return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By nmfoss hotmail.com
re: public schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: public schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Words from a Waldorf Grad...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: public schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: public schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: POF
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mhelsher cheshire.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:56:21 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C2984E.5A647800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
independents, must have
a Canadian teacher's degree.
Nicole:
Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
certainly not the case here in Ontario. There are teachers at our
school who are Ontario-certified, but I believe they're in a (small?)
minority. Some have Waldorf teacher training and some do not. Some
are not even university graduates. I myself am not a qualified
teacher (Waldorf, or otherwise), although I had taught (science) in
university (where teaching qualifications are not required) before
teaching at our school. They asked me to teach handwork, for which I
was able to demonstrate mastery of the necessary techniques. They
also asked me to teach French on the strength of a two minute
conversation. I had no paper qualifications in French at all (I had
been married to a French-Canadian for four years many moons ago) and
was rather rusty at the time (after twelve years in England where
they don't do foreign languages), but I took the responsibility
seriously and spent a great deal of time and money taking r!
efresher courses at the local college. I didn't have to do this,
indeed I was told it wasn't necessary. I did it because I felt it was
important. I do have some background in foreign languages (I've done
four so far as a hobby in order to keep the old gray-matter ticking
over), but had never expected to be asked to teach one.
I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good teacher
(or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but the lack
of a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean that
parents have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be vigilant)
in order to be sure that their child is being taught by an
appropriate (and capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Get more from the
Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:20:29 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: public schools
David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even independents,
must have a Canadian teacher's degree.
Lisa: That's interesting, and, unfortunately, contradicted by what Nicole
tells us.
In any case, here in the States, that is not the case. Private schools
here in America can hire whomever they wish to teach, and criteria varies
widely from school to school.
At my daughters' private girls' school (not Waldorf), every teacher has
at least a bachelor's degree and most have master's degrees, too, either in
their subject area or in education, or both.
At my daughters' former Waldorf school, however, that was not the case.
(For quite some years, in fact, it was difficult to know *what* degrees, if
any, the teachers there had, as the information was not available. The year
before we left, that changed -- due to parent pressure, I think -- and one
could pick up a sheet listing each faculty member and his or her degree, or
lack thereof.)
According to the list, there were more than a couple teachers at that
time who had "attended" college but had not graduated. If my recollection
serves me right, out of the entire faculty and staff, there were two people
who had degrees in education. Many, but certainly not all, had taken Waldorf
teacher training, or were in the process. (I should note, in fairness, that
the music department folks seemed to have superb educational backgrounds.)
One thing that struck me again and again during our Waldorf school
experience and after was that the best, most effective teachers (and I am
speaking in relative terms here!) there were people who did not originally
come *from* the Waldorf teacher training programs/anthro movement.
In specific, I refer to two teachers: one in the grades and one in the
preschool/kindergarten.
The grade school teacher had a degree from a well known teacher training
college and did Waldorf training on top of that. The result seemed to be
someone who not only could manage her class, but also was able to convey the
material to the children.
The preschool/kindy teacher had formerly taught at non-Waldorf
preschools and had a degree in early childhood ed (not a la Anthroposophy; a
la Piaget, et al.) She was quite wonderful with the children and seemed
always to be getting into trouble for things such as having books and
puzzles (considered too "intellectual") available to the children in the
classroom, She also got friction because she wore pants to school, when at
the time, female teachers were required to wear flowing dresses and skirts.
During our time (6 years) at the school, I often heard how difficult it
was to find qualified Waldorf teachers to hire, and each year, there seemed
to be some panic and tension over who would be hired to take the next year's
first grade class. Several times, I asked why the school simply did not
locate some excellent public school teachers with backgrounds in early
childhood/elementary education (bonafide degrees) and offer them training in
Waldorf methods. (Note that, for much of that time, I will still laboring
under the false notion that the only significant difference between Waldorf
and non-Waldorf schools was the *methods* of education, and not the content.
I soon learned otherwise, but that is another story!)
My suggestion was brushed aside. I watched as, several times, the school
hired people who seemed to me entirely unqualified by virtue of educational
background and experience, but who had either just completed the Waldorf
teacher training or were beginning it. One of these individuals, who came to
the school with quite a buzz about what a fabulous teacher he would be,
etc. ended up being dismissed halfway through the first year, when his first
grade class was almost completely out of control. A friend of mine had a
child in his class, and she reported (before pulling her child out to
homeschool) that boys were urinating in plain sight on the playground and
that children were hurling things around the classroom.
Last I heard, that fellow had turned up at another Waldorf school on the
East Coast and was not considered the best instructor there, either. (g)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:20:37 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
) David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
) independents, must have
) a Canadian teacher's degree.
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
) certainly not the case here in Ontario.
Sorry, I was making assumptions. It is the case in Alberta and B.C., at
least for class teachers.
)
) I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good )teacher
) (or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but )the lack of
) a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean )that parents
) have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be )vigilant) in order
) to be sure that their child is being taught by )an appropriate (and
) capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Web. )
Agreed.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:20:46 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
) David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
) independents, must have
) a Canadian teacher's degree.
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
) certainly not the case here in Ontario.
Sorry, I was making assumptions. It is the case in Alberta and B.C., at
least for class teachers.
)
) I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good )teacher
) (or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but )the lack of
) a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean )that parents
) have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be )vigilant) in order
) to be sure that their child is being taught by )an appropriate (and
) capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Web. )
Agreed.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:20:56 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
) David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
) independents, must have
) a Canadian teacher's degree.
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
) certainly not the case here in Ontario.
Sorry, I was making assumptions. It is the case in Alberta and B.C., at
least for class teachers.
)
) I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good )teacher
) (or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but )the lack of
) a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean )that parents
) have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be )vigilant) in order
) to be sure that their child is being taught by )an appropriate (and
) capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Web. )
Agreed.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:21:06 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
) David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
) independents, must have
) a Canadian teacher's degree.
