moral
standards of behavior without the divine influence of God?
No, I am saying that we are good and evil. Some are able to establish moral
standards with a variety of ethical models. Some find it necessary to have
thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Some are keen on punishment and reward and
others karma. Some who believe in God have no problem accepting the same
moral standards held by others who are atheists albeit not divinely
inspired.To me, the ten commandents make perfect sense for a number of
reasons. So does the new covenant and I'm an agnostic/ soft athiest,
depending on my mood.
)
I quess that I am living proof that you are wrong. It is interesting to note
that the various conceptions of God in world religions hinges on how we view
our nature. A projection of sorts.
BTW: I left evangelical christianity because I do not accept the concept of
original sin. It all comes crumbling down after that. I do not know Steiner's
take on it. I would be interested in your interpretation.
Respectfully,
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:35:42 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Re:Re: Cult-war in Europe
Peter Zegers writes:
As I wrote before, the "common sense" in T. Jeremy Gunn's presentation is
based on a misrepresentation of the French and German case against
Scientology (which is not considered a religion in Germany at all by the
way). Read the article by Kent (I send the url in my first post in this
thread) to get the background of the debate between officials of the French
and German government and the State Department. What is in your opinion the
fair criticism of the anti-sect movement that Gunn gives?
charlie:
That it can frequently be seen to be "promoting discrimination and
intolerance against a broad range of groups" I would say is one fair comment
that he makes.
charlie:
) This is my personal position which I haven't just suddenly taken up, and
) which has nothing to do with the way your statements on Anthroposophy have
) been used by other members of this list.
Peter:
But these statements can rightly be called "blatant bigotry" by your
standards, can't they?
charlie:
I'm sure that you're not trying to get me to say that your statements are
"blatant bigotry". If you are asking me to agree that some list members
treat your statements in a bigoted way, then I can only say that we are all
guilty of that kind of behaviour to some degree.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:47:14 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RSexposed)
*cringe*
The recent carping about your moderating skills (or lack thereof) has
bothered me, Dan, because I think you have always given us a lot of
freedom to... well, to bitch. You've always just let everyone hash
things out, and didn't step in to moderate unless it got really ugly.
You've been fair, too - only seeming to favor Critics slightly more
than DoF's (which I think is appropriate, considering this is the
"Critics List").
But I am amazed that Tarjei's subject line warrants a warning from
you, when Peter Zegers' post titled "Mr. Straume is a liar," (in which
he states, "Straume is now really going insane,") did not! This, to
me, is far more offensive.
Tsk, tsk. You're giving DL more to complain about - and, other than
lodging my own complaint just this once, I've had enough complaining!
Then again, I AM suffering from PPD (no, not Post Partum Depression -
Post Partum Dementia!), so perhaps I just missed your Admin warning?
I hope so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina "If you think this is picky, you should talk to my husband!"
McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:01:01 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:50 AM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
)
) Dottie to Peter Z.:
)
) )you think that because RS says the culture of the Jews must die out he
)was
) )saying the Jews themselves must die out.
)
) Imagine translating this ridiculous argument to Christians, and you no
) longer have any question it is anti-Semitic. Someone says "Christianity"
) should die out, and then people quibble about whether this means
Christians
) (the people) should actually physically die, or it's just their culture
and
) beliefs that should die, no longer having a place among modern nations,
hey
) no problem in that case? It would be obvious that this was at best deeply
) insulting to Christians and at worst a scary threat. "Spiritual"
) explanations would be a joke.
) Diana
charlie:
Just to confuse things, I'm a Christian who does actually think that
Christianity should die out. Why? Because Christianity is just one religion
(with countless "sects") among many religions. And religions tend to
separate people. I believe that Christ came, not to found a new religion,
but to unite all people of all religions. IMO religions were a necessary
part of our development that we should grow out of. Christianity formed and
then splintered, not because of Christ, but because of the immaturity of
humankind.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 02:01:37 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about RSexposed)
Sarina wrote:
)*cringe*
)
)The recent carping about your moderating skills (or lack thereof) has
)bothered me, Dan, because I think you have always given us a lot of
)freedom to... well, to bitch. You've always just let everyone hash
)things out, and didn't step in to moderate unless it got really ugly.
)You've been fair, too - only seeming to favor Critics slightly more
)than DoF's (which I think is appropriate, considering this is the
)"Critics List").
)
)But I am amazed that Tarjei's subject line warrants a warning from
)you, when Peter Zegers' post titled "Mr. Straume is a liar," (in which
)he states, "Straume is now really going insane,") did not! This, to
)me, is far more offensive.
)
)Tsk, tsk. You're giving DL more to complain about - and, other than
)lodging my own complaint just this once, I've had enough complaining!
DL: What? Me complain? Never. Question the inconsistencies -
perhaps...challenge the idea that this is a free speech forum - maybe. But
complain? Must be a different DL. : )
Shalom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:23:38 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
Dear Dottie,
Your way of reading and interpreting a text really amazes me. To
illustrate my point:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"From the late nineteenth century onward, German antisemitism divided
into two chief branches. One held that Jewish culture and Jewish ways of
life should completely disappear, such that after several generations
there would be no more Jews left (since they would all have become
"Germans"). The other took an increasingly racialist stance, and held
that Jews must be physically eliminated from German territories, either
by expulsion or extermination. Steiner's positions (during the
antisemitic phases of his career; he also had a phase where he opposed
antisemitism) aligned him with the *former tendency*, not the latter
tendency. This 'cultural' tendency constituted the mainstream of German
antisemitism during Steiner's lifetime." [Emphasis added].
So Peter (Staudenmaier) wrote that Steiner aligned with the branch in
German antisemitism that: "held that Jewish culture and Jewish ways of
life should completely disappear, such that after several generations
there would be no more Jews left (since they would all have become
"Germans")."
How can you read this the way that Peter (Staudenmaier) would have said
that Steiner alligned himself with the branch that: "took an
increasingly racialist stance, and held that Jews must be physically
eliminated from German territories, either by expulsion or
extermination."
Peter (Staudenmaier) and I are in complete agreement on this point. I
would like to add that racialist thinking is also present in Steiner's
writings and that racialist thinking as such didn't necessarily mean
advocating the physical extermination of Jews - which doesn't make it
less antisemitic.
For those who take in interest in such matters, I am not a "Historian".
For me it is as relevant as the fact that I am not a germanist or
romanist and still comment on texts written in these groups of
languages. The fact that I am not trained or employed as a teacher or
researcher at an university shouldn't be a reason to discredit what I
write (I am not saying you do, but the suggestion is implied in asking
about it).
After all, how many anthro's on this list make statements about all
kinds of things without being employed or trained in the fields they are
writing about . Maybe we should all shut up and leave it to the
Pedagogics, Historians, Philosophers, ...? Then we could all stop
thinking about these things ourselves and leave it to the "experts". I
don't think this is a position anyone is defending on this list, I
merely want to point out the logical outcome of this kind of
argumentation.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 515
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: "mentality" of public school
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re:Re: What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By awaldenpond home.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about
RS exposed)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Smoke this one over TS
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Smoke this one over TS
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about R
S exposed)
By hardorp gmx.net
Peter Staudenmaier's "lie"
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: The Jew Man Cometh
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
about R S exposed)
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Historical revisionism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By winters_diana hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:29:29 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
ray fulk wrote:
)
)
)
) BTW: I left evangelical christianity because I do not accept the concept of
) original sin. It all comes crumbling down after that. I do not know Steiner's
) take on it. I would be interested in your interpretation.
)
Newpaul
Do you have kids ray? I have 2. It was very clear to me that as young
children, I had to teach them to share because they were self centered
by nature. I had to teach them to give because by nature they wanted to
take. I had to teach them to be kind to others because by nature they
are not.
If we could take 25 kids and isolate them on an island from birth with
no parents, no books, no tv or media don't you believe that Animal Farm
would play itself out. I think that after 25 years it would be very
dismal. All of the weaker ones would probably be dead. The survival of
the fittest is modeled after the world of nature. I would regard it as a
part of our fallen sin nature.
Steiner's take, I have never heard Steiner talk about original sin or
man in a fallen state. He does talk a lot about man achieving a higher
state, through Anthroposophy of course which ultimately leads man to get
in touch with his "divine nature". As I recall Steiner never had any
kids of his own so he may have missed my observations about self
centeredness being our true nature as manifested in the lives of young
kids. The belief in karma and reincarnation is in conflict with the
idea of original sin and redemption, and salvation.
Ray
) To me, the ten commandents make perfect sense for a number of
) reasons. So does the new covenant and I'm an agnostic/ soft athiest,
) depending on my mood.
I am curious about the above. How many of the 10 do you accept in your
own life and why? And the new covenant, how can an agnostic/soft
atheist access the treasure of the new covenant?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:03:28 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
on 10/4/01 6:29 AM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
)
) Steiner's take, I have never heard Steiner talk about original sin or
) man in a fallen state. He does talk a lot about man achieving a higher
) state, through Anthroposophy of course which ultimately leads man to get
) in touch with his "divine nature".
Sharon:
Hi, back from doing penance! Hope DL noticed!
I'd say that Steiner's theology definitely includes a fallen state although
it's slightly different than orthodox Christianity's scheme. From what I can
gather, I think that Adam and Eve are "one" in Steiner's version of Genesis.
In Christianity God makes Adam and Eve is an afterthought. Eve tempts Adam
to eat off the tree of knowledge of good and evil, (IMO sexism was the
original sin.) In Steiner's story when they eat the fruit, they gain God's
knowledge. (Tarjei have I got it right? I have Steiner's Genesis, will try
to refresh my memory if I have time.)
In Steiner's theology the sin is "materialism", meaning spirit became
matter, ie. the body is evil. Steiner's mission was to respiritualize the
world and redeem it. Man must evolve towards a plant-like spirit state. Man
must become spirit like he once was.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
--- Eve tempts Adam
) to eat off the tree of knowledge of good and evil,
) (IMO sexism was the
) original sin.)
Dottie
I am in total agreement.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
--- Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no) wrote:
) Dear Dottie,
)
) Your way of reading and interpreting a text really
) amazes me. To
) illustrate my point:
)
Dottie
It seems we both are in the same boat with one another
in understanding others texts. I will point to you
that which I believe showed Peter S. to have made the
point I was referring to.
The other took an increasingly racialist
) stance, and held
) that Jews must be physically eliminated from German
) territories, either
) by expulsion or extermination. Steiner's positions
) (during the
) antisemitic phases of his career;
This to me shows that during RS's supposed antisemitic
phase he was in agreement with exterminating or
getting rid of the Jews. I recognize that
extermination was not happening while RS was alive nor
even that particular war that would come some 10 years
later.
Peter S.
he also had a
) phase where he opposed
) antisemitism) aligned him with the *former
) tendency*, not the latter
) tendency.
Dottie
And now here he is saying that RS during his
antisemitic phase was opposed to the idea of getting
rid of the Jews.
So I am not sure how you read such a thing Peter.
Maybe you are right but I keep reading it in several
different manners but I keep coming back to this:
During RS's antisemitic period RS wanted the Jews gone
not just neccesarily turned magically into German
only.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:37:50 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: "mentality" of public school
) Frankly, Liz, *any* education at all would be
) "indoctrinating," if what
) you mean by that is that it instills in a child a particular body of
) knowledge and approach to that knowledge.
Yes, having bodies and approaches to knowledge instilled in you is
indoctrination. Waldorf schools are particularly good at instilling
bodies and approaches to knowledge. You are able to recognise Waldorf
as indoctrination only because it is so different from your own world
view. The knowledge and approach that is instilled in you at public
school is probably close to your world view and you are therefore unable
to recognize it. Just as those anthro parents and new agey parents are
unable to see the indoctrination going on at Waldorf. I think that the
indoctrination system at most public schools is not very efficient as it
isn't as sugar-coated as the one at Waldorf.
There are other ways of learning that do not indoctrinate. It is even
possible that Rudolf Steiner recognised this and that his attempts to
educate where with this in mind. As with most such attempts he has only
succeeded in achieving cult status. People follow along with his ideas
paying lip-service to the need to think for themselves and meanwhile
arguing about whether the master meant this or that.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:37:57 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) How exactly does one teach oneself to read with NO instruction at all?
)
How did you learn to walk or talk or ride a bike?
One of the most amazing things is that babies learn to CRAWL! Nobody
teaches them how to do that, we don't even model it for them (I have yet
to see an adult crawling around the house). They don't copy other
babies as even babies who never see other babies can crawl. How do they
learn how to do this? If they can teach themselves to do something
that requires the most amazing body coordination like crawling, surely
reading would be a cinch.
Kids can do amazing things. School takes up so much time, I worry about
the opportunity costs.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:21:25 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) How did you learn to walk or talk or ride a bike?
Let's see. I'll give you one on crawling. My boys didn't crawl
traditionally or do so for long--too inefficient. As far as walking and
talking, I had lots of modeling, lots of encouragement and saw/heard tons of
demonstrations (all those people walking around and talking). Reinforcement
was another method. (Modeling, demonstration, encouragement, reinforcement
are all methods of instruction as well as setting up an environment and the
opportunities to observe/practice.) Presentation of tools is another
teaching method. How can one learn to ride a bike unless one has one?
If they can teach themselves to do something that requires the most amazing
body coordination like crawling, surely reading would be a cinch.
Yes, but there's that pesky alphabet......
) Kids can do amazing things. School takes up so much time, I worry about
the opportunity costs.
I think it depends entirely on the school and the situation.
Paula
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:44:53 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: What Peter Staudenmaier actually wrote!
Dear Dottie,
This is the text of Peter Staudenmaier's post:
"From the late nineteenth century onward, German antisemitism divided
into two chief branches. One held that Jewish culture and Jewish ways of
life should completely disappear, such that after several generations
there would be no more Jews left (since they would all have become
"Germans"). The other took an increasingly racialist stance, and held
that Jews must be physically eliminated from German territories, either
by expulsion or extermination. Steiner's positions (during the
antisemitic phases of his career; he also had a phase where he opposed
antisemitism) aligned him with the former tendency, not the latter
tendency. This 'cultural' tendency constituted the mainstream of German
antisemitism during Steiner's lifetime."
Somehow you manage to read it as:
"The other took an increasingly racialist stance, and held that Jews
must be physically eliminated from German territories, either by
expulsion or extermination. Steiner's positions (during the antisemitic
phases of his career;"
And conclude:
"This to me shows that during RS's supposed antisemitic phase he was in
agreement with exterminating or getting rid of the Jews. I recognize
that extermination was not happening while RS was alive nor even that
particular war that would come some 10 years later."
Why didn't you finish quoting the *whole* sentence? The meaning of what
he wrote becomes clear then at it shows that Peter Staudenmaier never
said the things you are imputing to him.
The rest of the sentence: "he also had a phase where he opposed
antisemitism) aligned him with the *former tendency*, not the latter
tendency."
Now try to see away form the brackets, what does it say then: "Steiner's
positions (...) aligned him with the former tendency, not the latter
tendency. This 'cultural' tendency constituted the mainstream of German
antisemitism during Steiner's lifetime."
The message in the brackets reads: "during the antisemitic phases of his
career Steiner's positions aligned him with the former tendency [the
'cultural' tendency], not the latter [expulsion or extermination]
tendency" and "he also had a phase where he opposed antisemitism" (as
Steiner understood it at the time I might add).
That is the way I read his message.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:27:44 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Re: original sin, and does it exist in anthroposophy? On the SJU list,
someone just asked what are the deeper meanings in the Humpty Dumpty nursery
rhyme, and the consensus seems to be that it's about a "great cosmic fall."
I wouldn't know if this is the "deep" reason Waldorf teachers use this rhyme
(I do remember that preschoolers *love* falling off a chair while Humpty
Dumpty is recited), but it does appear they are very receptive to the idea
of conveying a message about a "fall" (which implies original sin, I think).
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:47:23 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
)How did you learn to walk or talk or ride a bike?
Let's see. Walking: with a lot of hand-holding, in most cases, concern for
providing the right (safe) environment, like barriers where they may pitch
down a flight of stairs, and usually (hopefully) some cheerleading, and/or
consoling. Pretty much 100% parental watchfulness for a child starting to
walk. I suppose you will say the child will walk anyway without this sort of
parental involvement, eventually, and that some parents overdo it, but they
really do not learn in a vacuum.
Talking: by hearing language, by being talked to and talking with, by
interacting and being provided with varied life experiences that give you
something to talk about!
Riding a bike: Again, I guess a kid can do it if you just wheel up a bike
and say, "Learn to ride it if you want." But it's hardly how most parents go
about it: it usually involves at least a few hours of parental participation
(though there is no question that the achievement is ultimately the
child's).
So to say they learn "on their own with no instruction" is absurd. To say
some kids learn *out of school* seems obvious to me. The question of whether
this is a good excuse for not bothering to teach them in school is quite
different.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:51:22 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
) Let's see. Walking: with a lot of hand-holding, in most
) cases, concern for
) providing the right (safe) environment, like barriers where
) they may pitch
) down a flight of stairs, and usually (hopefully) some
) cheerleading, and/or
) consoling. Pretty much 100% parental watchfulness for a child
) starting to
) walk. I suppose you will say the child will walk anyway
) without this sort of
) parental involvement, eventually, and that some parents
) overdo it, but they
) really do not learn in a vacuum.
We are still talking semantics. You are using environment as a simile
for instruction.
Safety issues to me are a given. (If we are going to start including
safety in this discussion, then why stop there, why not include the
National defense force, the FDA, sunscreen, and all the other things we
have in this world to make us feel safer.)
) Talking: by hearing language, by being talked to and talking with, by
) interacting and being provided with varied life experiences
) that give you
) something to talk about!
Environment. No parent is going to say to their toddler, "his is how
you make a sentence: first subject then verb then object.....". We all
know this would be more than useless.
) Riding a bike: Again, I guess a kid can do it if you just
) wheel up a bike
) and say, "Learn to ride it if you want." But it's hardly how
) most parents go
) about it: it usually involves at least a few hours of
) parental participation
) (though there is no question that the achievement is ultimately the
) child's).
Many children I know grabbed their parents and told them what to do,
i.e. push me harder! Over here not over there! etc., etc. The
instruction was fully on the part of the children. Many children left
the adult out all together and just hopped on a bike one day and started
riding. The ones who had parental instruction, from my experience, took
by far the longest to learn, some were so put off by the trauma of
trying to please the parent that they gave up altogether and didn't
learn until they were nine or ten.
) So to say they learn "on their own with no instruction" is
) absurd.
If you consider providing a bike and a pair of hands for pushing
instruction.... I don't. As I said, the times I've heard a parent
instructing a kid how to ride a bike it was more like obstructing.
) some kids learn *out of school* seems obvious to me. The
) question of whether
) this is a good excuse for not bothering to teach them in
) school is quite
) different.
) Diana
Probably the most fundamental difference between our approaches is that
I place more importance on HOW things are learned. You are only
concerning yourself on WHAT is learned.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:47:30 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
on 10/4/01 8:27 AM, Diana Winters at winters_diana hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Re: original sin, and does it exist in anthroposophy? On the SJU list,
) someone just asked what are the deeper meanings in the Humpty Dumpty nursery
) rhyme, and the consensus seems to be that it's about a "great cosmic fall."
Sharon:
In Universal Human Steiner talks about a second fall.
Steiner: "Not to remember oneself as an individuality and to be hemmed in by
one's ability to transcend group-soulness will be something terrible in the
sixth epoch. To put it bluntly, we can say that the earth and all it can
yield will belong to those who cultivate their individualities. Those,
however, who do not develop their individual I will be dependent on joining
a group that will instruct them in what they should think, feel, will and
do. In the future development of humanity this will be felt as a regression,
a second fall. Therefore, we should not regard the anthroposophical movement
and spiritual life as mere theory but rather as something that is given to
us now to prepare what is necessary for the future of humanity." (Universal
Human, Anthroposophical Press c 1990. Lecture from 1909)
Sharon: So you need to become an Anthroposophist to be saved from this
terrible calamity. As far as I can tell, it's a loose loose situation. If
you don't become an Anthroposophist you will have to join a group and be
told what to think, feel, will and do. If you DO become an Anthroposophist
you're in the same boat really, as you will have to order others around all
day and I presume you'd have to follow the same rules that you are
enforcing. There is a benefit to being an Anthroposophist, you will get all
the goodies, but if it's three folding I don't see how that will be
possible.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:15:13 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Newpaul
Would we be remiss in not taking karma into consideration when studying
Humpty Dumpty's Fall. When all the king's horses and all the king's men
couldn't put Humpty back together again, he was left to die and
reincarnate perhaps as Steiner himself --- only Rudy could know for
sure. Afterall, all of the stories in the waldorf classroom have an
Anthro direction that leads into the occult.
Diana, perhaps you could come up with that *secret* little know Anthro
verse that talks about Humpty Dumpty reincarnating all over again. Just
as there was a 5th Gospel for Steiner, there has to be a secret verse
for Humpty Dumpty.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Re: original sin, and does it exist in anthroposophy? On the SJU list,
) someone just asked what are the deeper meanings in the Humpty Dumpty nursery
) rhyme, and the consensus seems to be that it's about a "great cosmic fall."
)
) I wouldn't know if this is the "deep" reason Waldorf teachers use this rhyme
) (I do remember that preschoolers *love* falling off a chair while Humpty
) Dumpty is recited), but it does appear they are very receptive to the idea
) of conveying a message about a "fall" (which implies original sin, I think).
) Diana
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:15:08 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Paul:
)Diana, perhaps you could come up with that *secret* little know Anthro
)verse that talks about Humpty Dumpty reincarnating all over again. )Just
)as there was a 5th Gospel for Steiner, there has to be a secret )verse for
)Humpty Dumpty.
I dunno, Paul, it doesn't sound to me like it's about reincarnation, since
"all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty
together again."
My guess is, Waldorf teachers like it for the same reason they encourage
Ring Around the Rosie. They say little kids like to fall down a lot on
purpose because it's about "incarnating" - "falling to" Earth. So I guess
in falling you're sort of practicing your incarnating. Seems a shame if you
have to wind up cracked in many pieces doing it. Hmmm
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:23:58 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Liz:
)We are still talking semantics. You are using environment as a simile
)for instruction.
Well, I don't think it's quite that simple, because the environment isn't a
passive, accidental thing; many parents work hard to shape the environment
for learning.
But I think I've forgotten where we were going with all this anyway, other
than to explore why "teaching" is now a dirty word in alternative
educational circles. Yes, some of it is just semantics. (And we've
established that I represent an "insane mentality" because I say anything
positive about public schools.) :) Or I guess any school at all for that
matter.
)Environment. No parent is going to say to their toddler, "his is how
)you make a sentence: first subject then verb then object.....". We )all
)know this would be more than useless.
I think this shows that learning to read is quite a different process from
learning to speak. It really is very difficult for most people to break a
code (the alphabet; the rules of how written language is structured) without
a little feedback, a little interaction with someone who knows what the
child doesn't know. It is just not the same as hard-wired, instinctual
impulses like sitting, crawling, babbling, as babies do without a lot of
encouragement (though certainly they do need some).
)Probably the most fundamental difference between our approaches is that
)I place more importance on HOW things are learned. You are only
)concerning yourself on WHAT is learned.
I don't understand this conclusion at all from what I've said here. There is
good instruction and bad, and everything in between. When have I ever said
that it doesn't matter HOW a child learns?
Diana
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:57:39 -0700
From: "walden" (awaldenpond home.com)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Diana:
) But I think I've forgotten where we were going with all this anyway, other
) than to explore why "teaching" is now a dirty word in alternative
) educational circles. Yes, some of it is just semantics.
I don't know if "teaching" is a dirty word with alt edders (we are one such
family) as much as it is the threat we present to a massive industry
(institutionalized education). Homeschool/Unschool and child lead learning
places have become very real. The *possibility* of mainstream education
(or Waldorf, etc) being nothing more than a glorified baby sitting service
sprouted with the greed and *progress* of the industrial revolution is
horrible for those within the system.
This is not a shot at teachers (g) Really.
Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:44:29 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
I wrote:
) )Nowhere does RS say that the Aryans are superior to Semites or any
) )other groups. Steiner told his Oslo audience no such thing. In other words,
) )this is
) )a blatant lie.
Peter S wrote:
) No, it's an interpretation.
That cop-out simply doesn't work. When you write that RS actually
_told_ his audience that the Aryans are a superior race, you are
either lying, or you are communicating someone else's lie.
It is an untruthful statement falsely presented as a fact, not an
interpretation.
This proven untruth is exposed for all to see, Peter. It looks like
you shot yourself in the foot with that intro.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:47:04 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
)Peter, just briefly noting here that part of why this exchange is
)getting so confusing may be that this is actually Sune speaking
)here, not Tarjei, although Tarjei is posting it. Maybe you realized
)this. (The first part of the post is Tarjei, the quotes below seem
)to be Sune.)
)Diana
I've been cutting and pasting from Sune's mails after DD censored his
contributions because he was "fed up" with him.
Now I'm being censored too because DD cannot stand to see his pet
theory about RS and Nazism disproven and PS' lies exposed.
But five months is more than enough time on this list - just like it
was in 1999. And my time is about up.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:00:29 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about
RS exposed)
The moderator wrote:
)Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
)argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your
)arguments to the issues being discussed.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
The issue being discussed is whether or not it is a lie to state that
RS told his listeners in Oslo that the Aryans are a _superior_ race.
But you've made up a new rule: You're saying that this issue is not
an acceptable topic of discussion. You are telling me that it is not
permitted to say that a claim made by another subscriber is not true.
When I re-subscribed to this list in May, the issue defined above was
one of the main issues I wanted to comment on.
In other words, I have no more business on this list after your gag
order. The only reason I'm not unsubscribing myself this evening is
that there are third parties involved who want me to post some
URL-links first.
Your above post does not qualify as an "ad hominem warning" because
it is about my comment on a statement, not on a person. It should be
called an "ad statementem" instead - a new offence.
You apparently cannot tolerate the discrediting of your pet theory
concerning RS and Nazism, and for this reason, it seems, you modify
the rules for accepbable list behavior at your pleasure.
This kind of list administration makes it impossible for me to
participate any further, so I will promptly cease to post here.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:37:52 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Smoke this one over TS
Tarjei perhaps you would be good enough to delve into your Anthro wisdom
and and explain how these statements are not racist. Steiner's
Norwegian lecture you are contesting has the same information in it that
is represented here from other sources most of which are his books.
Readers don't let Tarjei fool you. Steiner believed just like Hitler
that aryans were the most advanced spiritually superior race and could
become the "Ubermench" or perfect man. I didn't even include what the
grand master said about the jews or the french here.
Newpaul
"Man has either hardened or possesses the possibility of developing
to higher stages. Races would not stay behind and become decadent if
there were not men who wish to stay behind and are obliged to stay
behind, since they have not developed their eternal life-kernel.
Older races only persist because there are men who cannot or will not
move forward to a higher racial form."
[Steiner, 1908, ISBM pp. 134-135]
252]
"[V]arious types of human beings would have appeared one after the
other. However, Lucifer and Ahriman...fought against this harmonious
tendency of development in the evolution of humanity...Thus, forms
that should have disappeared remained. Instead of racial diversities
developing consecutively, older racial forms remained unchanged and
newer ones began to evolve at the same time. Instead of the intended
consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races.
That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited
the earth and are still there in our time although evolution should
really have proceeded as I have described it."
[Steiner, 1916, UH pp. 74-75]
"The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a
small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise
present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the
science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root
races of mankind." [Steiner, 1904, CM p. 48]
root races
Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the
Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the
so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity. According to
the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans
and Aryans are *root races* of mankind. If one imagines that two such root
races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the
future, one obtains a total of *seven*. One always arises from another in
the manner just indicated with respect to the Lemurians, Atlanteans, and
Aryans. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are
quite different from those of the preceding one. While, for example, the
Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at
the present time it is the task of Aryans to develop the faculty of thought
and all that belongs to it.
In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are
always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root
race, its principle characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly
they attain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root
race is therefore devided into seven subraces. But one must not imagine
that one subrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one
may maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it.
Thus there are always populations which show different stages of
development living beside each other on earth."
Cosmic Memory, Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, 1959, Pages 48-49
pp. 87-88]
"We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the
earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the
inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly
to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on
earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the
fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived
in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are
descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still
extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes
of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of
course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the
second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted
Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the
fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations
belong."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Temple Legend: Freemasonry and Related Occult
Movements: Twenty Lectures given in Berlin between 23rd May 1904 and
the 2nd January 1906. (1904-1906) Trans. John M. Wood, Edited E.M.
Lloyd. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1985. p. 220]
"[V]arious types of human beings would have appeared one after the
other. However, Lucifer and Ahriman...fought against this harmonious
tendency of development in the evolution of humanity...Thus, forms
that should have disappeared remained. Instead of racial diversities
developing consecutively, older racial forms remained unchanged and
newer ones began to evolve at the same time. Instead of the intended
consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races.
That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited
the earth and are still there in our time although evolution should
really have proceeded as I have described it."
[Steiner, 1916, UH pp. 74-75]
"[P]eoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race
or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members
express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked
their way from physical and perishable to the supersensible and
imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever
higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man
must finally appear in harmonious perfection." [Steiner, 1904, KHW p.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:10:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Smoke this one over TS
Newpaul:
)Tarjei perhaps you would be good enough to delve into your Anthro wisdom
)and and explain how these statements are not racist.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that RS did _not_ tell his
listeners in Oslo in 1910 that the Aryans are a superior race. The
point is that the claim to the contrary is a blatant untruth. Case
closed.
The point is that the critics' critics are being gagged by the
moderator for setting this straight.
--
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: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:51:37 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about R
S exposed)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
)argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your
)arguments to the issues being discussed.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
Hello, Dan.
I think you're overdoing this a bit.
The general rules where always to react to the arguments and not to the people.
I can see that refering to someone as "a liar" makes a general
statement about a person that you could deem unacceptable, because it
refers to the person.
But refering to an _argument_ of another as a lie is within the field
of reacting to arguments.
Peter Staudenmeier's argument is utterly confused about the lectures
that Steiner put in bookform. He who talks the loudest about "basic
rules of historical scholarship" has botched it. That would be OK -
nobody is perfect. People like Diana would say: sorry, I was wrong,
you're right! But P. St. seems to have gotten too much greatness
thrust upon him [beware; that was an ironic reference to
Shakespeare!] to admit a mistake. Diffuse smoke-screen arguments to
cover up the fact that he erred can justfiably be referred to as a
lie. Nixon lied during the Watergate coverup, and it would have been
absurd to have asked the Washington Post journalists to please not
call it that.
So, Dan, swallow hard and stop pouncing on Tarjei! Otherwise you
disqualify yourself as a moderator.
Best regards,
Detlef Hardorp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:41:29 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier's "lie"
Dear critics,
It seems the anthroposophists are taking shifts on this list. Tarjei
Straume is allowed to leave the list (after he has fullfilled the
obligations he has taken on from "third parties") and Detlef Hardorp is
joining us now. I hope he is a bit more consistent that Mr. Straume. The
start is not very good: he insists on calling Peter Staudenmaier's
interpretation of the whole cycle a literal quote from one of the
lectures of Steiner in Oslo (Kristiania as it was called then). Only by
repeating this misrepresentation he can hold on to his claim that Peter
S. was lying. From this they can conclude ? la Sune Nordwall that
Peter's article is a complete lie. Well, Mr. Straume, goodbye and
welcome to Mr. Hardorp. In five or six months we will probably another
of the anthro anti-critic people joining us (I immediately admit this is
just a speculation). Of course there is no harm in this. I only hope
Hardorp is a bit more consistent and less "anarchosophist" than Mr.
Straume.
Regards,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:12:10 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Diana writes:
)Peter, just briefly noting here that part of why this exchange is getting
)so
)confusing may be that this is actually Sune speaking here, not Tarjei,
)although Tarjei is posting it. Maybe you realized this.
No, I didn't. How did you catch on to this?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:13:46 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The Jew Man Cometh
I said exactly the opposite of what you think I said, Dottie. try reading my
post again.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:20:40 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Tarjei (?) writes:
)That cop-out simply doesn't work. When you write that RS actually
)_told_ his audience that the Aryans are a superior race, you are
)either lying, or you are communicating someone else's lie.
)
)It is an untruthful statement falsely presented as a fact, not an
)interpretation.
)
)This proven untruth is exposed for all to see, Peter. It looks like
)you shot yourself in the foot with that intro.
I must be having trouble with clarity lately. Let's try this again: By my
reading of the published version of these lectures, Steiner *does* say that
the Aryans are a superior race, several times over, in multiple ways. If you
read the text differently, please explain. Once you've explained that,
please explain why your interpretation counts as a "fact" while mine counts
as a "lie".
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:18:14 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Historical revisionism
))Dottie to Peter Z.:
))you think that because RS says the culture of the Jews must die out
))he )was saying the Jews themselves must die out.
)
DIANA
)Imagine translating this ridiculous argument to Christians, and you
)no longer have any question it is anti-Semitic. Someone says
)"Christianity" should die out, and then people quibble about whether
)this means Christians (the people) should actually physically die,
)or it's just their culture and beliefs that should die, no longer
)having a place among modern nations, hey no problem in that case? It
)would be obvious that this was at best deeply insulting to
)Christians and at worst a scary threat. "Spiritual" explanations
)would be a joke.
Good move, Diana, the substitution test for racism. If there's a joke
about eskimos, substitute negroes. If it sounds racist then, it is.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:27:28 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's
lie about R S exposed)
Detlef (?) writes:
)Peter Staudenmeier's argument is utterly confused about the lectures )that
)Steiner put in bookform.
What precisely do you think I am confused about?
)He who talks the loudest about "basic rules of historical )scholarship" has
)botched it.
How have I botched these rules?
)That would be OK - nobody is perfect. People like Diana would say: )sorry,
)I was wrong, you're right! But P. St. seems to have gotten too )much
)greatness thrust upon him [beware; that was an ironic reference )to
)Shakespeare!] to admit a mistake.
That's silly. I'm wrong all the time, and admit it without fanfare. If you
think I made a mistake here, please specify.
)Diffuse smoke-screen arguments to cover up the fact that he erred can
) )justfiably be referred to as a lie.
What was my "error"?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:07:14 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
Charlie:
)Just to confuse things, I'm a Christian who does actually think that
)Christianity should die out. Why? Because Christianity is just one
) )religion (with countless "sects") among many religions. And religions
) )tend to separate people.
But to criticize "religion" in general or even say "religion" should die out
is very different from specifying a particular religion, don't you think? It
is a completely different thing from saying, "There is no place for
Judaism/Jews/"Judaistic" cultrure [whichever] among modern nations." The
difference is obvious. It is also different for a *member* of a particular
religion to say the religion should die out, than for outsiders to simply
invite them to not exist anymore, please.
Second, I'm not too receptive to lofty statements that religions divide and
separate us, etc. Everybody else's religion is divisive and sectarian, etc.;
usually turns out the speaker would like to see his own religion set up once
all the divisive ones have been swatted away. Of course he insists his own
religion isn't one, his version of things just happens to be true and it
includes all the other ones anyway so nobody should mind.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:09:29 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
I wrote:
)Peter, just briefly noting here that part of why this exchange is getting
)so confusing may be that this is actually Sune speaking here, )not Tarjei,
)although Tarjei is posting it. Maybe you realized this.
)No, I didn't. How did you catch on to this?