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
) certainly not the case here in Ontario.
Sorry, I was making assumptions. It is the case in Alberta and B.C., at
least for class teachers.
)
) I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good )teacher
) (or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but )the lack of
) a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean )that parents
) have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be )vigilant) in order
) to be sure that their child is being taught by )an appropriate (and
) capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Web. )
Agreed.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:21:43 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Nicole Foss wrote:
)
) David wrote: In many Provinces in Canada, all teachers, even
) independents, must have
) a Canadian teacher's degree.
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) Really? Are you sure? I don't know about all provinces, but that's
) certainly not the case here in Ontario.
Sorry, I was making assumptions. It is the case in Alberta and B.C., at
least for class teachers.
)
) I don't think that a piece of paper necessarily makes a good )teacher
) (or that the lack of one necessarily means a bad one), but )the lack of
) a minimum standard for teacher qualification does mean )that parents
) have to ask a lot of questions (and continue to be )vigilant) in order
) to be sure that their child is being taught by )an appropriate (and
) capable) person. Caveat Emptor!Web. )
Agreed.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:36:44 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: public schools
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
)
)
) One of these individuals, who came to
) the school with quite a buzz about what a fabulous teacher he would be,
) etc. ended up being dismissed halfway through the first year, when his
) first
) grade class was almost completely out of control. A friend of mine had a
) child in his class, and she reported (before pulling her child out to
) homeschool) that boys were urinating in plain sight on the playground
) and
) that children were hurling things around the classroom.
) Last I heard, that fellow had turned up at another Waldorf school on the
) East Coast and was not considered the best instructor there, either. (g)
)
)
)
)
Yep, there are bad teachers af all varieties, and they are everywhere.
I agree with you that experience outsite of Waldorf does seem to make a
better Waldorf teacher. That's true of any discpline, though.
--David
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:38:38 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Words from a Waldorf Grad...
Walden: This *good news* post deserves comment. Thanks for taking
the time to write.
Jamie wrote: With regard to bullying, I never once experienced a case of
bullying during my time at Waldorf.
Walden: Lucky you. This is astonishing. Without betraying trusts - there
are bizarre cases of bullying
in many Waldorf schools (including yours) resulting in parents pulling their
kids from those schools - especially in the early grades. This is a common
Waldorf problem and it has to do with a strange perception of "karma."
Agreed, bullying happens elsewhere but the lack of accountability from
Waldorf schools coupled with a laissez faire attititude ("they need to work
out their karma....") often drives parents away. If only parents were made
aware of this Karmic Rule before joining the school.
Jamie: I have read a large number of the posts here regarding Steiner's
racism, and I don't want get involved in that debate at this point,
particularly since I
have not yet read very many of his writings. I think the real question for
Waldorf schools is whether any of this racism has carried over into current
teachings or beliefs. If and when so, then these must be revised, and
revised again, and never stagnate, as our thought patterns are oft times
wont to do.
Walden: Dilemma. You do not want to enter into debate with regards to
Steiner and racism and Waldorf (where have I heard that before?). How can we
understand if, in fact, "this racism has carried over into current
teachings or beliefs" if we do not debate and look deeper into the spiritual
*impulse* behind the pedagogy? Why not look at the entire movement? What
is learned and why? Why not look at how many schools display a photo of
Steiner in the staff room, quote extensively from the more innocent Steiner
lectures while worshiping the man and ignoring the "difficult" quotes?
Let's look at those "difficult" quotes because they are directly linked to
the education the children will be receiving. Do you see the problem here?
I realize *you* are not officially part of the movement but by posting here
and using the same old Waldorf PR you are (perhaps inadvertently) promoting
a system of education which deserves to be looked at *critically* and (in
its current incarnation) is abhorrent to many people - not only because of
the racism...but *that* is a big part of the problem for many. As another
critic recently pointed out - we are not necessarily talking about bigotry
when we speak of racism. "But let's not talk about it...."
Vancouver is a multicultural city, is it not? Is the ethic diversity
reflected in your old Waldorf school? Students and teachers? How many
Indian teachers? Chinese teachers? First Nations teachers? Check other
schools, too - another worth while study for the "fastest growing
independent school movement...." Think the leaders of the movement will
look into such a study? Again - racism is not synonymous with bigotry.
It goes deeper - and in this case it forms much of the foundation for the
belief system behind Waldorf schools. Not easy to see - especially if you
have been part of it for years. And what about the spiritual aspect? You
did not mention the soul work. The prayers, the rituals, etc. BTW, we
might agree there were other prominent racists throughout history but I, for
one, do not have any respect for what they stood for. While they may have
offered up interesting tidbits to humanity (cars, philosophy, etc.) I
certainly do not have their photo in my house - nor would I send my kids to
a school where there is *reverence* for these people and/or the curriculum
is tied to their belief system and passed off as a non-sectarian arts based
education.
Jamie wrote: The Waldorf high school here is composed of a strong faculty.
Walden: Good PR. You seem to be doing well post-Waldorf and this really is
good to know. Really. We must, however, look at the Big Picture. Strong
faculty, no bullying... great school... the school must be overflowing with
happy students and parents? Vancouver has what - two million people? How
many students in the high school? How many enter at various grades from 1 -
12 and how many stay? These questions are often asked of people who arrive
here with PR posts so please don't take it personally.
Again - thanks for taking the time to write.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:39:04 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: public schools
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) One of these individuals, who came to
) the school with quite a buzz about what a fabulous teacher he would be,
) etc. ended up being dismissed halfway through the first year, when his
) first
) grade class was almost completely out of control. A friend of mine had a
) child in his class, and she reported (before pulling her child out to
) homeschool) that boys were urinating in plain sight on the playground
) and
) that children were hurling things around the classroom.