(sigh) Guess I've just spent too long on this list, I know his writing. It
didn't sound like Tarjei. Don't know if I could give you anything hard and
fast to go on. One thing is using a _lot_ of _underscoring_ around a _great_
many words in _many_ sentences. :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 516
-- Topica Digest --
Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Smoke this one over TS
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: The Jew Man Cometh
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Historical revisionism
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By hardorp gmx.net
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
By hardorp gmx.net
Re: Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie abou
t R S expose
By hardorp gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 02:20:27 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: early reading (was Re: Stuffed owls)
Walden wrote:
)I don't know if "teaching" is a dirty word with alt edders (we are one
) )such family) as much as it is the threat we present to a massive
) )industry (institutionalized education).
OK. (It was Liz who said it was a "negative buzz word" in alt. ed. circles,
I think).
I think all the divisiveness is a shame. It is too easy to demonize a
supposedly massive, monolithic educational industry, which in fact is full
of caring, dedicated, inspired, creative, energetic hard-working people,
most of whom are familiar with the problems in the system and work hard to
either change them or make the best of it for the kids' sake. Of course
there are some real bad eggs, and they can really make children miserable.
There is also an elitist element to the alt. ed. movement - for one thing,
you've got to be able to afford to have one parent who isn't working, at
least not full-time, to pull off homeschooling or unschooling in the long
run. (Unless you truly believe you need pay no attention at all to what your
children are doing; these unschoolers are *truly* kidding themselves.) But
as I have said I am not unsympathetic to homeschooling, I may end up
homeschooling my son for awhile too.
)The *possibility* of mainstream education (or Waldorf, etc) being )nothing
)more than a glorified baby sitting service sprouted with the )greed and
)*progress* of the industrial revolution is horrible for )those within the
)system.
)This is not a shot at teachers (g) Really.
If you say so. I'd hate to see what a shot at teachers would look like if
that wasn't one. :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:30:27 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Su:
)
) )Perhaps we should say that it is a secretive society, since aspects of
) )it are secretive, and hidden from view.
)
) I guess if someone closes the door when going to the toilet, it
) qualifies as secrecy.
You equate pedagogical meetings and secret hand languages with going to
the toilet?
Hmmmmmmmm.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:47:46 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Smoke this one over TS
Previously
)
) Newpaul:
)
) )Tarjei perhaps you would be good enough to delve into your Anthro wisdom
) )and and explain how these statements are not racist.
)
) Tarjei
Irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that RS did _not_ tell his
) listeners in Oslo in 1910 that the Aryans are a superior race.
Newpaul
I am sure Steiner didn't have too because his audience already knew
about his root race and sub race theories with white Northern European
Aryans on the top, the most spiritually mature, and the childlike black
folks on the bottom, just beginning the climb up the latter or
reincarnation. Were your parents or grandparents there in 1910?
Tarjei
)The
) point is that the claim to the contrary is a blatant untruth. Case
) closed.
Newpaul
I would say your refusal to acknowledge that the same racial theories
exist quite uncontested by you in other Steiner lectures and books is
not being truthful either. Steiner and his philosophies were , are ,
and continue to be racist and bigoted. And this case will remain open
for all to see.
)
Tarjei
) The point is that the critics' critics are being gagged by the
) moderator for setting this straight.
Newpaul
Poor Sune, Poor, poor Tarjei. It says a lot about the critic's
"critics" when all you guys can do is blame Dan with no consideration
about the ugly remarks you made concerning the critics and policies of
this list. Is that Dan Dugan I see hanging from chains decapitated with
his blood smeared all over the dungeon wall on the front page of your
son's dripping blood web site Tarjei?
http://uncletaz.com/bloods/index.html
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:04:27 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: The Jew Man Cometh
on 10/3/01 11:32 PM, dottie zold at dottie_z yahoo.com wrote:
--snip--
) Dottie
)
) Peter, do you understand what you are saying here? A
) Jew is born a Jew. Your ignorance in the subject in
) which you are studying is just at an all time high.
) This is unbelievable coming from someone who is
) considered an academic scholar from the critics on
) this list.
--snip--
No, Dottie, YOUR ignorance in the subject is obvious in your statement
above.
One is "automatically" considered a Jew ONLY if you are born to a Jewish
MOTHER. This is accepted across all strains of Judaism from the liberal
Reform to the ultra Orthodox. If you are born to a non-Jewish mother and a
Jewish father in a mixed-marriage, you must undergo conversion to be
recognized as a Jew.
Anyone (yes, ANYONE) can become a Jew through conversion. The requirements
for study and procedures differ among the strains. For example, Orthodox
Jews do not accept validity of conversions performed by Reform Rabbis.
This issue -- who is a Jew? -- is a major debate across all strains of
Judaism.
Not as simple as you think, Dottie.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:00:49 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
) Charlie:
) )Just to confuse things, I'm a Christian who does actually think that
) )Christianity should die out. Why? Because Christianity is just one
) ) )religion (with countless "sects") among many religions. And religions
) ) )tend to separate people.
Diana:
) But to criticize "religion" in general or even say "religion" should die
out
) is very different from specifying a particular religion, don't you think?
) It is a completely different thing from saying, "There is no place for
) Judaism/Jews/"Judaistic" cultrure [whichever] among modern nations." The
) difference is obvious.
charlie:
Yes; but this arguement stemmed from a quote of Steiner relating to European
Jews, if I remember correctly. He was of the opinion that the insular way of
life of these Jews at that time was not good for them nor the wider
community. He was addressing a particular problem. I was just putting it
into a wider context.
Diana:
It is also different for a *member* of a particular
) religion to say the religion should die out, than for outsiders to simply
) invite them to not exist anymore, please.
charlie:
Steiner was part of that society and he was stating what he thought was best
for that society (including the Jews). Steiner never forced anything on
anybody. He knew that if the Jews were to change it would have to be because
they wanted to change.
Diana:
) Second, I'm not too receptive to lofty statements that religions divide
and
) separate us, etc.
charlie:
I'm not to sure about lofty, I would say demoralised.
Diana:
Everybody else's religion is divisive and sectarian, etc.;
) usually turns out the speaker would like to see his own religion set up
once
) all the divisive ones have been swatted away. Of course he insists his own
) religion isn't one, his version of things just happens to be true and it
) includes all the other ones anyway so nobody should mind.
) Diana
charlie:
I'm baptised, Church of Scotland. So I'm a Christian; part of the divisive
and sectarian system, I would say. I do not wish to see any other religion
set up, thanks very much.
In my search for meaning I read a fair bit of Steiner: it works for me,
points me in the right direction. People choose different paths to follow
and I'm glad it is this way. No one has a monopoly on truth. If you are
happy that your philosophy of life is making you a better member of
humanity, go for it.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:15:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
)Re: original sin, and does it exist in anthroposophy? On the SJU
)list, someone just asked what are the deeper meanings in the Humpty
)Dumpty nursery rhyme, and the consensus seems to be that it's about
)a "great cosmic fall."
)
)I wouldn't know if this is the "deep" reason Waldorf teachers use
)this rhyme (I do remember that preschoolers *love* falling off a
)chair while Humpty Dumpty is recited), but it does appear they are
)very receptive to the idea of conveying a message about a "fall"
)(which implies original sin, I think).
)Diana
I think the fall in Anthroposophy is Lucifer's.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:24:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
)Now I'm being censored too because DD cannot stand to see his pet
)theory about RS and Nazism disproven and PS' lies exposed.
Wrong, Tarjei. You have been warned not to call your fellow
subscriber a liar. Nothing to do with censorship, or the merit of
your other, more cogent, arguments.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:25:56 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:04:48 -0500
"Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com) responded to Tarjei:
TS: )The question is, did RS during the ACTUAL lecture series talk about
)and explicitly mention 'Root races', 'sub-races', the superiority of
)a 'German sub-race' in the way you indicate?
PS: )Yes, he did, as far as we know, and he does in the book version as well.
DEAR MR. STAUDENMAIER, DO YOU READ GERMAN OR DO YOU NOT? IF SO,
PLEASE READ STEINER'S "MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS" LECTURE SERIES IN
THE ORIGINAL. "ROOT-RACE" IS "WURZELRASSE" IN GERMAN, "SUB-RACE" IS
"UNTERRASSE" IN GERMAN. YOU WILL NOT FIND THESE WORDS IN THE 1911
OSLO LECTURE SERIES ANYWHERE!
THE FACT THAT YOU _WILL_ FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION IS DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN
POINTED OUT MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.
GOT IT? CHECK IT OUT!
Tarjei wrote:
))Nowhere does RS say that the Aryans are superior to Semites or any
)other groups. Steiner told his Oslo audience no such thing. In other words,
)this is
)a blatant lie.
PS responded: )No, it's an interpretation. Could you please learn the
difference so we can
have a meaningful discussion about this?
I add: Sure, you can also call it an "interpretation". It then
happens to be an UNFOUNDED interpretation, because there is nothing
in the text to base this interpretation on.
But that is precisely Staudenmier's method: he re-interprets Steiner
as an "ecofascist" with total disregard to what Steiner is really
saying. It's very simple: when you wear pink glasses, the world will
always appear pink! Sure, that's one way of interpreting the world
...
If something that is not pink is then deemed pink, this must not
necessarily be called "lying". But that is a possible interpretation
of obsessive pink interpretations...
Best regards!
D. Hardorp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:25:59 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:41:29 +0200
Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
wrote
)Tarjei Straume is allowed to leave the list (after he has fullfilled
the obligations he has taken on from "third parties") and Detlef
Hardorp is joining us now.
Incorrect. I was invited on this list by Dan Dugan almost two years
ago, and I've been on it ever since.
)Well, Mr. Straume, goodbye and welcome to Mr. Hardorp.
Sorry to disappoint you: I am not "replacing" anybody. I just post
very occasionally these days.
Please note that my mail primarily concerned the administrators
warning, not Peter Staudenmeiers smoke screens and (unfounded)
interpretations if not fabrications. If you look back in the
archives, you will find that I once posted extensively on all this.
There is no point in repeating everything ad nauseum.
If all those who respect anthroposophy and Waldorf Education were to
stop posting on this list, it would probably shrivel up after some
infighting amongts the "critics" and die!
Unfortunately, somebody respectful of anthroposphy or Waldorf
Education somewhere always seems to discover the list just when this
is about to happen, and starts arguing everthing all over again.
Don't worry, Mr. Zeger, it won't be me!
Regards,
D. Hardorp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:26:02 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad moderator warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie abou
t R S exposed)
Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:27:28 -0500 "Peter Staudenmaier" (?) asks:
)What was my "error"?
This has been repeated on this list over and over again in the last
few days: READ!
For example Tarjei wrote:
)Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of
a lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever
provided a source or rererence to this forgery of yours. This is
nothing less than con artistry on your behalf. If the opposite is
indeed the case, please provide adequate documentation and referenes
to this non-existent lecture.
)Gibberish and fabrication. Sune has scanned and published the entire
lecture cycle at
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm,
)and on his aforementioned page he demonstrates clearly and
unequivocally that the invented "lecture" from this cycle is proven
to be a lie. (...)
)The issue being discussed is whether or not it is a lie to state
that RS told his listeners in Oslo that the Aryans are a _superior_
race.
My mail, Peter, was not primarily concerned with this everlasting
smoke screen of yours, but with the moderator suddenly inventing new
rules of what is allowed on this list and what isn't.
Detlef Hardorp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 517
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Historical revisionism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's truth about RS exposed
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By theosopost hotmail.com
Pot to Kettle: "you're black"
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Pot to Kettle: "you're black"
By winters_diana hotmail.com
NDOFC
By litvas icu.com
Admin: OT warning to DL
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Historical revisionism
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: NDOFC
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Admin: OT warning to DL
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: NDOFC
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By pstaud hotmail.com
crusaders, critics, and supporters
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Smoke this one over TS
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: The Jew Man Cometh
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Life without Mr. Straume
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: crusaders, critics, and supporters
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: NDOFC
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: NDOFC
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Life without Mr. Straume
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: NDOFC
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: NDOFC
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:50:34 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
Charlie (re: Steiner on European Jews):
)He was of the opinion that the insular way of life of these Jews at )that
)time was not good for them nor the wider community. He was )addressing a
)particular problem. I was just putting it into a wider )context.
Going around telling other cultures or peoples or religions that their "way
of life" is not "good for them" really reeks, Charlie.
Diana:
)It is also different for a *member* of a particular religion to say )the
)religion should die out, than for outsiders to simply invite them )to not
)exist anymore, please.
Charlie:
)Steiner was part of that society and he was stating what he thought )was
)best for that society (including the Jews).
How blatantly can you miss the point? Steiner was not a Jew, and that is the
"society" I am talking about, in terms of being an "insider." It gets worse
and worse, deciding that certain subgroups of society have to change their
way of life or drop their religion to do what's "best for society"?!
)Steiner never forced anything on anybody.
That's nice. It's like arguing with people who never even had a discussion
about historical events in high school. What kind of argument is this, he
never forced anybody? The discussion here is about the influence and
implications of his ideas.
)He knew that if the Jews were to change it would have to be because )they
)wanted to change.
Oh, ick, please! You have just become unreadable.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:42:06 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier
on 10/5/01 3:25 AM, Detlef Hardorp at hardorp gmx.net wrote:
)
) If all those who respect anthroposophy and Waldorf Education were to stop
) posting on this list, it would probably shrivel up after some infighting
) amongts the "critics" and die!
Sharon:
Wishful thinking Mr. Hardorp. In reality many Waldorf critics are becoming
close friends with plans to meet each other in person. I don't think you
quite realize how much we have in common, and how much our relationships
have developed with each other off list over the past years. Some of our
ex-Waldorf children are even corresponding with each other as pen pals!
I think it is very interesting how you suddenly appear to pound and kick
Peter Studenmenmaier. You are just adding fuel to the flame and making him
more interested in Anthroposophy than he was to begin with. He is a major
threat to Anthroposophists because he is a brilliant writer and an authority
on the German right. He is very knowledgeable on racism, biology, blood
purity and all that. I just want to thank you Anthroposophists who helped
spur Peter on with your accusations and cries of "Liar!" I'm so glad you
piqued his interest. I publicly come out here in support of Peter who I
consider a friend.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:55:20 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's truth about RS exposed
on 10/5/01 3:25 AM, Detlef Hardorp at hardorp gmx.net wrote:
) On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:04:48 -0500
) "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com) responded to Tarjei:
)
) TS: )The question is, did RS during the ACTUAL lecture series talk about
)) and explicitly mention 'Root races', 'sub-races', the superiority of
)) a 'German sub-race' in the way you indicate?
)
) PS: )Yes, he did, as far as we know, and he does in the book version as well.
)
) DEAR MR. STAUDENMAIER, DO YOU READ GERMAN OR DO YOU NOT? IF SO, PLEASE READ
) STEINER'S "MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS" LECTURE SERIES IN THE ORIGINAL.
) "ROOT-RACE" IS "WURZELRASSE" IN GERMAN, "SUB-RACE" IS "UNTERRASSE" IN GERMAN.
) YOU WILL NOT FIND THESE WORDS IN THE 1911 OSLO LECTURE SERIES ANYWHERE!
)
) THE FACT THAT YOU _WILL_ FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
) IS DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT MANY TIMES ON
) THIS LIST.
)
) GOT IT? CHECK IT OUT!
)
)Sharon:
Yes we have "got it" because we checked it out Mr. Hardorp. There are many
indications of Steiner's acceptance of the root-race theory, not just in the
book you are quibbling about above, I come across it all the time in my
reading. Just the other day I found this quote from popular occult author
and Steiner supporter Colin Wilson: "Steiner certainly seemed to accept
Madame Blavatsky's basic teaching - that the present human race is the fifth
'root race' (the fourth were the inhabitants of Atlantis)" (Afterlife 167)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:34:11 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Let's get the facts straight....
Wed, 3 Oct 2001:
Dan wrote:
Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the argument
of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your arguments to the issues
being discussed.
Thu, 4 Oct 2001
Tarjei wrote:
Now I'm being censored too because DD cannot stand to see his pet theory
about RS and Nazism disproven and PS' lies exposed.
Fri, 5 Oct 2001
Dan replied:
Wrong, Tarjei. You have been warned not to call your fellow subscriber a
liar. Nothing to do with censorship, or the merit of your other, more
cogent, arguments.
DL: Actually, you warned him not to "refer to the argument of another
subscriber as a lie" (which of course is a brand new rule that seems to have
recently been invented). But, whatever. It's your list and if you choose
to invent new rules, inconsistently enforce the rules that are there, and
hold different people to different standards, feel free. Just don't wonder
why critics of the Critics question the moderation of the list.
Hmmmm....let's see how many Critics will whine and complain about this post?
Amazingly - Critics never seem to be willing to deal with the issues that
I bring up about inconsistencies, just bitch about the fact that I bring
them up. Sounds like your complaints about WE or Anthroposophy.
If you want me to stop pointing out the inconsistencies and errors - then
deal with them yourselves and I'll gladly be quiet about them. But as long
as members (like Sune) are bumped for alleged transgressions and Critics
(like Gary) are allowed to remain with equal or greater transgressions, what
should I expect?
Shalom
DL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad ho?mi?nem:
(websters)
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
to the contentions made
(wordsmyth)
1. appealing to a personal interest, emotion, or prejudice rather than to
rationality.
2. attacking an opponent personally rather than attacking his or her
argument.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:42:33 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Pot to Kettle: "you're black"
)Charlie (re: Steiner on European Jews):
))He was of the opinion that the insular way of life of these Jews at that
))time was not good for them nor the wider community. He was addressing a
))particular problem. I was just putting it into a wider context.
)Diana:
)Going around telling other cultures or peoples or religions that their "way
)of life" is not "good for them" really reeks, Charlie.
DL: So, does this mean that Critics will stop bashing WE and Anthroposophy?
(snip)
)Charlie:
))Steiner never forced anything on anybody.
)Diana:
)That's nice. It's like arguing with people who never even had a discussion
)about historical events in high school. What kind of argument is this, he
)never forced anybody? The discussion here is about the influence and
)implications of his ideas.