) Last I heard, that fellow had turned up at another Waldorf school on
the
) East Coast and was not considered the best instructor there, either. (g)
Walden: Lisa, if you feel so inclined would you mind outlining the
circumstances regarding the dismissal of the teacher? We rarely seem to
hear of Waldorf teachers fired because of anything. They are often drawn to
the schools by powers mere mortals (or parents) cannot possibly
understand... we need to *live into the life of the reasons....* I know
(first hand) of a school that finally let a teacher go only after the
overwhelming majority of parents in the class presented a petition to the
powers-that-be stating that they would not be back in the fall unless there
was a new teacher. Money talks. Previous to that ... the meetings did
nothing except spin people in circles.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:54:36 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: public schools
)
) Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) ) One of these individuals, who came to
) ) the school with quite a buzz about what a fabulous teacher he would be,
) ) etc. ended up being dismissed halfway through the first year, when his
) ) first
) ) grade class was almost completely out of control. A friend of mine had a
) ) child in his class, and she reported (before pulling her child out to
) ) homeschool) that boys were urinating in plain sight on the playground
) ) and
) ) that children were hurling things around the classroom.
)) Last I heard, that fellow had turned up at another Waldorf school on
) the
) ) East Coast and was not considered the best instructor there, either. (g)
)
) Walden: Lisa, if you feel so inclined would you mind outlining the
) circumstances regarding the dismissal of the teacher? We rarely seem to
) hear of Waldorf teachers fired because of anything. They are often drawn to
) the schools by powers mere mortals (or parents) cannot possibly
) understand... we need to *live into the life of the reasons....* I know
) (first hand) of a school that finally let a teacher go only after the
) overwhelming majority of parents in the class presented a petition to the
) powers-that-be stating that they would not be back in the fall unless there
) was a new teacher. Money talks. Previous to that ... the meetings did
) nothing except spin people in circles.
)
Lisa here: Steve, I wish I could say that I was privy the the process that
led to the dismissal of this teacher. Unfortunately, I was not. The year
this young man was hired as a new first grade teacher, my daughter was still
in the kindergarten. I did meet him, as the spring before he had visited my
child's class as a way for him to become acquainted with at least some of
the children who would be in his class. (The kindy class was comprised of
children of a variety of ages, from 4 to about 6 years old.) I remember
hearing from the kindy teacher what a wonderful young man this person was,
how eager to get started, etc. The soon-to-be-first grade teacher was
visiting the school the same week as the famous (g) Torin Finser (author of
"School as a Journey"), and the two were going around together from class to
class in what was apparently a mentor-mentee (is that a word?) arrangement.
The only reason I know much of anything is because my friend had a
daughter in the class that got so out of control, and she told me some of
what was going on before she withdrew her child and left. My understanding
is that many of the parents were absolutely up in arms about this fellow,
and it was apparently clear to all that he just couldn't handle the kids.
(At our former school, new teachers were given a mentor -- a more
experienced teacher on faculty -- who advised them, watched over them, etc.
If gossip contained any truth, this new teacher's mentor apparently agreed
with parents that he had to go.)
What you say -- that it is unusual for a Waldorf teacher to be fired, no
matter how weak or ineffectual his or her performance -- seems certainly to
be true. On this list and others, I have heard stories from parents whose
children were hit, pinched and otherwise physically harmed by Waldorf
teachers whom schools refused to fire. In light of that, it certainly *is*
surprising that Mr. Blankety-Blank (just joking ... of course that is not
his real name!) actually left after the first semester.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:20:58 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Walden: How many teachers complete 8 years with
the same class?
Mike, Butting in: For what it's worth, their are three teachers at our
school that are in their third eight year cycle.
Walden: What kind of education do the educators receive? Any Piaget, Dewy,
Gardner,
Gatto, etc?
Mike: I was allowed to spend a day in at Antioch http://www.antiochne.edu/
last week. There were about fifteen students in the waldorf teacher training
class and each had been assigned an educational philosopher to study and
represent during debates throughout the year. Montessori, Gardner, Geothe,
Thoreau, and Pythagoras (sp?) are a few that I can remember. there were
simple questions put to them about education in general and the debate
became very heated at times. A highlight for me was when Geothe and Gardner
got into it quite heavily.
Walden: I don't expect answers to the questions but I hope they are food for
thought.
Mike: Most definitely they are, and I think we should keep them in mind
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:04:50 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: POF
) G'day All,
) There has been a little discussion lately of The Philosphy of Freedom that
) has raised a question in my mind. It is not obvious to me that any of the
) DOFs are more free in any sense than I am. Are ther any symptoms of this
) freedom that I may have missed? What should I be looking for?
) See you, Peter Farrell.
Hi Peter,
Tough question.
I personally wouldn't want to give anyone any *advice* on what they *should*
be looking for.
One of the "symptoms" I have experienced is an enhanced awareness of
personal responsibility for my own actions.
I also think that this medium (e-mail list) is very limited when it comes to
experiencing symptoms of freedom.
Truth and Love
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:49:04 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Peter,
You wrote:
) Anthroposophy is an offshoot of theosophy, and "all of Rudolf Steiner's
) later works" were written after his theosophical turn, when Steiner
believed
) passionately in root races and national souls etc etc, a belief system
that
) is in many crucial respects incompatible with the arguments he put forward
) in The Philosophy of Freedom. It thus makes no sense to see this early
book
) as the foundation on which his later anthroposophical teachings were
built;
) if anything, the contrary is the case: Steiner's mature anthroposophical
) teachings are an implicit rejection of his earlier viewpoint.
)
)
) The actual foundations of anthroposophy are to be found, of course, in
) Steiner's anthroposophical works, not in his earlier non-anthroposphical
) works. The Rudolf Steiner Verlag in Dornach, for example (the publisher of
) Steiner's Collected Works), identifies seven of Steiner's books as
"central
) works of anthroposophy": Theosophy, Outline of Occult Science, Cosmic
) Memory, Way of Self-Knowledge, Stages of Higher Knowledge, Mysteries of
the
) Soul, and How to Know Higher Worlds. The do not include Philosophy of
) Freedom in this group. (snip)
Mike:
Ok, fair enough. But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
creating my personal philosophical foundation.