)
DL: Hmmmm....perhaps it's an argument about free will?
))Charlie:
))He knew that if the Jews were to change it would have to be because they
))wanted to change.
)Diana:
)Oh, ick, please! You have just become unreadable.
DL: Do you disagree with the idea that people only change because they want
to? Not sure I'm getting the depths of the "Oh, ick, please!" comment.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:43:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
DETLEF HARDORP
)THE FACT THAT YOU _WILL_ FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH
)TRANSLATION IS DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN
)POINTED OUT MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.
I hear you, it isn't necessary to shout. It's a pity the official
Anthroposophical translator A.H. Parker failed to make the
distinction.
DETLEF
)But that is precisely Staudenmier's method: he re-interprets Steiner
)as an "ecofascist" with total disregard to what Steiner is really
)saying. It's very simple: when you wear pink glasses, the world
)will always appear pink! Sure, that's one way of interpreting the
)world ...
This is an ad hominem argument, I'm sure you can do better.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:09:47 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Pot to Kettle: "you're black"
I wrote:
)Going around telling other cultures or peoples or religions that )their
)"way of life" is not "good for them" really reeks, Charlie.
DL:
)So, does this mean that Critics will stop bashing WE and Anthroposophy?
I am sure that this is merely meant to be provocative, but I'll go with it.
There is a difference - sometimes a fine line - between criticizing an
ideology and criticizing a people. I would say today it is a very important
distinction. I think it is a good idea to point out if an ideology has
racist elements (and a variety of other elements that I decided I didn't
want my son exposed to in school). I don't think you are going to hear the
critics suggesting that anthroposophists - or, actually, in this context,
the correct analogy would be children born into anthroposophist families -
fulfilled their spiritual mission in history some time ago and are now
karmically required to not be here anymore.
I wrote:
)What kind of argument is this, he never forced anybody? The discussion
) )here is about the influence and implications of his ideas.
DL:
)Hmmmm....perhaps it's an argument about free will?
I don't understand what this is about. I agree that we have free will about
whether to agree with Steiner. I don't find the fact that Steiner never held
a gun to anyone's head to force them to agree to his views, a substantial
argument in favor of those views.
Charlie wrote:
)He knew that if the Jews were to change it would have to be because )they
)wanted to change.
Diana:
)Oh, ick, please! You have just become unreadable.
DL:
)Do you disagree with the idea that people only change because they want to?
) Not sure I'm getting the depths of the "Oh, ick, )please!" comment.
Sorry, I don't think your question is relevant. I think "ick" is about the
best I can do, sorry it isn't more eloquent.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:12:41 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: NDOFC
)) If all those who respect anthroposophy and Waldorf Education were to stop
)) posting on this list, it would probably shrivel up after some infighting
)) amongts the "critics" and die!
)Sharon:
)Wishful thinking Mr. Hardorp. In reality many Waldorf critics are becoming
)close friends with plans to meet each other in person. I don't think you
)quite realize how much we have in common, and how much our relationships
)have developed with each other off list over the past years. Some of our
)ex-Waldorf children are even corresponding with each other as pen pals!
Well, that's very nice but it doesn't have anything to do with the issue
Detlef raised (unless you imagine this list becoming a vehicle for friendly
correspondence--don't hold your breath).
I'll offer up a suggestion for a loosely controlled experiment that we can
all participate in. I'm a member of a triathlon mailing list, and whenever
someone in that group wants to send an item that is not related to
running/swimming/cycling, they begin the subject header with "NTC". This
means "no triathlon content."
If you're willing to participate, start a new message thread about anything
you like, but begin it with "NDOFC". This will be a signal to us
"defenders" that you are trying to show that discussion can survive on this
list without any of us on the other side participating.
If you're not willing to play along with this, I will suggest an alternative:
If you the reader appreciate waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, or
anthroposophy, post nothing for the next two weeks.
See you after the 21st of October.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:04:22 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: OT warning to DL
)DL: Actually, you warned him not to "refer to the argument of
)another subscriber as a lie" (which of course is a brand new rule
)that seems to have recently been invented). But, whatever. It's
)your list and if you choose to invent new rules, inconsistently
)enforce the rules that are there, and hold different people to
)different standards, feel free. Just don't wonder why critics of
)the Critics question the moderation of the list.
)
)Hmmmm....let's see how many Critics will whine and complain about
)this post? Amazingly - Critics never seem to be willing to deal
)with the issues that I bring up about inconsistencies, just bitch
)about the fact that I bring them up. Sounds like your complaints
)about WE or Anthroposophy.
)
)If you want me to stop pointing out the inconsistencies and errors -
)then deal with them yourselves and I'll gladly be quiet about them.
)But as long as members (like Sune) are bumped for alleged
)transgressions and Critics (like Gary) are allowed to remain with
)equal or greater transgressions, what should I expect?
DL, you were warned on 8/31 and on 9/10 about off-topic posting, yet
you continue to waste our time with discussions of the rules. This is
your last warning. Do not reply to this message.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:22:25 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Historical revisionism
Diana:
) Going around telling other cultures or peoples or religions that their
"way
) of life" is not "good for them" really reeks, Charlie.
charlie:
Steiner was aware of social problems developing in society around him. He
proposed changes, but things only got worse, and we know the rest of the
story. He may have commented that it would be better if the Jews were to
make changes, but he put a lot more effort into trying to change German
society as a whole. I know you won't agree, but if they had earnestly taken
up threefolding, things may not have deteriorated as they did. As things
stood, the Jews were an easy target when the people were looking for a
scapegoat to blame for their misfortune. Can you blame Steiner for speaking
out when he saw what he considered to be at least a partial solutuion for
society's ills.
)
) Diana:
) )It is also different for a *member* of a particular religion to say )the
) )religion should die out, than for outsiders to simply invite them )to not
) )exist anymore, please.
)
)
) Charlie:
) )Steiner was part of that society and he was stating what he thought )was
) )best for that society (including the Jews).
Diana:
) How blatantly can you miss the point? Steiner was not a Jew, and that is
the
) "society" I am talking about, in terms of being an "insider." It gets
worse
) and worse, deciding that certain subgroups of society have to change their
) way of life or drop their religion to do what's "best for society"?!
charlie:
If you, as an outsider, thought that a particular group was in some sort of
danger, would you want to warn them? (says he putting on his flak jacket).
And as I said above, he wanted the whole of society to change their ways.
) )Steiner never forced anything on anybody.
Diana:
) That's nice. It's like arguing with people who never even had a discussion
) about historical events in high school. What kind of argument is this, he
) never forced anybody? The discussion here is about the influence and
) implications of his ideas.
charlie:
I would say it's more about the misunderstanding and non-implementation of
his ideas. (still wearing the flak jacket).
) )He knew that if the Jews were to change it would have to be because )they
) )wanted to change.
Diana:
) Oh, ick, please! You have just become unreadable.
) Diana
charlie:
I won't expect a reply from this latest instalment, then.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 21:32:11 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Robert suggested:
)If you're willing to participate, start a new message thread about
) )anything you like, but begin it with "NDOFC". This will be a signal )to
)us "defenders" that you are trying to show that discussion can )survive on
)this list without any of us on the other side participating.
Why would we want to show this? Why should discussion go on here if no one
disagreed with us? Do you think if you guys stopped arguing with us, we
would no longer have criticisms of Waldorf, or work to inform prospective
parents?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 17:11:43 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: OT warning to DL
)DL, you were warned on 8/31 and on 9/10 about off-topic posting, yet
)you continue to waste our time with discussions of the rules. This is
)your last warning. Do not reply to this message.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
I don't do "orders" very well, I guess. And I guess it's probably just
easier for Dan to unsubscribe me for off-topic posts (even though a point I
was making was that the moderation of this list (or lack thereof) has the
same foul odor as that which the Critics say comes from WE or
Anthroposophy).
Dan - I am not the only one with off-topic posts. When have you EVER warned
a Critic that they were off-topic when they responded to my posts? Not once
to my recollection - although collectively the Critics have wasted far more
bandwith in their responses than I have wasted by SIMPLY ASKING YOU TO
ENFORCE YOUR RULES CONSISTENTLY.
So, you can sit there and say "I'm just enforcing the rules" - but it's
clear that that attitude is crap. You are not enforcing the rules EXCEPT AS
YOUR MOOD SUITS YOU. Period. And you are making up new rules as you go
along and YOU STILL DO NOT HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AND AD HOM IS.
Your decision to boot or not boot a subscriber is completely based on your
PERSONAL feelings about someone. Take Sune - he was booted for three
alleged violations (2 ad homs and "tracking down a fellow subscriber") It
did not matter that he was actually just trying to ascertain the gender of
the subscriber - you took it as "tracking."
Gary makes ad homs and actually DOES track me down - and you do nothing
(Gary very sarcastically unsubscribed himself - (supposedly - I have no way
of knowing) - but isn't booted from the list).
And for those who may want particulars - Gary's offenses that I'm referring
to are:
(and there might be more - these are just obvious ones that stuck out)
)Gary wrote: Jeez you sound exactly like Sune, down to his awkward english.?
And:
)Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:30:05 -0400
)From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
)Subject: Re: weird website
)I'm no prude, Tarjei, but your son's site is sick. Period. The fact that
)you are PROUD of this is unbelievable. You flunk fatherhood in teaching
)your son proper priorities in life, respect for life, etc.
And lastly, Gary tracked me down - didn't research the gender of my name as
Sune did, but actually took time to find out enough information from little
pieces of personal information I had given to find me. While I don't have a
problem with him doing that, it does seem like a more flagrant offense than
what Sune was accused of.
Yet, Gary remains on the list. And Dan remains the despotic (hey - since
you're gonna boot me anyway for responding, let's have fun) moderator. Oh.
I should say "moderates from the despotic position" - according to dan
that's not an ad hom, right? Of course it is off-topic.
Well - you can keep your list. That you are unwilling or unable to see that
your "definition" of what is and is not an ad hom or what is or isn't
acceptable beahviour on this list is extremely fluid should be clear to
anyone reading the archives of this list.
You warn when you feel like it.
You boot when you feel like it.
You make up rules when you feel like it.
And for those Critics who feel that Dan has been very generous to allow me
to be as vocal as I have been - I would have had no problem with Dan
enforcing his rules in my direction - as long as he was honest about them.
But he's not. And he's unwilling (or unable) to admit that. And yet,
somehow - he seems to want to say that WE or Anthroposophy aren't being
honest with people. It's hard for people to take you seriously when you
aren't being straight with them. And whatever you may think of me being a
burr under your saddle - I have been honest in my posts and dealings with
this list. Any dishonesty or lack of integrity in interactions I have had
on this list come from Critics (Dan, Su and Michael in particular).
Shalom
DL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder for Dan:
ad ho?mi?nem:
(websters)
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
to the contentions made
(wordsmyth)
1. appealing to a personal interest, emotion, or prejudice rather than to
rationality.
2. attacking an opponent personally rather than attacking his or her
argument.
Take some time and TRY and figure out what the above definitions mean?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:40:49 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
on 10/5/01 1:12 PM, Robert Flannery at litvas icu.com wrote:
) Well, that's very nice but it doesn't have anything to do with the issue
) Detlef raised (unless you imagine this list becoming a vehicle for friendly
) correspondence--don't hold your breath).
Sharon:
My post had everything to do with the issue that Detlaf brought up. Detlaf
wrote that critics would fight with each other if Waldorf supporters stopped
posting. I pointed out that many of us like each other, (I can't think of
any reason to fight). It is just wishful thinking on Detlaf's part.
R. Flannery:
) If you the reader appreciate waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, or
) anthroposophy, post nothing for the next two weeks.
)
) See you after the 21st of October.
Great. Go ahead and try your experiment. I'll start posting a whacky Steiner
quote on a daily basis, all I'll need to do is open up an Anthroposophic
book, shut my eyes and point, then I'll have something to post. I make a
call to critics to follow suit. It'll be great not to have to argue for a
couple weeks. I look forward to the peace. Maybe Peter would translate some
of the German texts for us, that would be smashing. (Because I don't speak
German I really appreciated his last translation of Steiner's coming race
war where Steiner prophesied that the white people will win over the dark
people.) Doesn't have to be much, just a sentence or two.
Aaahhhh, what bliss, no arguing for two weeks. (Got a *great* quote about
Sun at Midnight, er...not from Ahern's book!)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:12:54 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Peter S:
) I must be having trouble with clarity lately. Let's try this again: By my
) reading of the published version of these lectures, Steiner *does* say that
) the Aryans are a superior race, several times over, in multiple ways.
I won't comment on your reading comprehension, but the fact is that
RS did NOT tell his listeneres that the Aryans are a superior race.
You did not write that you thought he indicated this, but that he
actually SAID it - which is an untruth. It's as simple as that.
--
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: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:13:31 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Detlef writes:
)DEAR MR. STAUDENMAIER, DO YOU READ GERMAN OR DO YOU NOT?
Yes.
)IF SO, PLEASE READ STEINER'S "MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS" LECTURE )SERIES IN
)THE ORIGINAL.
I did that just a few weeks ago, as it happens.
) "ROOT-RACE" IS "WURZELRASSE" IN GERMAN,
Sometimes. It's also "Hauptrasse" in German, specifically in Steiner's works
from the first decade of the twentieth century, among others. The same may
also be true of "Grundrasse", but I'm not certain of that. In any case there
is no doubt that "Hauptrasse" was one of the terms Steiner used to translate
Blavatsky's word "root-race". If you were better acquainted with Steiner's
theosophical writings, you'd know that.
)"SUB-RACE" IS "UNTERRASSE" IN GERMAN.
Correct. This word appears in neither the German nor the English editions of
the book; instead Steiner uses the term "Volk", which means people or
nation, one of his synonyms for "sub-race".
) YOU WILL NOT FIND THESE WORDS IN THE 1911 OSLO LECTURE SERIES )ANYWHERE!
That's 1910, Detlef. By the way, Steiner mostly used plain old "Rasse" or
race, without any prefixes.
)THE FACT THAT YOU _WILL_ FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH
) )TRANSLATION IS DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN POINTED
) )OUT MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.
Exactly two people have "pointed out" this "error in the translation": you
and Sune. Neither of you, to the best of my knowledge, has ever worked as a
German-to-English translator, and neither of you has a particularly solid
record of representing this text accurately. Moreover, the editors of
Steiner's collected works, the anthroposophist translator, and the Rudolf
Steiner Press all disagree with you. The English translation was fully
authorized, and while it does contain several errors, this is clearly not
one of them. Steiner used the terms "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse"
interchangeably to refer to the theosophical concept of root races. It is
thus entirely accurate to translate "Hauptrasse" as "root race", just as the
English edition of this book does.
)I add: Sure, you can also call it an "interpretation". It then )happens to
)be an UNFOUNDED interpretation, because there is nothing in )the text to
)base this interpretation on.
I base this reading on Steiner's own words in this book, which explicitly
assign whites a superior status over non-whites in myriad ways. All readers
can confirm this for themselves by taking a look at the text.
)But that is precisely Staudenmier's method: he re-interprets Steiner )as an
)"ecofascist"
No, I don't. Steiner wasn't a fascist of any sort. I recommend you re-read
both the Steiner book and my article; perhaps you'll understand at least one
of them this time around.
I also recommend you re-read my exchange with Tarjei/Sune, since your
comments below make clear that it went over your head:
)This has been repeated on this list over and over again in the last )few
)days: READ!
)
)For example Tarjei wrote:
)
) )Your introduction to your article gives a fabricated description of ))a
)lecture by RS that was never held, and at no point have you ever ))provided
)a source or rererence to this forgery of yours.
)
) )The issue being discussed is whether or not it is a lie to state )that RS
)told his listeners in Oslo that the Aryans are a _superior_ )race.
The "error" you mean is obviously quite different from the "error" Tarjei,
or Sune, or somebody charged me with, namely making up a fake lecture out of
thin air. The "error" you mean is that I had the temerity to point out that
this lecture series by Steiner is overflowing with racist content. The fact
that you cannot recognize this content scarcely makes my bringing attention
to it an "error".
I think it would be easier to have discussions like this if you and your
cohorts would explain your own interpretation of this book, particularly
Steiner's insistence that Africans are spiritually infantile, Asians
spiritually adolescent, and Indians spiritually feeble, while Europeans are
the only spiritual grown-ups. I'd also be very interested to learn what you
make of Steiner's association of "Aryans" with the pinnacle of several
different hierarchical arrangements, from the Roman pantheon to the organs
of the human body, as well as his argument that it is the unique mission of
Europeans, and
especially Germans, to develop the "I", that highest of anthroposophical
concepts.
You don't need to write an essay. You need simply tell the rest of us
what you think Steiner meant by all of this, and why it is not, in your
view, thoroughly racist; then anyone who cares to can compare our readings
of Steiner's text with his own words and see which interpretation is
"unfounded".
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:15:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: crusaders, critics, and supporters
Sharon:
) Yes we have "got it" because we checked it out Mr. Hardorp. There are many
) indications of Steiner's acceptance of the root-race theory, not just in the
) book you are quibbling about above, I come across it all the time in my
) reading. Just the other day I found this quote from popular occult author
) and Steiner supporter Colin Wilson:
Colin Wilson was a critic, not a supporter, of RS and anthroposophy.
To Wilson, RS' works were indigestible, too complicated and heavy
reading, and covered a much too broad spectrum of topics. The
threefold social order was, according to Wilson, impractical nonsense
because what was thus offered was sheer anarchy.
Wilson was an honest critic, however, not an anti-Steiner crusader
with wild or pernicious accusations. There is a difference, although
the impression you give above is that a commentator who does not
contribute juicy dirt about RS and his ideas is a supporter.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:15:58 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Diana:
) (sigh) Guess I've just spent too long on this list, I know his writing. It
) didn't sound like Tarjei. Don't know if I could give you anything hard and
) fast to go on. One thing is using a _lot_ of _underscoring_ around a _great_
) many words in _many_ sentences. :)
I don't see why this is an issue at all. Sune has spent more time and
energy on RS' folk spirit cycle and PS' perversion of it than anyone
else on this list. He has been going through it with a fine tooth
comb and published his analyses on his website. It is quite natural
for me to use Sune's work in my posts about this topic.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and
blaspheme the whole."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:16:20 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
Su:
) ) )Perhaps we should say that it is a secretive society, since aspects of
) ) )it are secretive, and hidden from view.
Tarjei:
) ) I guess if someone closes the door when going to the toilet, it
) ) qualifies as secrecy.
Su:
) You equate pedagogical meetings and secret hand languages with going to
) the toilet?
I can't think of any educational facility where all pedagogical
meetings are open to the public, but secret hand languages? Where did
you get that from?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:17:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Smoke this one over TS
Newpaul:
) I am sure Steiner didn't have too because his audience already knew
) about his root race and sub race theories
Your subjective speculations about the theosophical-anthroposophical
outline of evolution is beside the point here.
) Newpaul
) I would say your refusal to acknowledge that the same racial theories
) exist quite uncontested by you in other Steiner lectures and books is
) not being truthful either. Steiner and his philosophies were , are ,
) and continue to be racist and bigoted.
Other RS lectures and cycles are beside the point here and off topic.
The same goes for your personal view of Anthyroposophy as philosophy.
The point is that RS did not tell his audience in Oslo that the
Aryans are a superior race. Period.
--
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, 6 Oct 2001 01:18:07 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: The Jew Man Cometh
Gary wrote:
) One is "automatically" considered a Jew ONLY if you are born to a Jewish
) MOTHER.
True. I remember discussing that with my American Jewish fiancee
twenty-seven years ago. If we had married, our kids would have become
Jewish. (She used to tease me about getting me converted too.)
) This is accepted across all strains of Judaism from the liberal
) Reform to the ultra Orthodox. If you are born to a non-Jewish mother and a
) Jewish father in a mixed-marriage, you must undergo conversion to be
) recognized as a Jew.
)
) Anyone (yes, ANYONE) can become a Jew through conversion. The requirements
) for study and procedures differ among the strains. For example, Orthodox
) Jews do not accept validity of conversions performed by Reform Rabbis.
)
) This issue -- who is a Jew? -- is a major debate across all strains of
) Judaism.
)
) Not as simple as you think, Dottie.
You are also right that this is a complicated issue, and because it
is so complicated, it is easy to abuse in various debates. I
mentioned earlier that ethnic Jews are just like other Western people
with a wide spectrum of individual religious and philosophical views.
The Judaic community discourages Jews from converting to other
religions and philosophies, and some Jews who have converted to
something else sometimes refer to themselves as "ex-Jews." Only
sometimes. Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, for instance, are
Jewish-Christian mystics in a way, but they are more than that,
because they are individualists with a wide spectrum of influences.
With this in mind, it is important to distinguish between
anti-Semitism - which means prejudice or antipathy against (or
stereotyping of) ethnic Jews - and a critical attitude to Judaism and
other old religions that adamantly cling to old traditions and ethics
and pressure others to follow suit.
--
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, 6 Oct 2001 01:18:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier
Sharon:
) I think it is very interesting how you suddenly appear to pound and kick
) Peter Studenmenmaier. You are just adding fuel to the flame and making him
) more interested in Anthroposophy than he was to begin with. He is a major
) threat to Anthroposophists because he is a brilliant writer and an authority
) on the German right.
PS' obvious confusion about anthroposophy, which has nothing to do
with right wing political ideology in Germany or anywhere else,
demonstrates that he is an authority on neither.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:20:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
I wrote:
) )Now I'm being censored too because DD cannot stand to see his pet
) )theory about RS and Nazism disproven and PS' lies exposed.
Dan Dugan:
) Wrong, Tarjei. You have been warned not to call your fellow
) subscriber a liar.
I have not called my fellow subscribers anything at all. I did write
at one point that they waddled like mudducks, and I would have
accepted a protest on that one. But to call a statement a lie is
within the bounds of topic-related, issue-related, statement-related
freedom of expression.
) Nothing to do with censorship,
When I am prevented from saying that a statement is an untruth, a
lie, it is censorship.
Five months is a long time. Goodbye.
(unsubscribing)
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 01:59:45 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Life without Mr. Straume
Dear critics,
It seems Mr. Straume has finally left us now, after bombarding us with
his last messages. So now we can maybe discuss some things without being
sidetracked all the time into fighting about petty little things.
Hopefully the boycot of the list by the anthro-defenders will be put
into practice.
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 20:04:59 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: crusaders, critics, and supporters
on 10/5/01 4:15 PM, Tarjei Straume at tastraum uncletaz.com wrote:
)
) Colin Wilson was a critic, not a supporter, of RS and anthroposophy.
) To Wilson, RS' works were indigestible, too complicated and heavy
) reading, and covered a much too broad spectrum of topics. The
) threefold social order was, according to Wilson, impractical nonsense
) because what was thus offered was sheer anarchy.
)
) Wilson was an honest critic, however, not an anti-Steiner crusader
) with wild or pernicious accusations. There is a difference, although
) the impression you give above is that a commentator who does not
) contribute juicy dirt about RS and his ideas is a supporter.
Sharon:
The book was published in the seventies (I think), perhaps before he became
a critic. The chapter about Steiner in "Afterlife" sure sounded like a plug
to me! It was very favorable. Thanks for putting me straight. Do you know
when Wilson became a critic?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 21:34:59 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
I, too, am looking forward to discussion without arguments. (Argument and
disagreement are two different things to me.) I also think it is quite
possible for discussions to continue here without arguments by defenders,
just as pro-whatever sites continue with discussions and don't shrivel and
die from lack of dissention.
I have read several "writings" lately that make me thankful, once again,
that we have moved beyond Waldorf--at least as it is implemented in this
area. Seems that at least some anthros have expressed that the events of
9-11 are some sort of karmic payback that we Americans earned. (We are,
apparently guilty and deserving because we are members of the American folk
soul or something.) Another take on events is that the victims somehow
chose to be a sacrifice to either karmic debt or to fortify, strengthen or
join (cannot remember exact words) the etheric whatever that surrounds the
world, much like the story of that young boy "sacrificing himself" for the
Goethaneum. I am thankful that my children are no longer being exposed to
this (horrific, to me) version of karma. I suspect not all anthros feel
this way, but I still have a difficult time whenever this take on karma
comes up. Too cruel and unfeeling for me.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Diana
Do you think if you guys stopped
) arguing with us, we
) would no longer have criticisms of Waldorf, or work
) to inform prospective
) parents?
Dottie
What I just realized this morning is that it is not
really about Waldorf education and its method rather
it is mostly because the critics have a completely
different world view than that of RS.
Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist,
Secular Humanists (atheists) and a Free Thinker
(formerly atheist but doesn't want to be grouped into
beliefs although that is the persons leanings).
So no, it really isn't about the methodology so much
as is it the world views. Which is why it behooves
Waldorf Education to make sure the parents are well
aware of the fact that the Waldorf methodology does
indeed include the spiritual aspects of man.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about RS exposed
Peter
) You don't need to write an essay. You need simply
) tell the rest of us
) what you think Steiner meant by all of this, and why
) it is not, in your
) view, thoroughly racist; then anyone who cares to
) can compare our readings
) of Steiner's text with his own words and see which
) interpretation is
) "unfounded".
Dottie
Well see Peter, in here lies the problem. You share an
Atheist world view with most on this list. Your
audience will automatically and has automatically
assumed you are correct. This is really what it is all
about. Bottom line.
And then their are others who are not atheist who
might consider your perceptions correct. But mostly
you do speak to a list of people who share your world
view.
Peace
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Life without Mr. Straume
) Dear critics,
)
) It seems Mr. Straume has finally left us now, after
) bombarding us with
) his last messages. So now we can maybe discuss some
) things without being
) sidetracked all the time into fighting about petty
) little things.
) Hopefully the boycot of the list by the
) anthro-defenders will be put
) into practice.
Dottie
Yes, now you can resume speaking to your audience who
shares your world view of Atheism and Secular
Humanism. Very good. Now you can lull them to sleep
and slowly indoctrinate them into your beliefs.
Yeah Peter, to think this was about Waldorf. Right.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Sharon
Maybe
) Peter would translate some
) of the German texts for us, that would be smashing.
) (Because I don't speak
) German I really appreciated his last translation of
) Steiner's coming race
) war where Steiner prophesied that the white people
) will win over the dark
) people.)
Dottie
What a joke.
Sharon
Doesn't have to be much, just a sentence or
two.
Dottie
Yup that's just about all you or the critics need to
go on; A sentence or two. Good to hear the truth
finally be spoken of how much you need to believe the
worst about RS. Very good.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:19:52 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Dottie writes:
) What I just realized this morning is that it is not really about )Waldorf
education and its method rather it is mostly because the )critics have a
completely different world view than that of RS.
Maybe in some instances. In our case, however, Waldorf Education and its
methods turned out to be a rigid expression and implementation of the world
view and philosophies of RS (at least the school's interpretation of RS).
) Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist, Secular )Humanists
(atheists) and a Free Thinker (formerly atheist but )doesn't want to be
grouped into beliefs although that is the persons )leanings).
None of the above here.
) So no, it really isn't about the methodology so much as is it the )world
views.
My concerns did include the methodology, for the reasons stated above.
)Which is why it behooves Waldorf Education to make sure the )parents are
well aware of the fact that the Waldorf methodology )does indeed include the
spiritual aspects of man.
To me it is of importance that this *particular* view of spirituality be
discussed up front, because all views of the"spiritual aspects of man" are
not the same. I agree with you that it is important that this be discussed.
Paula
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 518
-- Topica Digest --
RE: crusaders, critics, and supporters
By lizanderrol home.com
RE: NDOFC
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: NDOFC
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By rechomba000 aol.com
Admin: ad hominem warning to Dottie (Re: NDOFC)
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 21:21:33 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: crusaders, critics, and supporters
) ) Wilson was an honest critic, however, not an anti-Steiner crusader
) ) with wild or pernicious accusations. There is a difference, although
) ) the impression you give above is that a commentator who does not
) ) contribute juicy dirt about RS and his ideas is a supporter.
)
) Sharon:
) Do you know
) when Wilson became a critic?
I would also like to know which books of Wilson's are critical of
Steiner?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 21:39:12 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: NDOFC
) Dottie
)
) What I just realized this morning is that it is not
) really about Waldorf education and its method rather
) it is mostly because the critics have a completely
) different world view than that of RS.
No Dottie, precisely the opposite. People accept counterfeit only
because they know that real gold does exist.
Do not assume that anyone with an understanding of spiritual thought
would not be critical of Steiner.
And Dottie did not a recent post by an anthroposophist just suggest that
those who adore Steiner should refrain from posting for two weeks? Or
did I misunderstand his message?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 01:48:04 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Paula Kraybill wrote:
)
) Seems that at least some anthros have expressed that the events of
) 9-11 are some sort of karmic payback that we Americans earned. (We are,
) apparently guilty and deserving because we are members of the American folk
) soul or something.) Another take on events is that the victims somehow
) chose to be a sacrifice to either karmic debt or to fortify, strengthen or
) join (cannot remember exact words) the etheric whatever that surrounds the
) world, much like the story of that young boy "sacrificing himself" for the
) Goethaneum.
Newpaul
As I see it the problem with the karma thing is that there is nothing
gained from this horrible experience. Anthroposophists accept
tragedies, abuses, diseases, afflictions, with indifference---an
indifference that arrogantly rationalizes that you get what you deserve.
The outcome is to desensitize us and to separate us from caring for
each other and to foster a notion that God is either dead, indifferent
or not in control.
There is a great wave of blessing washing over our country. Many things
are changing. This is an act of evil perpetrated my men. The greater
question is why did God allow it to happen? I am not going to even
venture a guess at the answer to that question, but what I do see, is an
entire nation reevaluating its values and its virtues, and unifying
itself around the common good of its people. And everywhere we turn,
someone is proclaiming, "God Bless America!" And that has not been on
our lips for 40 years.
Many good things are happening . God is able to use our greatest
national tragedy to bless us and strengthen us and guide along the path
he has ordained for us to walk. One thing is perfectly clear, what satan
means for evil, God can use for good. In my opinion, anyone who can
look at 9/11 and feel comfort and certainty that it is the result of
karma visited upon our national soul is more dead than alive. God uses
our uncertainty, and fear, afflictions, diseases, even death--- all the
painful things of our lives to shape us and mold us into vessels worthy
of His glory and useful to his purposes. What else could touch our
national conscious and turn us back to God?
The greatest tragedy will not be the war or the loss of life, but if we
as a nation miss the opportunity to hear Gods message. What the devil
has sent for evil, God is using for good.
What shall we talk about now that all the Anthro defenders are on hiatus?
I have another karma story from Waldorf to write. I will send it soon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 03:40:55 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
In a message dated 10/4/01 6:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
(( Newpaul
Do you have kids ray? I have 2.
Two girls, 6 and 3.
( It was very clear to me that as young
children, I had to teach them to share because they were self centered
by nature. I had to teach them to give because by nature they wanted to
take. I had to teach them to be kind to others because by nature they
are not.))
My observations of my own children and others have led me to different
conclusions than your own. My eldest...well, after a month solid of cholic we
knew we were unprepared for parenthood. She has yet to take a nap. She's
independent, stubborn, must always be in charge, has the energy of a horse on
coke, focused, whiney (strictly as a means to an end) and insists on dancing
the funky Alfonso with Zappa full blast before even being capable of
submitting to bedtime. My 3yr old is the exact opposite: gentle, mellow,
takes naps, self-entertaining, shares without being told (we don't require
our children to share everything), concerned about other's feelings, doesn't
whine, plays well with others, well mannered, likes jazz and has an uncanny
ability to destroy everything she touches.
Although their environment is the same, they have two very distinct
dispositions from the git go. Do I make the generalization that all children
are, by nature, the same as mine? No. Sure, as parents we experience
commonalities in children. Yes, all children need quidance. But they are also
unique and varied as are we all. Their potentiality for anything, determined
by genetics, chemistry and formed by environment and culture, is the nature
of children.
(If we could take 25 kids and isolate them on an island from birth with
no parents, no books, no tv or media don't you believe that Animal Farm
would play itself out. I think that after 25 years it would be very
dismal. All of the weaker ones would probably be dead. The survival of
the fittest is modeled after the world of nature. I would regard it as a
part of our fallen sin nature.)
I think the allegory of the Lord of the Flies illustrates your point better.
Even Goldwin (sp?), although he believed humanity is depraved by nature
(conclusion drawn by his experiences in WW2), allowed exceptions by including
a few charactors who resisted the brutality of children free of the
influences of civilization.
Do you really belive that Social Darwinism is the only avenue available to
humanity without God?
(Steiner's take, I have never heard Steiner talk about original sin or
man in a fallen state. He does talk a lot about man achieving a higher
state, through Anthroposophy of course which ultimately leads man to get
in touch with his "divine nature". As I recall Steiner never had any
kids of his own so he may have missed my observations about self
centeredness being our true nature as manifested in the lives of young
kids. The belief in karma and reincarnation is in conflict with the
idea of original sin and redemption, and salvation.)
Ray:
) To me, the ten commandents make perfect sense for a number of
) reasons. So does the new covenant and I'm an agnostic/ soft athiest,
) depending on my mood.
Newpaul:
Mosaic law, specifically for the purpose of social cohesion, makes sense to
me in general considering the disarray of the israelites at the time.
Although the coveting of one's neighbor's property rings true, the concept of
wives as property is anathema. Thou shalt not steal with my own amendment:
unless it is absolutely necessary. No Adultery, false witness(same
amendment), and murder.
As an agnostic, I think the exclusionary nature of the old covenant ,as
applied only to God's chosen, having been broadened to include all in the new
covenant to be a step in the right direction. It applied the same code of
ethics (10 commandments), or to be more precise, the same consideration for
the enemies of the hebrews( Jahweh was very specific about how to deal with
the cannanites in fullfilling his promise to Abraham for example. The
commandments did not apply to the treatment of gentiles)
From a mystic/gnostic interpretation, the incarnation of god into flesh
(an element of other religions prior to Christianity) broke down the duality
of the divine as separate from nature.To put it another way, as Steiner does,
recognising the divinity that is within all people. Also, the new covenant
reintroduced the feminine aspect of God in the form of love, compassion,
nonjudgement, true equality of gender and forgiveness.
You might say that this is not scripturally accurate. It is not in the
King James Version. But you will find it in the Apocrypha scriptures.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 23:07:49 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning to Dottie (Re: NDOFC)
)Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist,
)Secular Humanists (atheists) and a Free Thinker
)(formerly atheist but doesn't want to be grouped into
)beliefs although that is the persons leanings).
Dottie, it seems to be at least once a day that you comment about the
religions of your fellow subscribers. This is an ad hominem argument.
Cut it out.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 519
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: Life without Mr. Straume
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
By canndw netzero.net
Re: crusaders, critics, and supporters
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: (Re: NDOFC)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: NDOFC, smoke and mirrors
By awaldenpond home.com
Re: NDOFC, smoke and mirrors
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: (Re: NDOFC)
By dan dandugan.com
Re:Re: Life without Mr. Straume
By peter_zegers runbox.no
NDOFC
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: NDOFC
By canndw netzero.net
Re: NDOFC
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: (Re: NDOFC)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
5 does not equal 7!
By hardorp gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 07:30:33 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
--part1_88.d63e984.28f04559_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So, was there a recent (Sept, 2001) Globe article or not? I ask because I
live in Globe country and was not aware of a recent Waldork article.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:09:36 +0100
From: my post box (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Life without Mr. Straume
) Dottie
)
) Yes, now you can resume speaking to your audience who
) shares your world view of Atheism and Secular
) Humanism. Very good. Now you can lull them to sleep
) and slowly indoctrinate them into your beliefs.