) Mike is hardly alone in his appraisal of The Philosophy of Freedom; indeed
) his view seems to be very widespread indeed among anthroposophists. It is
) nevertheless a view that must be rejected by anyone who takes Steiner's
) writings seriously.
Or maybe it must be rejected by those who take his writings *to* seriously
and have an predominate intellectual bias.(Please don't take this as a
personal dig).
I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the most
important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies. Would you
have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical foundation
and adopt a view as you see it?
musingly
Mike
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 896
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Public Schools
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Antioch Waldorf teacher training
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
More on Waldorf teacher training at Antioch
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
More on Antioch
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By dan dandugan.com
Re: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Admin: web counter 101,926
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Public Schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Public Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Public Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf for gifted kids
By jones9876 cs.com
RE: Public Schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Public Schools
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mhelsher cheshire.net
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Public Schools
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 08:19:42 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
)Mike: I was allowed to spend a day in at Antioch http://www.antiochne.edu/
)last week. There were about fifteen students in the waldorf teacher
)training class and each had been assigned an educational philosopher to
)study and represent during debates throughout the year. Montessori,
)Gardner, Geothe, Thoreau, and Pythagoras (sp?) are a few that I can
)remember. there were simple questions put to them about education in
general and the debate
)became very heated at times. A highlight for me was when Geothe and Gardner
)got into it quite heavily.
Please tell us about this class, Mike - what is the name of the course and
who is the instructor?
Is it a course specifically for Waldorf teachers in training or are there
others with
other career goals in the class? Is it a required class for Waldorf teachers
in training, or an elective? Is it a masters level class? If you have access
to the course syllabus, could you list the reading
assignments here? While you're at it, could you list the courses required
for completing the training? (Or completing the masters degree.)
Are you still considering taking the training, Mike? I ask this because I
assume that if you are, you should have this information available.
Thanks Mike.
Diana
P.S. As long as you're at it, how did Goethe and Gardner disagree? Must have
been an interesting discussion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 08:20:22 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C29912.7E529E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Walden said that most parents choose Waldorf for what it is *not*
rather than actively choosing a school with esoteric foundations, and
David said:
)If you're right, it would seem strange that so many people *don't* leave
)Waldorf, how many people actually *like* it, even after finding out
)about its esoteric foundations, even though they are not
)Anthroposophists.
Most don't find out, David.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:13:39 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Antioch Waldorf teacher training
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C29919.EFFA8500
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mike and others, I've just spent an interesting few minutes looking
at the Waldorf teacher training information on the Antioch website.
To get Waldorf teacher training certificate is a 2-year program
including summers. The courses are listed under "First Summer, "First
Fall," etc. Since Second Fall is a teaching internship, I'm assuming,
Mike, that you were attending a class offered during First Fall.
These courses include:
Waldorf Curriculm Grades 1-4
Evolving Consciousness II
Waldorf Methods in Reading and Math (wow! reading and math is all one course?!)
Drawing
Handcrafts and Eurythmy
Drama and Advising
**Integrated Learning: Theory into Practice
**Methods of Teaching Reading
Note, however, that the last two (which I starred **) are listed as
"for State Certification students only" - meaning, I presume, not
required if you simply want the Waldorf certificate.
Now I am more curious than ever which class you were sitting in on,
though I have a hunch.
Checking the "First Spring" requirements, we find:
Waldorf curriculum grades 5-8 (fascinating! 4 years of curriculum in
a one-semester course)
Internship and Professional Seminar
Painting II
Workshop in Anthroposophy
School Law
Children with Special Needs
Research
**Conceptual Development and Learning Theories
Again, this last **Conceptual Development and Learning Theories is
not required of the Waldorf candidates, apparently. The inclusion of
School Law is also fascinating, though I couldn't find a course
description for this.
For the course descriptions go here:
http://www.antiochne.edu/prospects/ed/edwaldorf/edwalcrse.html
(but you won't find the Integrated Learning, Methods of Teaching
Reading, or Conceptual Development and Learning Theories there,
because they aren't Waldorf classes - probably descriptions of them
can be found elsewhere on the Antioch site).
Final question, Mike, why did you end up observing this particular
class? Was it your request or just what was available the day you
attended, or did someone suggest it for some particular reason?
Thanks for taking the time to answer all this, I appreciate it!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:17:00 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: More on Waldorf teacher training at Antioch
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C2991A.67688E20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Note that both curriculum courses (divided into grades 1-4 and 5-8)
offer the following description:
)Waldorf curriculum in grades 1?8 is based on a highly articulated
view of the course of human )development both in the individual and
over the history of mankind.
How then to deny that anthroposophy is the basis of the curriculum?
Here is another required course description:
)Foundations of Human Experience
)This course includes both a seminar consideration of The Foundations
of Human Experience by Rudolf )Steiner and a modeling and painting
component where the ideas are explored through work with clay and
)color. The book provides the philosophical framework for the Waldorf
curriculum in the first eight grades.
Now how is it that Waldorf supporters can go on insisting that the
stuff Waldorf parents find in their children's lesson books is not
straight from Steiner? This is as clear as it gets, that the
curriculum is supposed to be based on Foundations of Human Experience
by Steiner.
Finally, note the course description for:
)Workshop in Anthroposophy
)Four sessions include an introduction to Rudolf Steiner?s
description of karmic relationships as they )relate to biography,
social interactions, and personal development.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:22:13 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C2991B.22158E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
If there is a single salient feature of this training, to me it seems
the fact that ONE COURSE is offered to cover "reading and math grades
1-8." Several courses are offered in anthroposophy - one course will
prepare your child's teacher to teach them reading AND math for 8
full years, from pre-literacy (and remember that ideally, the
children have had *no* pre-reading type preparation and arrive not
even knowing the alphabet) to 8th graders delving into Shakespeare.