)
) Yeah Peter, to think this was about Waldorf. Right.
dottie, I am neither a secular humanist or an aetheist
and I am not lulled to sleep or indocrinated by peters observations and
essays, I find them stimulating and interesting
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:59:33 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Huge Waldorf Story in Boston Globe...
The article that Gary posted here was from last spring, from the Globe
Sunday magazine.
Many people in my area buy the Globe on Sundays, and nobody has
mentioned a recent article to me.
David
TTirrell1 aol.com wrote: So, was there a recent (Sept, 2001) Globe
article or not? I ask because I live in Globe country and was not aware
of a recent Waldork article.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:53:24 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: crusaders, critics, and supporters
Tarjei:
))) Wilson was an honest critic, however, not an anti-Steiner crusader
))) with wild or pernicious accusations. There is a difference, although
))) the impression you give above is that a commentator who does not
))) contribute juicy dirt about RS and his ideas is a supporter.
Sharon:
Wilson said that Steiner believed in the 'root race' theory, isn't that
juicy dirt as far as you are concerned?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 14:39:14 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: (Re: NDOFC)
Dotty:
)) Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist,
)) Secular Humanists (atheists) and a Free Thinker
)) (formerly atheist but doesn't want to be grouped into
)) beliefs although that is the persons leanings).
Sharon:
Actually, I think you are a little mistaken Dotty, there are all sorts of
people of various faiths represented here.
You seem to have a very 1950's idea of "atheist". You seem to think of
atheism in very negative terms, like atheists are "god haters" or very bad
evil people. We're not, we are just people who don't subscribe to odd
systems devised by other people to oppress us. Being an atheist doesn't mean
that we aren't in awe of the universe you know.
You mentioned in your post that you finally understand that this debate is
about worldviews, I'm so glad you finally "get it". If Waldorf would own who
they are, ie: advertise that they are based on Mystagogue Steiner's
occultism called Anthroposophy, and if they would get out of the public
system, we could all shake hands and go our merry ways.
Waldorf is based on Steiner's worldview. You are free to embrace it,
personally, I think it is so eccentric and peculiar that I would have liked
to have known what I was getting into before I enrolled my child. If I had
been given a clue that the school was sectarian, I would have gone
elsewhere. It's important that Waldorf tells prospective parents about the
worldview from which Waldorf is run because it is not very compatible with
many people's modern views. It is a medieval system. It's fine if you are
into alchemy and what not, but many of us have separated alchemy and
chemistry, astrology and astronomy, magic and medicine, numerology and
mathematics. It's just really hard to go back to the days when science was
strangely mixed with angelology.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:57:42 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
) It was very clear to me that as young
) children, I had to teach them to share because they were self
centered
) by nature.
Right you are, Paul. Of course that's because young children *need* to
be self-centered in order to survive.
Babies are born cute and crying because this behavior is their only
means for survival: since they will die without parental care and
attention, they have the skills they need to secure such care built
in. It's instinctive; all babies are born with the reflexes they need
to ensure survival (crying when hungry, for example, and rooting for
the breast when their cheek is touched). As they grow, other skills
need to be developed in order for them to thrive in their
environment - including all of those social skills, like sharing.
And, as children mature, they do develop the _ability_ to learn
empathy, develop perspective, etc. In fact, their capability for
unselfish thought directly correlates to their own level of
independence: as young children grow up, they learn that they are not
the center of the universe. Only then can caring, sharing, and empathy
be taught to kids. (How do you teach any of this to a 6 month old,
whose biggest concern is securing Mama's milk? You can't, of course.
And, if you were somehow able to get that baby to concern himself with
how others feel, he might fail to disturb Mama when she is busy just
because he wants to nurse, or needs a clean diaper, or is cold... A
baby like this would likely not survive.)
Babies' universal neediness is a *part* of the world of nature, a part
of survival of the fittest. God made them this way, if you will, for a
reason.
How could self centeredness be "our true nature as manifested in the
lives of young kids," when we develop the capability to grow out of it
as we mature?
If anything, God made babies perfect for the first job they face:
survival.
Sarina "don't think it's the prolactin making me feel this way"
McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:32:06 -0700
From: "walden" (awaldenpond home.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC, smoke and mirrors
) Dotty:
)
) )) Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist,
) )) Secular Humanists (atheists) and a Free Thinker
) )) (formerly atheist but doesn't want to be grouped into
) )) beliefs although that is the persons leanings).
I cannot be grouped into any of the above. I find it fascinating that some
people cannot seem to understand the fundamental reason so many parents pull
their children from so many Waldorf Schools. While it is difficult to
statistically ascertain I suspect there is a higher percentage of children
who join and then leave Waldorf Schools than is the case in public or other
private schools. If anyone has information in this area please share it
with the group.
Clearly, many parents feel they were duped by false advertising. If one
believes that the problem lies with parents lacking some sort of spiritual
life (Steiner's version, Christian, etc.) they are wrong. Nobody asked for
my family's spiritual credentials when we joined Waldorf. It was never an
issue. Anthroposophy was not mentioned and when I asked about it later I
was assured it NEVER enters the classroom. Non-sectarian, I was told and
that is what is written in the promo material.
Our reasons for joining were probably the same reasons most families join.
We did not feel comfortable having our kids in the Big Public System with
TV's, Computers and Pop Machines, Tests, Stress, Homework (early years),
etc. We liked the idea of No Logo wear at school and some sort of healthy
social scene which included the arts rather than Nike and pop culture. When
it was clear that anthroposophy was not only the root of Waldorf but was in
the school I really tried to go with the flow - it can't be that bad or
weird....
I was somewhat relieved to learn that terms like *threefold social order*
were probably mistranslated and *order* should read *organism* "Good - this
thing is organic I thought. Room for change ... maybe we can meet as a
*community* and talk about the obvious problems....?"
No, it reeks of dogma, closed corridors, and people's perceived destinies -
not much to do with children, freedom or education. I assume some Waldorf
schools are more honest than others. I have nothing against RS or those who
follow his lead. BUT, tell it like it when it comes to Waldorf. If you
are proud of Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf - stop with the smoke and
mirrors - good people get hurt.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:34:19 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC, smoke and mirrors
Walden writes: While it is difficult to statistically ascertain I suspect
there is a higher percentage of children who join and then leave Waldorf
Schools than is the case in public or other private schools. If anyone has
information in this area please share it with the group.
While I cannot put an exact number on it, MOST (I could truthfully say
almost all) families have left the Waldorf schools in this area (two have
died--schools, not families). It is rather like a revolving door--families
out, families in. Heard from a friend that most (almost all again) of the
new families who have enrolled this year know little or nothing about
Waldorf Ed--just the superficial niceties that were presented/promoted.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:09:49 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Sexuality & Anthroposophy
) And, as children mature, they do develop the _ability_ to learn
) empathy, develop perspective, etc. In fact, their capability for
) unselfish thought directly correlates to their own level of
) independence: as young children grow up, they learn that they are not
) the center of the universe. Only then can caring, sharing, and empathy
) be taught to kids.
I would take it even further and say that children will share and
empathise with others when they are ready and not before. If they are
forced to share before they are developmentally ready, there is the
potential that rather than creating a feeling for sharing the child will
resent the whole idea. How this resentment is plays itself out within
the child varies from child to child but it isn't usually much fun for
anyone.
One obstacle to sharing happens when children have been forced to share,
they are no longer sure that their toys really are theirs as they have
been forced by a parent or grown-up to give it up against their will.
Once children are secure in the knowledge that the toy is really theirs
and they are truly the boss of it, then they find it far easier to share
it with others. They need to know that when they want it back it will
be returned.
I am also confident that children are born with an inate ability to love
others and when that awakens in the child it is not because it is a
learned trait but because they are reminded of it's existance. I know
that this is a very esoteric view and not very original sinnish of me,
but it is a very common understanding in many mystical teachings.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:48:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: (Re: NDOFC)
Sharon wrote:
)It's important that Waldorf tells prospective parents about the
)worldview from which Waldorf is run because it is not very compatible with
)many people's modern views. It is a medieval system. It's fine if you are
)into alchemy and what not, but many of us have separated alchemy and
)chemistry, astrology and astronomy, magic and medicine, numerology and
)mathematics. It's just really hard to go back to the days when science was
)strangely mixed with angelology.
Thanks, Sharon, you really nailed it down!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 02:36:45 +0200
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re:Re: Life without Mr. Straume
Dear Bea,
Thanks for your kind words. It seems Dottie is adopting another tactic
right now: frontal attack. After I showed her that her way of reading
Peter Staudenmaier's texts is peculiar and distorting the actual meaning
of what Peter S. wrote, she now suddenly comes up with something else
(well, not exactly something else because it all boils down to our
alleged lack of "spiritual understanding" - whatever that may be).
Sometimes I ask myself how life would be without those "spiritual"
messages from Dottie every day.
Best to all,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:27:49 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: NDOFC
What do the initials stand for again?
Anyway, I have a question. Does anyone know of some reference (or
references) where Steiner describes what the "karmic significance" of the
different illnesses/diseases are? I have read a number of the karma
lectures, but was wondering if there was some reference that spelled this
out.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:19:41 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Paula asked:
) What do the initials stand for again?
"No DOF Content" (DOF= "Defenders of the Faith", as I remember).
David
----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 00:05:02 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Thanks, David. Just found Robert Flannery's post and re-read it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: (Re: NDOFC)
)
) Sharon:
) )
) You seem to have a very 1950's idea of "atheist".
) You seem to think of
) atheism in very negative terms, like atheists are
) "god haters" or very bad
) evil people.
Dottie
Yeah right Sharon. Seems to be that you not only think
you know RS's thoughts better than he, you also think
you know mine. Way to go.
Peace,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 12:47:16 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: 5 does not equal 7!
I like Robert F.'s suggestion (although maybe two months would be
better than two weeks...). I hope this will be my last posting for a
while - another recap from the "we've seen this all before
merry-go-around" critics list.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:13:31 -0500 Peter Staudenmaier remarked with
respect to my statement
) "ROOT-RACE" IS "WURZELRASSE" IN GERMAN:
PS: )Sometimes. It's also "Hauptrasse" in German, specifically in
Steiner's works
from the first decade of the twentieth century, among others.
The same may
also be true of "Grundrasse", but I'm not certain of that.
In any case there
is no doubt that "Hauptrasse" was one of the terms Steiner used to
translate Blavatsky's word "root-race". If you were better acquainted
with Steiner's
theosophical writings, you'd know that.
DH: I am very glad that PS has made such a clear statement. He is as
wrong as can be. He is, in fact, making a claim similar to 5 = 7.
In his 1910 Oslo lectures, Steiner speaks about FIVE "Haupt- oder
Grundrassen" ("Hauptrasse" and "Grundrasse" are obviously synonymous
terms in these lectures). These five are
1. The "black" race (connected to the "cradle of civilization" (my
expression) in Africa - Steiner speaks here of a geographical "raying
out" of those forces that are important in the physical development
of the body in childhood, NOT that "Africans are spiritually
infantile" (one of those infantile "interpretations" by
Staudenmaier)). He calls this the "Ethiopian race" in lecture 6.
2. A geographical center in Asia, which imprints the forces of youth
on the physical body (and leaves a particularly strong imprint on the
physical body of the peoples living there). This does NOT mean that
")Asians are spiritually adolescent", Mr. Staudenmaier! Steiner is
explicitly NOT talking about the spirituality of Asia. There is
nothing "adolescent" about the spirituality of Asia! The latter is,
after all, the oldest extant spirituality on earth. Steiner is
talking here about how certain forces of the _earth_ imprint
themselves on the human being and how this isn't identical everywhere
on the globe. He is talking about a _plurality_ with regard to how
the earth's geography effects the human constitution.
In lecture 6 Steiner differentiates this into the "Malaysian race" and
3. the "Mongolian race".
4. Then comes the geographical "imprinting" of the European region,
where he speaks of "forces of maturity".
5. Before going onto the American region with its geographical
forces of old-age, he makes the remark: "I beg you not to
misunderstand what I'm saying here, which is only concerned with the
human being insofar as it is dependent on physical-constitutional
forces, forces which do not constitute the human being, but in which
the human being lives." Steiner is talking about forces of the earth
influencing human constitutions, NOT about human spirituality as
such! ALL of what Steiner says here must be seen in this light. If
it isn't, the ensuing "interpretations" must be way off the mark.
Sune has pointed out that the exact same system of 5 "main races" can
be found in an American high school text book from the year 1911. As
no one has yet claimed that American high school text books were
prone to mix up everyday notions of race with theosophical concepts,
it is as clear as can be that Steiner is talking about the then
prevalent concept of race when speaking of "Haupt-" or "Grundrassen".
Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race" knows
there are SEVEN root-races within "earth" development, which, in
turn, are divided into 7 sub-races. The 7 root-races are
1. Hyperborea
2. Polaris
3. Lemuria
4. Atlantis
5. our modern "root-race" (to which all of humanity belongs!)
6. a future "round" of development
7. a further future "round" of development
Similarities? Ever met somebody of hyperboreic race (or ever read
Steiner talk about a hyperboreic race on earth today?!).
Talking about _5 geographic centers on the earth_ influencing the
human constitution is one thing; talking about _7 rounds of
development in time_ is quite another. Steiner distanced himself
from the theosophical "root-race" concept back in 1906 (in the essay
"The Life of the Earth", later collected in the book "Cosmic
Memory"), because it is a misnomer. He had only used the concept for
about three years before that. In 1909 he considers the usage of the
terms "root-" and "sub-race" as a "childhood disease" of the
theosophical movement (lecture held on 4. December 1909, in: Die
tieferen Geheimnisse des Menschheitswerdens im Lichte der Evangelien,
GA 117, Dornach 1966, S. 152):
"Aber man mu? ?ber die Kinderkrankheiten hinauskommen und sich klar
sein dar?ber, da? der Rassebegriff aufh?rt eine jegliche Bedeutung zu
haben in unserer Zeit."
"One must overcome childhood diseases and get clear about the fact
that the concept of race ceases to retain any meaning in our time."
In the context it becomes clear that Steiner is not saying that it
has already lost all meaning, but that it's on the way out (due to
all the intermarrying taking place).
And in lecture four of the Oslo 1910 series (p. 76 in my 1974
paperback version), he actually says explicitly that the theosophical
notion of ever-repeating cycles of "race" (a reference to
"root-races", without mentioning the word) is WRONG (he refers here
to the book "Esoteric Buddhism" by the theosophist Sinnett).
He also remarks on the same page that "race" only begins to have a
meaning in Lemuria (which is already the third of the theosophical
"root-races", see the list of 7 above!), and begins to loose its
meaning completely in our modern times (although this will still take
a while).
Those are the facts.
Thus
)THE FACT IS THAT YOU _WILL_ FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH
) )TRANSLATION - DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN POINTED
) )OUT MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.
The actual words are "Haupt-" and "Grundrasse", from which Steiner
did NOT distance himself from. They refer to something entirely
different (see the above!).
Dan Dugan commented:
)I hear you, it isn't necessary to shout. It's a pity the official
Anthroposophical translator A.H. Parker failed to make the
distinction.
It certainly IS a pity and increases the confusion!
Thank you, Dan, for hearing. For the not-so-hard-of-hearing it may
not be necessary to shout. But for those as deaf as our "historian"
Staudenmaier, even shouting doesn't help. All attempts are in vain.
This is my last attempt to convince Mr. Staudenmaier that 5 does NOT
equal seven - but I'm sure that I will fail.
When I was a professor of mathematics at Duke University many years
ago, I would regularly get visitors who were convinced that they had
found a mistake in Einstein's theory of relativity. They would
usually come with hundreds of pages of densely scribbled "proofs".
"Here", they would say, "you won't be able to find an error in this!
Thus Einstein's theory is disproven." It was diffult to discuss
anything with them, because they hadn't really grasped the
fundamental notions of mathematics and physics, in spite of the fact
that they would lecture in detail about complicated equations, using
the same words that professionals use. They always had a strange
fanatical streak. I tried a few times to communicate with them, but
I gave up after a while. It is impossible to communicate with
erudite sounding fanatical quacks.
Is Staudenmaier "lying"? He may very well not be. Because "lying"
presupposes you know better. The more fanatical you get, the murkier
the relationship to truth can turn. I can imagine that Staudenmaier
actually believes his own revisionism. This must have been the way
Stalin rewrote history: everything is bent and twisted to fit a
conclusion that must come out, under any circumstances. If needs be,
5 must equal 7.
One last refutation:
P.St.: )Neither of you [referring to Sune and myself], to the best of
my knowledge, has ever worked as a German-to-English translator.
The "best of your knowledge" isn't worth much, Mr. Staudenmaier. A
little search on the internet would have made my name pop up as a
translator of Steiner's book "Anthroposophy - A Fragment" - from the
year 1910. The professional translator had finished translating it,
and the Anthroposophic Press sent me a copy to correct, as it was in
my area of expertise. I ended up retranslating most of the book. So
I do have experience in the field.
Best regards and good-bye-for-a-while,
D. Hardorp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 520
-- Topica Digest --
NDOFC translations
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
RE: 5 does not equal 7!
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: NDOFC
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: NDOFC
By dottie_z yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:56:01 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: NDOFC translations
I would like to know if there are some non-biased translations out there.
From comments by various anthros, the APPROVED translations that are
available in English are allegedly full of translational errors, and
therefore, not to be trusted. So why were they approved? I make the
assumption that before the AP publishes anything as "sacred" as the writings
as Rudolf Steiner, that they would read each word and make sure it was
acceptable. Why publish it otherwise?
What I would like is access to a NON BIASED translation that I can read for
myself-a translation that merely states what he said, warts and all. No
spin, no reworking, no "explanations"--just the words.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:45:08 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: 5 does not equal 7!
) 1. The "black" race (connected to the "cradle of
) civilization" (my expression) in Africa - Steiner speaks here
) of a geographical "raying out" of those forces that are
) important in the physical development of the body in
) childhood, NOT that "Africans are spiritually infantile" (one
) of those infantile "interpretations" by Staudenmaier)). He
) calls this the "Ethiopian race" in lecture 6.
Your letter was rather confusing. You seem to be saying that Steiner
himself was confusing about race as he said one thing during certain
years and then said that that was an incorrect or an immature version
later on. Am I correct in assuming that he still believed the above
statement and that this is still the anthroposophical view? Or was that
included in the immature section on Anthroposophy. Or has the concept
of race now died out and with it the above concept? I am confused.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:52:26 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: NDOFC
In a message dated 10/5/01 5:56:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dottie_z yahoo.com writes:
Dottie:
(( What I just realized this morning is that it is not
really about Waldorf education and its method rather
it is mostly because the critics have a completely
different world view than that of RS.
Most on this list from what I can gather are Atheist,
Secular Humanists (atheists) and a Free Thinker
(formerly atheist but doesn't want to be grouped into
beliefs although that is the persons leanings).))
Hi Dottie. Second to agnosticism, the definition of an atheist is perhaps the
most misunderstood. I think most atheists will agree that it is someone who
either does not believe in a God/divinity/Spirit or has no proof in the
existence or nonexistence of god. As sharon has pointed out, the general
understanding which persists today is that atheists are god-haters (accd to
the Bible, we are all god-haters, even the predetermined elect until they
come to god). The pervasive misunderstanding of atheism is the notion that we
affirm that there is no god (so called "hard/strong atheism"). Most atheists
have a hard time accepting this position because, like theism, it affirms an
unknowable.
This leads to an interesting argument for agnosticism. TH Huxley coined
the term which he defines as
"not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous
applicattion of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed
as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry
you, without other considerations. And negatively....do not pretend the
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is
wrong...to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless
he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
(Collected Essays)
Michael Shermer defines agnosticism much more narrowly, addressing only the
existence or non existence of God:
"We cannot prove or disprove God's existence through empirical evidence
or deductive proof. Therefore, from a scientific or philosophical position,
theism and atheism are both indefensible positions as statements about the
universe."
(from How We Believe)
The following is an interesting definition of agnosticism that would probably
spark controversy on both sides of the fence (sorry it's long):
"My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have
previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an
agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they
are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't
have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many
theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.
The reason I claim that no one can know god is this. Many who believe in god
don't claim any first hand knowledge. They will tell you that there belief
comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or their wanting to believe.
Those people are fairly easy to rule out as non-agnostics as they really
don't assert knowledge in the first place. They can readily be dubbed
agnostics because they are without knowledge of their belief. Their belief is
simply a belief and nothing more. The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic
variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main
problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always
based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or
external evidence. Some claim to converse with, see, or otherwise personally
experience god. The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling
these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more
or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same
'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists,
or others who want to see proof).
Knowledge in any item isn't something based solely on personal experience. If
I have a personal experience that gives me knowledge, I should be able to
share that knowledge in a verifiable manner with others so that they too can
obtain this knowledge. For instance, if I figure out that the earth is round
based on my personal experience of flying in the space shuttle and seeing
first hand that it is round, I can share that knowledge with others either by
having them also go in the space shuttle and view earth for themselves, or I
can take photos or provide some other sort of evidence of my experience to
others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. Their knowledge of the
earth's shape is then based on reality rather than their own desires to
believe or some other "non-proof". Real knowledge should be objective and
capable of being tested, demonstrated, and/or experimentally verified. Given
these factors, even those that claim 'knowledge' of god are agnostics as
their 'knowledge' is really a misuse of the word. What they have isn't
knowledge. What they have is a belief in their own experience and nothing
more. If they had 'knowledge', they would be able to share it with the
doubter, the evidence seeker, and those who don't already believe."
(article: "What is Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism".
http://www.2think.org/hii/freedom.shtml)
Regarding the last paragraph above, Steiner's "Spiritual Science", in it's
melding of two approaches to comprehending the universe, falls short of the
mark imo. But I diverge.
My understanding of critics' theist beliefs on this list is that they are
varied and that few are atheists. But this generalization that critics are
atheists (because we do not support public financed religion and/or disagree
with anthroposophy etc) keeps popping up. So I suggest we take a poll,
include it on PLANS web site and title it: "Irrelevant".
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: NDOFC
Ray
) Hi Dottie. Second to agnosticism, the definition of
) an atheist is perhaps the
) most misunderstood. As sharon has pointed out, the
general understanding which persists today is that
atheists are god-haters (accd to the Bible, we are all
god-haters, even the predetermined elect until they
) come to god).
Dottie
Hi Ray,
I would have to say I disagree with you. Although I
will admit readily that as a person who is not an
Atheist I might not experience any kind of abuse from
others. Although as a Christian I do. Funny isn't it.
Anyway my point is that it feels like what you are
saying is actually how Atheists used to be thought of.
From my experiences with my atheist and non atheist
friends, it seems like people are more accepting of
others beliefs or non beliefs than at any other time
in my life or any other time that I have read about.
Maybe it is the perception of atheist, that the people
still hearken back to the olden day when atheist were
considered evil people and God haters. I find that not
to be true today.
Ray
But this
) generalization that critics are
) atheists (because we do not support public financed
) religion and/or disagree
) with anthroposophy etc) keeps popping up.
Dottie
I would like to be clear that I never really grouped
the critics into an atheist vs. ap, until right now.
What I am seeing with the resurgence of the two
Peters, is that the critics tend to throw their
critical thinking tools out the window when reading
the two Peters interpretation of RS in regards to
being anti-semitic, and promoting blood and racial
ties to his philosophy.
It seems to happen that when the two Peters show up
this site becomes about their papers, and unfounded
accusations, then about Waldorf. And unfortunately
this perception of the critics will continue to a
certain extent, as long as they are willing to buy
into something because it looks as if it helps their
agenda with their issues facing Waldorf.
Rather than question the two men, who, when even faced
with posts that point others wise, are unwilling to
course correct themselves in any manner, the critics
blindly follow their lead, imo.
In my opinion it discredits PLANS agenda when aligning
themselves with men who are speaking from their own
world view while claiming historic scholarship. And
their world view is Atheism and Secular Humanism.
There is a huge bias on their part and it is pretty
clear.
People who align themselves with historians, which is
what the two Peters have done, are supposed to share
a story according to the truth and not according to
their own personal agendas.
As to the truth that the parents on this site feel
Waldorfs methodology is lacking, I do not protest.
Although I do ackowledge they are seemingly in the
minority, and hopefully Waldorf will take their
criticism and see where they can improve. And I am
sure that no matter what they do to improve, it would
not be enough for some if not most of the critics.
And now it is time for me to concentrate on what is
going on in the world, so I take my leave. I wish all
on this list well and a healing from the experience
you have had with Waldorf.
Peace and Love,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 521
-- Topica Digest --
Trauma and Anthroposophy/was quote
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Our last day at school
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Our last day at school
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Our last day at school
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Our last day at school
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Rudolf's devotional for the day
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Our last day at school
By pkraybil tampabay.rr.com
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By rechomba000 aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:47:15 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: Trauma and Anthroposophy/was quote
mysplum wrote:
Steiner: "To-day man identifies his body with his ego. One who would go
through the Christian initiation must accustom himself to carry his
body
through the world as if it were a foreign object, a table, for
instance.
His
body must become foreign to him, he bears it in and out of the
doorway
as
something external, not himself. When a man has advanced far enough
in
this
fundamental feeling, there is revealed to him what is called the
"Ordeal
of
the Blood". Certain reddenings of the skin appear on certain places
in
such
a way that he can fall forth the wounds of Christ, on the hands, the
feet
and on the right side of the breast. When the pupil by his depth of
feeling
is able to develop in himself the Blood Ordeal, the external symptom,
then
appears likewise the inner, the astral, in which he sees himself
crucified".
[Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press,
London
reprint 1981]
This is an incredible quote, Mysplum, and I do appreciate your posting
it. I think it is quite significant in presenting Steiner's promotion
of the experience of trauma which IMO seems to underlie a lot of what
is
*supposed* to happen to devotees of Anthroposophy. In other words, it
is
trauma and suffering which bind and unite this group as an entity,
whether it is in the Waldorf school as teachers, students, or parents,
or just as devout Anthroposophists.
One can see this phenomenon in the WTC disaster, where a whole country
has been unified by a traumatic event.
When one carries their body as a foreign object, that is called
dissociation, and it is a sort of hypnotic state, a suggestible state,
in which it is easy to control people. Usually after a very severe
trauma, physical or mental, people may experience this type of thing.
It
is a symptom of trauma.
Imagine carrying the wounds of Christ: Egads! Doesn't the world have
enough trauma without *creating* more of it?
-Su
Hi again. I want to re-post this quote and my comment because I think
it's really important to note this concept too. It relates to the
bacillus comment and much of Steiner's belief system. Trauma is a big
part of uniting people. It creates the "us against them" attitude.
If one rejects one's own body, he rejects the self, the individual, as
well as individual rights and dreams, ie life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness. Isn't this the stuff of authoritarian politics, whether
religious or political?
What better for any authoritarian leader than to have a group of
followers who have denied their own needs, and bodies, who walk around
in a dissociative, highly suggestible state, and are able to do whatever
karma or "god" dictates because it is their fate.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:03:19 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
Steiner: "It is not by emphasising "Love", "Sympathy", that they are
generated in the course of mankind's evolution. Mankind will be lead to that
bond of brotherhood far rather through something else, namely, through
spiritual knowledge itself. There is no other means of bringing about
universal human brotherhood than the spreading of occult knowledge through
the world. One may talk for ever of Love and the Brotherhood of Man, one may
found thousands of Unions; they will not lead to the desired goals, however
well-intentioned they may be. The point is to use the right means, to know
how to found this bond of brotherhood. Only those whose lives are grounded
in universal occult truth, valid for all men, find themselves together in
one truth. As the sun unites the plants which strive towards it and which
yet remain individually separate, so must the truth to which all are
striving be a uniform one, then all men find themselves together. But men
must work energetically towards truth, for only then can they live together
in harmony.
The objection might be made: surely all are striving towards the truth, but
there are different standpoints and therefore strife and dissensions arise.
That denotes a knowledge of truth which is not sufficiently thorough. One
must not plead that there may be different standpoints, one must first
experience that truth is single and indivisible. It does not depend on
popular vote: it is true in itself."
[p 143 Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner,c Rudolf Steiner Press,
London Reprint 1981]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:43:06 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Our last day at school
Liz,
I had a difficult time discerning the difference between arrogance and
insecurity, but I know there were both. As in your case, no questions, and
no "please" about it!
I think the solution is exactly what you are doing.
All the best,
Paula K
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:14:30 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Our last day at school
Paula (to Liz):
)I had a difficult time discerning the difference between arrogance and
)insecurity,
The latter leads to the former, I guess? Or covers it up.
Also wishing the best for Liz and family, sounds like life will improve.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:13:05 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Our last day at school
Paula wrote:
) I had a difficult time discerning the difference between arrogance and
) insecurity, but I know there were both. As in your case, no
) questions, and
) no "please" about it!
)
Arrogance and insecurity about sums it up. This is a hybrid Waldorf
school, it is public and most of the teachers are not Waldorf trained,
some of them have only heard of Waldorf within the last few months. The
two founding teachers are the ones in charge and they are in charge of
everything from the business plan to the minute details of running the
office. At the end of last year they were so stressed out they barely
had time for their students.
One of the founding teachers has Waldorf experience and she is the big
cheese on campus. She worked for eight years at the nearby private
Waldorf school before leaving to come and work with our little co-op for
the year before the school got its charter. From what I have heard from
parents at the other school, she was not one of their best teachers and
it sounds like there were plenty of differences between them at the time
of her departure.
Well she has her own school now. We had a parent who came from another
Waldorf school and when she questioned that our school calls itself
Waldorf she was told in no uncertain terms that she could leave. She is
a gentle soul and had nothing like my investment in the school, so she
has gone. We lost two teachers last year because they questioned the
approach of the lead teachers.
Our school came out of a parent co-op and it has been the hardest thing
imaginable for all of us founding parents who were so involved in so
many aspects of the school to now have to sit back and listen to the
co-op teacher talk about how she had a vision and she founded the
school. She is a simple soul and truly believes that if all children
were to not watch tv and never eat sugar they would never fight or have
any behavioural problems. Don't ask her how she knows this, she does
not like to have to think about what she does.
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:20:33 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Our last day at school
Lisa here: From your description of the school your son attended, it
certainly sounds as if you did the best thing. I honestly am sorry that
things did not work out for your family, but homeschooling is a good
alternative if you are up to it, and if there are not any other good public
or private schools in your area.
) Tomorrow is our last day at the Waldorf school.
)
) I ran into a parent at soccer practice who pulled out at the end of the
) last school year. She comes from the exact opposite of the education
) spectrum than me and yet the intolerance for any questions at our school
) is such that we have both been clearly made to feel unwelcome at the
) school by the teachers.
)
) The teachers that are running the school are so insecure that any
) question is taken as an attack. These women are uneducated and foolish
) beyond belief.
)
) I could have lived with the animosity of the two teacher-directors, but
) the fact that my son's brand-new first grade teacher has shown himself
) to be their lap-dog left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I
) could no longer stay.
)
) So many of the founding parents are at a loss to know what to do about
) this monster we have created. Fortunately I am not one of those parents
) that goes nuts if their kids are not in school everyday. We will
) homeschool.
)
) Liz
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:47:15 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Rudolf's devotional for the day
I just have to comment on this one. I think this passage reveals
Steiner's clear aim to make Anthtroposophy a religion which would be
universally accepted by all people. He establishes that his truth is
universal, something most religions believe. Most believe that theirs is
the only way. He cleverly associates the "universal human brotherhood"
with the "occult truth" and of course Anthroposophy is the religion that
leads to the truth. And if you cannot accept this, it is very
explainable - your knowledge of the truth is not "thorough" enough.
So to know the universal truth, you must first of all believe Steiner
and experience his occult exercises and writings. And you must do so
repetitiously until you can experience the single and indivisible truth
of Anthroposophy. He obviously studied Christianity, but his source is
not nearly as high and his spirits are not Holy. I believe he had every
aim of establishing a religion but realized it would fail if others knew
that this was his intention.
Thus Waldorf Schools were established to help young children more
readily recognize the "good Dr. Steiner's" single and indivisible
"occult truth". It just gives me the hebegebees. Once again we are
promised that we will know the truth deja vu:
And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...."
Newpaul
mysplum wrote:
)
) Steiner: "It is not by emphasising "Love", "Sympathy", that they are
) generated in the course of mankind's evolution. Mankind will be lead to that
) bond of brotherhood far rather through something else, namely, through
) spiritual knowledge itself. There is no other means of bringing about
) universal human brotherhood than the spreading of occult knowledge through
) the world. One may talk for ever of Love and the Brotherhood of Man, one may
) found thousands of Unions; they will not lead to the desired goals, however
) well-intentioned they may be. The point is to use the right means, to know
) how to found this bond of brotherhood. Only those whose lives are grounded
) in universal occult truth, valid for all men, find themselves together in
) one truth. As the sun unites the plants which strive towards it and which
) yet remain individually separate, so must the truth to which all are
) striving be a uniform one, then all men find themselves together. But men
) must work energetically towards truth, for only then can they live together
) in harmony.
)
) The objection might be made: surely all are striving towards the truth, but
) there are different standpoints and therefore strife and dissensions arise.
) That denotes a knowledge of truth which is not sufficiently thorough. One
) must not plead that there may be different standpoints, one must first
) experience that truth is single and indivisible. It does not depend on
) popular vote: it is true in itself."
)
) [p 143 Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner,c Rudolf Steiner Press,
) London Reprint 1981]
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:25:54 -0400
From: "Paula Kraybill" (pkraybil tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Our last day at school
Interesting that the school is calling itself a Waldorf school. Do they
have the permission of AWSNA? I once heard that without jumping through the
hoops and getting approval, a school cannot even call itself Waldorf
Inspired.
Liz: This is a hybrid Waldorf school, it is public and most of the teachers
are not Waldorf trained, some of them have only heard of Waldorf within the
last few months.
Sounds like a lot of room for the lead honcho teacher to exert control,
since she is the "expert".
Liz: The two founding teachers are the ones in charge and they are in
charge of everything from the business plan to the minute details of running
the office. At the end of last year they were so stressed out they barely
had time for their students.
But would they consider delegating or *allowing* some of the capable,
willing parents to take over some of these responsibilities? I LOVE how the
children seem to come in a distant third.
Liz: Waldorf school and when she questioned that our school calls itself
Waldorf she was told in no uncertain terms that she could leave.
Would love to hear what AWSNA might say about this.
Liz: Our school came out of a parent co-op and it has been the hardest
thing imaginable for all of us founding parents who were so involved in so
many aspects of the school to now have to sit back and listen to the co-op
teacher talk about how she had a vision and she founded the school.
Sounds SO familiar. Down here, all but one of the "founders" of the
remaining school (the schools don't last long for some reason......) have
left.
Paula
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:09:33 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
In a message dated 10/12/01 3:34:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
Newpaul:
(( I just have to comment on this one. I think this passage reveals
Steiner's clear aim to make Anthtroposophy a religion which would be
universally accepted by all people. He establishes that his truth is
universal, something most religions believe. Most believe that theirs is
the only way.
Me again: including the rationalist philosophies of Aristotle, Spinoza,
Hegel to name a few.
Newpaul:
He cleverly associates the "universal human brotherhood"
with the "occult truth" and of course Anthroposophy is the religion that
leads to the truth. And if you cannot accept this, it is very
explainable - your knowledge of the truth is not "thorough" enough.
Ray:
Imo, there are two types of absolutists: those who claim to have absolute
knowledge of The Truth, and those who do not. I think it is safe to say that
the majority of individuals who believe in a universal truth (God, Absolute
Idea, Spirit etc) are the latter. Although I agree with his logic that Truth
is true in itself, I don't think he realized that he was casting his own vote
on the matter.