ONE INDIVIDUAL who has taken ONE CLASS is supposed to do this.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:41:35 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: More on Antioch
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C2991D.D696BEE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Here are two examples of classes at Antioch *not* required for
Waldorf certification:
Math Methods:
Concrete Approaches to Math Curriculum
Competency Area: Curriculum & Instruction
Required of and Priority to Elementary and Early Childhood Education
certification students.
Young children develop their own informal mathematics knowledge
before entering school. In this course students will learn how
teachers can continue to allow them to build on their experiences,
both practical and teacher-constructed, to extend their mathematical
understandings and skills. Using concrete materials and hands on
experiences, students will become actively involved with problems
from a range of mathematical strands (number sense, geometry,
measurement, pattern, probability) to illustrate how children can
explore mathematics, including arithmetic, through problem solving
and inquiry. Classroom management and methods of assessing
children?s understanding will also be addressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods of Teaching Reading & Other Language Arts
Competency Area: Curriculum & Instruction
Required of and Priority to Elementary and Early Childhood
certification students.
Is reading a skill that children naturally develop or is it a process
that requires programmatic, constant instruction? Is it better to
teach phonics or try a "whole language" approach? This course will
address these questions and consider the following topics: an
analysis of the reading process and what is involved in decoding and
encoding; different approaches to reading instruction and the use of
children's literature; ways to teach reading that promote confidence
and fluency; and the integration of reading, writing and speech
activities throughout the curriculum.
Other interesting discoveries perusing the Antioch programs:
There is some overlap between the programs, so obviously some Waldorf
teacher candidates take these other classes, and some probably do
take the reading and math classes. The "Integrated Learning" thing
talks about things like "democratic classrooms," which would be
anathema to Waldorf purists, yet obviously a new generation of
Waldorf teachers is in fact being exposed to, and is probably
receptive to, this kind of thing - we can only applaud this.
It was interesting to read the course descriptions and note whether a
class was "restricted to," "required of," "priority to" etc. Waldorf
or non-Waldorf students. Only a few are both "restricted to" *and*
"required of" Waldorf students - like eurythmy. (Outsiders just
wouldn't understand, and face it, outside a Waldorf school, this is a
useless skill.)
Also I note that Torin Finser (who is director of the Waldorf program
at Antioch) teaches a class called Philosophy of Education, that is
*not* labeled for Waldorf students, but priority is given to the
regular elementary ed. students. Hmm. Probably the idea is for the
overlap to work both ways.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:58:36 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Mike:
)But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
)creating my personal philosophical foundation.
I'd say you'd be foolish to do that.
)...I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the most
)important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies. Would you
)have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical foundation
)and adopt a view as you see it?
I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
subsequent career is instructive.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:39:46 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
) THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3121598386_132350_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
It is difficult to believe that *anyone* would consider a single course
adequate preparation for taking a class of children through eight grades.
Even many Waldorf teachers will admit this: I have heard them say so both in
person and on various internet lists.
The fact that teacher trainees are given only one course in reading and math
and yet must take several on anthroposophy tells the story of Waldorf in a
nutshell.
Reading and math (and other intellectual endeavors) are of secondary
importance. Anthroposophy is the most important thing.
Lisa
If there is a single salient feature of this training, to me it seems the
fact that ONE COURSE is offered to cover "reading and math grades 1-8."
Several courses are offered in anthroposophy - one course will prepare your
child's teacher to teach them reading AND math for 8 full years, from
pre-literacy (and remember that ideally, the children have had *no*
pre-reading type preparation and arrive not even knowing the alphabet) to
8th graders delving into Shakespeare. ONE INDIVIDUAL who has taken ONE CLASS
is supposed to do this.
Diana
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:51:23 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 101,926
On December 1, 2002, the PLANS web site had registered 101,926
visitors since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits, repeats on the
same day are not counted. Thanks, Web-Counter: http://www.digits.com.)
We've topped 100,000!
We had 2972 visitors in the last 30 days, averaging 99 per day. This
is 18% up from last month. I credit that increase mostly to a couple
of weeks when we were advertising on Google. Unfortunately, that has
been stopped for the time being, because Google gave in to complaints
that we were a hate group. Thanks, Sune, for demonstrating what kind
of "freedom" Anthroposophy brings to the world.
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 November totaled 184,315, averaging 6143 per day.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:16:42 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
Diana Winters wrote:
) Walden said that most parents choose Waldorf for what it is *not* rather
) than actively choosing a school with esoteric foundations, and David
) said:
)
) )If you're right, it would seem strange that so many people *don't* leave
) )
) )Waldorf, how many people actually *like* it, even after finding out
) )about its esoteric foundations, even though they are not
) )Anthroposophists.
)
) Most don't find out, David.
) Diana
)
That's pretty naive -- even I knew about it within a couple of months of
joining the school -- when I was 11.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:22:52 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
Diana Winters wrote:
) If there is a single salient feature of this training, to me it seems
) the fact that ONE COURSE is offered to cover "reading and math grades
) 1-8." Several courses are offered in anthroposophy - one course will
) prepare your child's teacher to teach them reading AND math for 8 full
) years, from pre-literacy (and remember that ideally, the children have
) had *no* pre-reading type preparation and arrive not even knowing the
) alphabet) to 8th graders delving into Shakespeare. ONE INDIVIDUAL who
) has taken ONE CLASS is supposed to do this.
) Diana
)
And you'll find that Waldorf teachers are continually studying up on the
subject of their next Main Lesson. I suspect the course you mention is
meant to convey method primarily.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:25:30 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Mike:
) )But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
) )creating my personal philosophical foundation.
)
) I'd say you'd be foolish to do that.
)
) )...I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the
) )most
) )important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies. Would
) )you
) )have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical
) )foundation
) )and adopt a view as you see it?
)
) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) subsequent career is instructive.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
And you say you're not a hate group...
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:30:09 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
)
) It is difficult to believe that *anyone* would consider a single course
) adequate preparation for taking a class of children through eight
) grades.
) Even many Waldorf teachers will admit this: I have heard them say so
) both in
) person and on various internet lists.
)
) The fact that teacher trainees are given only one course in reading and
) math
) and yet must take several on anthroposophy tells the story of Waldorf in
) a
) nutshell.
)
) Reading and math (and other intellectual endeavors) are of secondary
) importance. Anthroposophy is the most important thing.
)
) Lisa
)
Okay, Lisa? You're stretching the truth just a wee bit here.
Anthroposophy is the most important thing insofar as the philisophical
basis of delivering the curriculum go. I can assure you, having gone
through Waldorf, that reading and 'rithmatic get sufficent weight,
especially in the later years.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:01:42 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
David wrote (speaking of "esoteric foundations"):
) That's pretty naive -- even I knew about it within a couple of months of
) joining the school -- when I was 11.
Walden: Would you care to elaborate? Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:24:58 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
walden wrote:
) David wrote (speaking of "esoteric foundations"):
) ) That's pretty naive -- even I knew about it within a couple of months of
) )
) ) joining the school -- when I was 11.
)
) Walden: Would you care to elaborate? Thanks.
)
)
)
My mom was looking into Anthroposophy, and I asked her questions about
it and what it had to do with the school. She explained to me the
foundations of Steimer's philosophies is a theoretical sense and how
they formed the foundations of the Waldorf school pedagogy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:46:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
David answered:
) My mom was looking into Anthroposophy, and I asked her questions about
) it and what it had to do with the school. She explained to me the
) foundations of Steimer's philosophies is a theoretical sense and how
) they formed the foundations of the Waldorf school pedagogy.
I think you have proved Diana's point. If parents do not understand
Anthroposophy and its relationship to Waldorf - they easily could go many
years "not finding out." Parents are told it is not in the classroom (if
they ask) and it is something the teachers work on/from/out of. Your mother
already knew more than most, it seems, and passed on a rough translation to
you. It seems your family *knew* going in ...so when you "knew about it
within a couple of months of joining the school" it was because of your
Anthro inspired mom - not from the school, itself. That's what it sound
like to me. Correct me if I missed something.
-Walden
Diana Winters wrote:
) Walden said that most parents choose Waldorf for what it is *not* rather
) than actively choosing a school with esoteric foundations, and David
) said:
)
) )If you're right, it would seem strange that so many people *don't* leave
) )
) )Waldorf, how many people actually *like* it, even after finding out
) )about its esoteric foundations, even though they are not
) )Anthroposophists.
)
) Most don't find out, David.
) Diana
)That's pretty naive -- even I knew about it within a couple of months of
)joining the school -- when I was 11.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:24:38 EST
From: Jones9876 cs.com
CC: MPSMunoz cs.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf for gifted kids
--part1_11b.1a99f244.2b1be626_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yes, I thought my highly gifted daughter would do well in Waldorf school. The
attacks both physical and phychological on her and others in the nursery led
to an abrupt end to the whole experiment. She is still recovering. I consider
the trial of WE to be the biggest lapse in my parenting to date. If the
teacher had just said ,"its karmic and I'm not going to stop it", during my
*first* call to complain, we could have all ended our association more
happily.
While I have to say I did get some satisfaction out of the negative report
from State Licensing and the judgement against our W school in small claims
court, I would give anything to turn back time and ensure my child's safety.
jones9876 cs.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:43:51 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
walden wrote:
) David answered:
) ) My mom was looking into Anthroposophy, and I asked her questions about
) ) it and what it had to do with the school. She explained to me the
) ) foundations of Steimer's philosophies is a theoretical sense and how
) ) they formed the foundations of the Waldorf school pedagogy.
)
) I think you have proved Diana's point. If parents do not understand
) Anthroposophy and its relationship to Waldorf - they easily could go
) many
) years "not finding out." Parents are told it is not in the classroom
) (if
) they ask) and it is something the teachers work on/from/out of. Your
) mother
) already knew more than most, it seems, and passed on a rough translation
) to
) you. It seems your family *knew* going in ...so when you "knew about it
) within a couple of months of joining the school" it was because of your
) Anthro inspired mom - not from the school, itself. That's what it sound
) like to me. Correct me if I missed something.
)
) -Walden
)
My mom *knew* after following up on information the school gave her on
the curriculum. She had no prior knowledge of Waldorf or Anthroposophy.
She was Anthroposophically knowledgable, not inspired; she was just
learning about Steiner to better understand the basis of the curriculum.
To clarify: Anthroposophy is *not* in the classroom. The fruits of
Anthroposophy are there. The teachers don't teach the philosophy itself;
they teach with methods and a curriculum structure according to
Steiner's educational philosophies.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:18:34 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
on 12/1/02 2:43 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) To clarify: Anthroposophy is *not* in the classroom. The fruits of
) Anthroposophy are there. The teachers don't teach the philosophy itself;
) they teach with methods and a curriculum structure according to
) Steiner's educational philosophies.
Sharon: Don't fib David, I have substantial evidence to support the fact
that Anthroposophical doctrine *is* in the classroom along with the fruits
of Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy *was* taught to my child and is documented
in her lesson books. One critic's child even has *the very* Aryan myth
recorded in his child's lesson book. Sorry, your denial is lame and has no
basis in reality. One of these days I'm going to post my daughter's Anthro
lessons on the PLANS site. Some of our children have finally agreed to this
and we are working to make it happen, slowly but surely. Some children have
even quoted Rudolf Steiner in their lesson books! And I exclaim: let this
trend continue, I'll toast to Anthro education, but get out of the public
coffers and be open about Rudolf Steiner's mission!
Church and State, keep them separate!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:29:03 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
on 12/1/02 12:25 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) And you say you're not a hate group...