Newpaul:
So to know the universal truth, you must first of all believe Steiner
and experience his occult exercises and writings. And you must do so
repetitiously until you can experience the single and indivisible truth
of Anthroposophy. He obviously studied Christianity, but his source is
not nearly as high and his spirits are not Holy. I believe he had every
aim of establishing a religion but realized it would fail if others knew
that this was his intention.
Ray:
So is anthro a religion or isn't it?
Newpaul:
Thus Waldorf Schools were established to help young children more
readily recognize the "good Dr. Steiner's" single and indivisible
"occult truth". It just gives me the hebegebees. Once again we are
promised that we will know the truth deja vu:
And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...."
And Jesus advised his apostles to be wise like serpents.
Ray
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 527
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Deep thoughts from Rudolf
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Deep thoughts from Rudolf
By lizanderrol home.com
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By rechomba000 aol.com
Admin: web counter 71,217
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Sunday school with Rudolf
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By rechomba000 aol.com
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Rudolf's daily sermon.
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:24:38 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
)
) Newpaul:
) So to know the universal truth, you must first of all believe Steiner
) and experience his occult exercises and writings. And you must do so
) repetitiously until you can experience the single and indivisible truth
) of Anthroposophy. He obviously studied Christianity, but his source is
) not nearly as high and his spirits are not Holy. I believe he had every
) aim of establishing a religion but realized it would fail if others knew
) that this was his intention.
)
) Ray:
)
) So is anthro a religion or isn't it?
Newpaul
Anthoposophy is always capitalized in my posts because it _is_ a religion.
)
) Newpaul:
) Thus Waldorf Schools were established to help young children more
) readily recognize the "good Dr. Steiner's" single and indivisible
) "occult truth". It just gives me the hebegebees. Once again we are
) promised that we will know the truth deja vu:
)
) And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
) the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be
like God...."
)
)
)
) And Jesus advised his apostles to be wise like serpents.
) Ray
Newpaul
Luke 10: 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest
thou?
Are you making a inference here that Jesus wanted his disciples to
understand a gnostic revelation about original sin?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:05:10 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Deep thoughts from Rudolf
Steiner: "The beings who permeate the astral body and make it unfree are
known as "Demons". Your astral body is always interpenetrated by demons and
the beings you yourselves generate through your true or false thoughts are
of such a nature that they gradually grow into demons. There are good
demons, generated by good thoughts; but bad thoughts, above all those that
are untruthful, generate demoniacal forms of the most terrible and frightful
kind and these interlard the astral body - if I may so express it. The
etheric body is also permeated by beings from which man must free himself;
these beings are called "Spectres" or "ghosts". And finally, permeating the
physical body there are beings known as "Phantoms". Besides these three
classes there are yet other beings, the "Spirits", who drive the Ego hither
and thither - the Ego itself also being a Spirit. In actual fact the human
being generates such creatures who then determine his inner and outer
destiny when he descends to incarnation. These beings work in your life in
such a way that you can feel the "demons" created by your astral body, the
"ghosts" or "spectres" created by your etheric body and the "phantoms"
created by your physical body. All these beings are related to you and
approach you when the time comes for reincarnation."
[p 67-68 Theosophy of a Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner, c Rudolf Steiner
Press,reprint 1981]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:48:36 -0700
From: "Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff" (lizanderrol home.com)
Subject: RE: Deep thoughts from Rudolf
.....
) [p 67-68 Theosophy of a Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner, c Rudolf Steiner
) Press,reprint 1981]
I've noticed that this book is one from which you have quoted a lot (and
very entertaining quotes indeed). Do you know where this book stands in
the Steiner library? Is it considered an important text or is it one of
his early ones when theosophy was still suffering from those early
childhood diseases?
Liz
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:56:24 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
In a message dated 10/13/01 1:38:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Rechomba000
writes:
(( In a message dated 10/13/01 7:11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
(( ) And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
) the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God...."
)
)
)
) And Jesus advised his apostles to be wise like serpents.
) Ray
Newpaul:
Luke 10: 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest
thou?
Are you making a inference here that Jesus wanted his disciples to
understand a gnostic revelation about original sin?
))
Ray:
Not necessarily. Faced with the knowledge of his inevitable, physical
demise, I think he was making an appeal for them to become wise about the
illusion of mortality, of resurrection of the spirit, salvation, redemption
and the infinite in regards to Himself and all humanity which the
pre-biblical symbol of the snake, a symbol found in the mythology of numerous
civilizations around the world, represents.
Some gnostic christian and semitic sects held profoundly different
versions of the allegory of the garden and genesis myth which survived the
dominant semite thinkers/writers of the Five Books of Moses (J,E,D and P
schools of the Graf-Wellhausen interpretive model). The symbols found in the
OT account, the trees of divine knowledge and everlasting life, the snake,
Adam and Eve, are carry overs from the Sumerian-Babylonian polytheism from
which the monotheistic semites originated and are not creations of the OT
writers. The original meanings of the symbols of the snake, Adam and Eve were
perverted to represent the patriarchal views of the dominate semites. No
longer did Eve (Tiamut, and in a broader gnostic understanding as the female
aspect of God) with her phallus consort the snake (male aspect of God) give
birth to Adam ("Adamu" meaning "bloodied clay", a reference to menstrual
blood). Instead, Eve is relegated as a temptress of Adam and his inferior,
the snake is Satan the deceiver((although God, upon creating the all animals,
for it good), and God becomes entirely male. It is a reflection of a very
patriarchal mindset of one group of Semites.
Original sin, accd to traditional interpretation, is the disobedience of
Adam and Eve of a specific prohibition from their Creator. If you consider
the Elohim as a multiplicity of Gods or the many aspects/manifestations of
one God, Jahweh being one (E writer), then it is possible to entertain the
interpretation that the snake was telling the truth, at least in terms of the
original meanings of the symbolism. Of course, the jealous, male god of the
OT ( the anthropomorphic projection of a particular group of Semites) would
have none of it.
I think an interpretation of the garden allegory which involves the
original meanings of the symbolism is much more profoundly meaningful. It
imparts an understanding of the human condition as split or dual in nature
(physical/spiritual, male female, subject/object, self/other etc). The
objective is the reunification of Self with the divine Other (Adam becomes
self-concious after eating the fruit of knowledge) in the process of becoming
"like God". I think the transformation of our conciousness from an I-It to an
I-Thou, as Martin Buber puts it, is the underlying essential truth of all
religions (not necessarily restricted to religious thought).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:03:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 71,217
On October 12, 2001, the PLANS web site had registered 71,217
visitors since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits, repeats on the
same day are not counted.)
We had 1877 visitors in the last 30 days, averaging 62 per day.
Hit counters give much higher but less meaningful numbers, because
they count every page and image viewed. The hits on our site in the
month of September totaled 38,652, averaging 1288 per day.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:30:43 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Sunday school with Rudolf
Steiner: "To take delight in the beauty or harmony of things means growth
and development, for this leads us beyond the material world. To delight in
art that is materialistic increases the difficulties of the Kamaloca state,
whereas delight in spiritual art lightens them. Every noble, spiritual
delight shortens the time in Kamaloca. Already during earthly life we must
break ourselves of pleasures and desires which can be satisfied only by the
physical instrument".
[p 35 Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press,
reprint 1981]
Same book, definition of Kamaloca from Steiner:
"The period immediately following death is of great importance for the human
being. It lasts for many hours, even days, during which the whole of the
incarnation that is just over comes before the soul of the dead as in a
great tableau of memories. This happens to every human being after death."
[p 33]
"In physical life it is the astral body that is happy, suffers, satisfies
its desires, impulses and wishes through the organs of the physical body;
after death these physical instruments are no longer at its disposal. The
epicure can no longer satisfy his desire for choice food because the tongue
has passed away with the physical body; but the desires, being connected
with the astral body, remain in the man and thus gives rise to the "burning
thirst" of the Kamaloca period. (Kama = desire, wish; "loca" is "place", but
it is in reality a condition, not a place.) A man who during physical life
learns to transcend the physical body, shortens his time in Kamaloca." [p
35]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:38:01 EDT
From: Rechomba000 aol.com
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
In a message dated 10/13/01 7:11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dingman mindspring.com writes:
(( ) And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
) the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God...."
)
)
)
) And Jesus advised his apostles to be wise like serpents.
) Ray
Newpaul:
Luke 10: 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest
thou?
Are you making a inference here that Jesus wanted his disciples to
understand a gnostic revelation about original sin?
))
Ray:
Not necessarily. Faced with the knowledge of his inevitable, physical
demise, I think he was making an appeal for them to become wise about the
illusion of mortality, of resurrection of the spirit, salvation, redemption
and the infinite in regards to Himself and all humanity which the
pre-biblical symbol of the snake, a symbol found in the mythology of numerous
civilizations around the world, represents.
Some gnostic christian and semitic sects held profoundly different
versions of the allegory of the garden and genesis myth which survived the
dominant semite thinkers/writers of the Five Books of Moses (J,E,D and P
schools of the Graf-Wellhausen interpretive model). The symbols found in the
OT account, the trees of divine knowledge and everlasting life, the snake,
Adam and Eve, are carry overs from the Sumerian-Babylonian polytheism from
which the monotheistic semites originated and are not creations of the OT
writers. The original meanings of the symbols of the snake, Adam and Eve were
perverted to represent the patriarchal views of the dominate semites. No
longer did Eve (Tiamut, and in a broader gnostic understanding as the female
aspect of God) with her phallus consort the snake (male aspect of God) give
birth to Adam ("Adamu" meaning "bloodied clay", a reference to menstrual
blood). Instead, Eve is relegated as a temptress of Adam and his inferior,
the snake is Satan the deceiver((although God, upon creating the all animals,
for it good), and God becomes entirely male. It is a reflection of a very
patriarchal mindset of one group of Semites.
Original sin, accd to traditional interpretation, is the disobedience of
Adam and Eve of a specific prohibition from their Creator. If you consider
the Elohim as a multiplicity of Gods or the many aspects/manifestations of
one God, Jahweh being one (E writer), then it is possible to entertain the
interpretation that the snake was telling the truth, at least in terms of the
original meanings of the symbolism. Of course, the jealous, male god of the
OT ( the anthropomorphic projection of a particular group of Semites) would
have none of it.
I think an interpretation of the garden allegory which involves the
original meanings of the symbolism is much more profoundly meaningful. It
imparts an understanding of the human condition as split or dual in nature
(physical/spiritual, male female, subject/object, self/other etc). The
objective is the reunification of Self with the divine Other (Adam becomes
self-concious after eating the fruit of knowledge) in the process of becoming
"like God". I think the transformation of our conciousness from an I-It to an
I-Thou, as Martin Buber puts it, is the underlying essential truth of all
religions (not necessarily restricted to religious thought).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:48:27 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
ray fulk wrote:
)
) In a message dated 10/13/01 1:38:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Rechomba000
) writes:
)
) (( In a message dated 10/13/01 7:11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
) dingman mindspring.com writes:
)
) (( ) And the serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in
) ) the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
) God...."
) )
) )
) )
) ) And Jesus advised his apostles to be wise like serpents.
) ) Ray
)
) Newpaul:
)
)
) Luke 10: 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest
) thou?
)
) Are you making a inference here that Jesus wanted his disciples to
) understand a gnostic revelation about original sin?
) ))
)
) Ray:
) Not necessarily. Faced with the knowledge of his inevitable, physical
) demise, I think he was making an appeal for them to become wise about the
) illusion of mortality, of resurrection of the spirit, salvation, redemption
) and the infinite in regards to Himself and all humanity which the
) pre-biblical symbol of the snake, a symbol found in the mythology of numerous
) civilizations around the world, represents.
Newpaul
He used the word serpent to connote "cunning and wise". This was not a
reference to becoming an occultist or to some secret gnostic teaching
about becoming like God as you seem to be trying to infer. I would
suggest that you review the meanings in the greek and hebrew of the word
serpent as it is used in the bible. Strongs gives the following
definitions from the greek text.
More Search Tools!!
Lexicon for Strong's Number
3789
Go to Gen 1:1
3789 ophis {of'-is}
probably from 3700 (through the idea
of sharpness of vision);
TDNT - 5:566,748; n m
AV - serpent 14; 14
1) snake, serpent
2) with the ancients, the serpent was
an emblem of cunning and
wisdom.
The serpent who deceived Eve was
regarded by the Jews as the devil.
) Some gnostic christian and semitic sects held profoundly different
) versions of the allegory of the garden and genesis myth which survived the
) dominant semite thinkers/writers of the Five Books of Moses (J,E,D and P
) schools of the Graf-Wellhausen interpretive model). The symbols found in the
) OT account, the trees of divine knowledge and everlasting life, the snake,
) Adam and Eve, are carry overs from the Sumerian-Babylonian polytheism from
) which the monotheistic semites originated and are not creations of the OT
) writers. The original meanings of the symbols of the snake, Adam and Eve were
) perverted to represent the patriarchal views of the dominate semites. No
) longer did Eve (Tiamut, and in a broader gnostic understanding as the female
) aspect of God) with her phallus consort the snake (male aspect of God) give
) birth to Adam ("Adamu" meaning "bloodied clay", a reference to menstrual
) blood). Instead, Eve is relegated as a temptress of Adam and his inferior,
) the snake is Satan the deceiver((although God, upon creating the all animals,
) for it good), and God becomes entirely male. It is a reflection of a very
) patriarchal mindset of one group of Semites.
Newpaul
Ray, you must not be reading the same bible I am reading. Your gnostic
interpretations of the fall of man are mombojumbo. Without the real
existance of sin, there is no point to the rest of the bible. I have
heard biblical scholars asses it this way. Genesis 1 to 3 - the
creation; Genesis 3 the fall of man; Genesis 4 to Revelations 23 the
redemption of man. Without the concept of orginal sin, the bible has
no signifigance.
) Original sin, accd to traditional interpretation, is the disobedience of
) Adam and Eve of a specific prohibition from their Creator. If you consider
) the Elohim as a multiplicity of Gods or the many aspects/manifestations of
) one God, Jahweh being one (E writer), then it is possible to entertain the
) interpretation that the snake was telling the truth, at least in terms of the
) original meanings of the symbolism. Of course, the jealous, male god of the
) OT ( the anthropomorphic projection of a particular group of Semites) would
) have none of it.
Newpaul
May I give a biblical definition of sin. Notice that Adam and Eve
walked with God, they had a personal relationship with God and he
furnished all their needs. Do you know that they would have never
wanted or tasted death. Enter the serphent. Satan used temptation to
allow the sin of pride to enter in. Adam and Eve were not just eating
forbidden fruit, they were exalting themselves above the authority of
God and foresaking his word and instruction. At that point, they lost
their presonal relationship with God because they had sinned and God is
Holy. He cannot be in the presence of sin. Man has been separated from
God ever since. The remainder of the scriptures are about God's plan
for the redemption for man throught Jesus and about God coming to live
once again within the heart of each believer. That gnostic stuff kind
of obscures the biblical version of God's plan don't you think? As a
matter of fact, IMO it is still peddling forbidden fruit and the idea
that man can exalt himself in an effort to get to God - preposterous!
) I think an interpretation of the garden allegory which involves the
) original meanings of the symbolism is much more profoundly meaningful. It
) imparts an understanding of the human condition as split or dual in nature
) (physical/spiritual, male female, subject/object, self/other etc). The
) objective is the reunification of Self with the divine Other (Adam becomes
) self-concious after eating the fruit of knowledge) in the process of becoming
) "like God". I think the transformation of our conciousness from an I-It to an
) I-Thou, as Martin Buber puts it, is the underlying essential truth of all
) religions (not necessarily restricted to religious thought).
Newpaul
I am sure Steiner thought the same thing. I have often said he missed
the the importance of Jesus' work on the cross. And his occultic
interpretations of scripture do nothing but decieve his followers from
discovering the real miracle of the gospel - it's message of
reconciliation, redemption, and salvation and once again it is possible
for the dwelling of God to be with men.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:37:20 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Rudolf's devotional for the day
on 10/12/01 11:09 PM, ray fulk at rechomba000 aol.com wrote:
.
)
) Ray:
)
) So is anthro a religion or isn't it?
Sharon: Yes, and that is the *absolute truth*.
Does Anthro. have a destiny? Yes. Does Anthro. include supernatural beings?
Yes. Is there a path you must follow? Yes. Does Anthro promise a better
life after death for adherents? Yes. Does Anthro. incorporate ritual? Yes.
Does Anthro. promote community? Yes. Does Anthro. promote reverence? Yes.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:49:00 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Rudolf's daily sermon.
Steiner: "To the question: Where is Devachan, where is the spiritual world?
- I answer: It is around us all the time. In very truth it is so. Around us
too are all the souls of discarnate human beings; they are at work around
us. While we are building cities and machines, human beings who are living
between death and a new birth are around us, working out of the spiritual
realms.
When as seers, we seek for the Dead, we can find them within the light - if
we perceive the light not merely in a material way. The light that surrounds
us forms the "bodies" of the Dead: they have bodies woven out of light. The
light that enfolds the earth is "substance" for the beings who are living in
Devachan. A plant nourished by the sunlight receives into itself not the
physical light alone but in very truth the activity of spiritual beings,
among whom there are also these human souls. These souls ray down upon the
plants as light, weaving as spiritual beings around the plants. Looking at
the plants with the eye of spirit, we can say: the plant rejoices at the
influences coming from the Dead who are working and weaving around in the
light. When we observe how the vegetation on the face of the earth changes
and ask how this comes about, the answer is: The souls of the Dead are
working in the light which enfolds the earth; here is Devachan, in very
truth. After the period of Kamaloca we pass into this realm of light. Only
those who are able to point to where, in truth, the Dead are to be found
have any knowledge of Devachan in the sense of Rosicrucian Theosophy".
[p 45 Theosophy of a Rosicrucian, Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press
London, reprint 1981]
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 528