Sharon: If PLANS is a hate group, then Anthroposophists are a hate group
against "materialists" and public school and TV and science and Waldorf
critics.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:27:27 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
mysplum wrote:
) on 12/1/02 12:25 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
)
) ) And you say you're not a hate group...
)
) Sharon: If PLANS is a hate group, then Anthroposophists are a hate group
) against "materialists" and public school and TV and science and Waldorf
) critics.
)
We have yet to compare you to Hitler.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:28:35 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
) Mike:
) )But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
) )creating my personal philosophical foundation.
)
) I'd say you'd be foolish to do that.
)
) )...I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the
most
) )important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies. Would you
) )have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical
foundation
) )and adopt a view as you see it?
)
) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) subsequent career is instructive.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided neurotically
absolute religious like adherence to a to a stringent non-religious
ideology.
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:36:59 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Mike Helsher wrote:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
) ) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
) ) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
) ) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
) ) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) ) subsequent career is instructive.
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
)
) Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
)
) I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided neurotically
) absolute religious like adherence to a to a stringent non-religious
) ideology.
)
) Peace
)
) Mike
)
)
)
Actually, Mike, I'd have to disagree with you there. The Philosophy of
Freedom isn't based in any religion. I really have no hope of fathoming
Mr. Dugan's bizzare hate of Steiner, but in this case, at least, it has
nothing to do with his ideology.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:56:52 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
)
) )Mike: I was allowed to spend a day in at Antioch
http://www.antiochne.edu/
) )last week. There were about fifteen students in the waldorf teacher
) )training class and each had been assigned an educational philosopher to
) )study and represent during debates throughout the year. Montessori,
) )Gardner, Geothe, Thoreau, and Pythagoras (sp?) are a few that I can
) )remember. there were simple questions put to them about education in
) general and the debate
) )became very heated at times. A highlight for me was when Geothe and
Gardner
) )got into it quite heavily.
)
)
) Please tell us about this class, Mike - what is the name of the course and
) who is the instructor?
I'm not sure of the name of the class.
Torin Finser was the instructor for one of the classes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-7392717-2466449
Arthur Aure was the instructor for another class that we visited
) Is it a course specifically for Waldorf teachers in training or are there
) others with
) other career goals in the class? Is it a required class for Waldorf
teachers
) in training, or an elective? Is it a masters level class? If you have
access
) to the course syllabus, could you list the reading
) assignments here? While you're at it, could you list the courses required
) for completing the training? (Or completing the masters degree.)
The only question that I know the answer to is that it was a Masters level
class. But those who are only shooting for the certificate attend as well.
(i.e. my daughter's teacher already had her masters, so she opted for the
certificate).
) Are you still considering taking the training, Mike? I ask this because I
) assume that if you are, you should have this information available.
Yes, High school
) P.S. As long as you're at it, how did Goethe and Gardner disagree? Must
have
) been an interesting discussion.
It was great; there was allot of laughter. There was much discussion about
Gardner's ideas on "existential intelligence", and cleverness verses wisdom
and that sort of thing.
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:33:50 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
)
) Mike Helsher wrote:
) ) Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) ) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
) ) ) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
) ) ) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
) ) ) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
) ) ) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) ) ) subsequent career is instructive.
) ) )
) ) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) ) Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
) )
) ) I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided neurotically
) ) absolute religious like adherence to a to a stringent non-religious
) ) ideology.
) )
) ) Peace
) )
) ) Mike
) )
) )
) )
)
) Actually, Mike, I'd have to disagree with you there. The Philosophy of
) Freedom isn't based in any religion. I really have no hope of fathoming
) Mr. Dugan's bizzare hate of Steiner, but in this case, at least, it has
) nothing to do with his ideology.
I'm sorry David,
I didn't mean at all to imply that Pof was based on a religion. My wording
was as such that I was trying not to cross into an ad-homonym.
peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:05:29 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
David:
)And you'll find that Waldorf teachers are continually studying up on the
)subject of their next Main Lesson. I suspect the course you mention is
)meant to convey method primarily.
Yes, methods. One "methods" course doesn't do it for reading and math for
1st through 8th graders, David.
They get content a-plenty - not much on methods as
other educators would recognize them.
In another sense, the Painting, Drama, Handwork etc., the "working in clay
and color" as described for one of the anthro. seminars, are their methods
courses.
The Waldorf teacher is a performer, and once he or she can paint
satisfactorily in the swirly Waldorf way, the children are supposed to
copy her paintings; or she learns her Norse myths, and the children are to
copy what she says or writes on the board. That's Waldorf methods. The
teacher is being prepared to put on a show, the children absorb and repeat
what she
presents.
And obviously not much is needed on reading methods, because not much
reading is required, and if some kids have trouble, it doesn't matter.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:05:59 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools (WAS: Re: Clarity in Waldorf promotion)
Mike - not sure of name of class but taught by Torin Finser:
Torin Finser is listed as teaching Evolving Consciousness II, and I think
this may have been it - catalog says: "This course is the sequel to the
introduction of anthroposophical concepts presented in the summer. During
this term, world evolution and occult history will be considered from the
standpoint of the evolving consciousness of humanity as characterized by
Rudolf Steiner. Steiner's relationship to other educational philosophers
and the history of educational thought will also be considered. We will
start each session by playing the recorder."
That is just the strangest thing I've ever heard. How you package Steiner's
occult history and his theories about "evolving consciousness" - did they
tell you about the old atavistic hazy clairvoyance Mike!! - in with
comparing educational philosophers in one course in any serious way I can't
imagine. The mind boggles. (Er, what does Gardner say about hazy
clairvoyance and how to achieve it in our age?!)
Diana
)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-7392717-2466449
This link opens a seemingly irrelevant page at amazon.com, what was I
supposed to find here?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:06:26 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
David:
)I can assure you, having gone through Waldorf, that reading and 'rithmatic
)get sufficent weight, especially in the later years.
And I believe you told us you learned to read before you got to Waldorf,
again correct me if I am wrong, didn't you say you started Waldorf at age
11?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 03:33:37 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
We'd have to ask an independent evaluator to decide the merits of
Waldorf teacher training. I don't think you or I have the experience or
qualifications to make such an asessment.
Having said that, many non-Waldorf educators have apparently seen enough
value in Waldorf methods to use them in public education.
You obviously have your own very clear picture of Waldorf education
that is, compared to my experience, distorted and wrong.
Diana Winters wrote:
) David:
)
) )And you'll find that Waldorf teachers are continually studying up on the
) )subject of their next Main Lesson. I suspect the course you mention is
) )meant to convey method primarily.
)
)
) Yes, methods. One "methods" course doesn't do it for reading and math
) for
) 1st through 8th graders, David.
)
) They get content a-plenty - not much on methods as
) other educators would recognize them.
)
) In another sense, the Painting, Drama, Handwork etc., the "working in
) clay
) and color" as described for one of the anthro. seminars, are their
) methods
) courses.
) The Waldorf teacher is a performer, and once he or she can paint
) satisfactorily in the swirly Waldorf way, the children are supposed to
) copy her paintings; or she learns her Norse myths, and the children are
) to
) copy what she says or writes on the board. That's Waldorf methods. The
) teacher is being prepared to put on a show, the children absorb and
) repeat
) what she
) presents.
)
) And obviously not much is needed on reading methods, because not much
) reading is required, and if some kids have trouble, it doesn't matter.
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 03:40:58 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
Diana Winters wrote:
) David:
)
) )I can assure you, having gone through Waldorf, that reading and
) )'rithmatic
) )get sufficent weight, especially in the later years.
)
)
) And I believe you told us you learned to read before you got to Waldorf,
) again correct me if I am wrong, didn't you say you started Waldorf at
) age
) 11?
) Diana
)
Your point being?
I still experienced the curriculum and saw how my peers, many of whom
had been in the school sice kindergarten, excelled in their academic
subjects.
My younger brother came to Waldorf in grade 4 from public school, unable
to read. By Grade 8 Waldorf he was as literate as I was.
You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic". The truth is that
Waldorf provides a slower academic start, teaching writing and math in
such a way as to provide a strong base for more intense academics in
grades 6, 7 and 8. By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his
academic skills often surpass college level.
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 897
-- Topica Digest --
re: public schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Re: Waldorf for gifted kids
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: public schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 23:16:12 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: public schools
David tells us:
You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic". The truth is that
Waldorf provides a slower academic start, teaching writing and math in
such a way as to provide a strong base for more intense academics in
grades 6, 7 and 8. By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his
academic skills often surpass college level.
)
Lisa: David, I am sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that "by the
time a child graduates from Waldorf, his academic skills often surpass
college level."
That may be true in some cases, but on this list, the survivors' list
and elsewhere, we have heard from Waldorf graduates who contend they were
not at all well-served by their Waldorf educations. Some complain that they
still struggle with reading, and many seem to have enduring difficulty with
math.
When we withdrew our older girl from her Waldorf school (one of the
older, more established schools in the US), we had her tested at a very well
thought of independent school to ascertain her grade level. (She was in the
middle of the Waldorf fourth grade.) The teacher who supervised and scored
the test told us not to be too upset at the results because at least our
child was able to read well and to write, unlike other children she had seen
coming out of Waldorf.
At the time, I also discussed the situation with the principal of a
local public school with an excellent reputation. I was telling her that
though Olivia's reading and writing skills were good (she learned to read on
her own, at the age of four and a half, btw!), her math skills were very
weak and she seemed to lack basic knowledge. The principal said we should
consider ourselves lucky, as other kids she had seen emerging from Waldorf
and transferring to her school were NOT in good shape, academically. "At
least your child can read," she said.
` Maybe Waldorf would work better if they just eliminated the Waldorf
elementary schools and just ran middle to high schools. That way, kids could
learn to read, to write and to do mathematics via methods that work more
often than not and would come to Waldorf with those basic skills.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:28:40 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Dan Dugan wrote:
I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's
thesis was universally rejected by other philosophers. That
rejection may
have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration
of a cult
of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect
on his
subsequent career is instructive.
Mike:
Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided
neurotically absolute religious like adherence to a to a
stringent non-religious
ideology.
David:
Actually, Mike, I'd have to disagree with you there. The
Philosophy of
Freedom isn't based in any religion. I really have no hope of
fathoming) Mr. Dugan's bizzare hate of Steiner, but in this case,
at least, it has
nothing to do with his ideology.
Ray here:
Hi David. I agree. For those of us who are "spiritually
challenged"(i.e,atheists), the criticism that we reject a spiritual
treatise/thesis/argument on the basis that we are incapable of
comprehending it due to our conceptual disposition is something we are
all familiar with. The PoF is, unlike Steiner's esoteric works, pure
philosophy which can be accepted or dismissed (as Steiner dismissed
various schools of philosophy) using rational, logical analysis.
I think what Dan is getting at is since it was rejected by
philosophers, Steiner found it necessary to substantiate his thesis
with esoteric knowledge which, and perhaps you may agree, the
acceptance of which involves a degree of faith by the majority of those
who do not have clairvoyant abilities. Mike's criticism, seen in this
respect, reflects this imho.
Mike:
I'm sorry David,
I didn't mean at all to imply that Pof was based on a religion. My
wording was as such that I was trying not to cross into an ad-homonym.
Ray here:
Hi mike. Losing the adjective "neurotically" would help tremendously :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:08:57 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf for gifted kids
At 01-12-02 05:24 PM Sunday, you wrote:
)Yes, I thought my highly gifted daughter would do well in Waldorf school.
)The attacks both physical and phychological on her and others in the
)nursery led to an abrupt end to the whole experiment. She is still
)recovering. I consider the trial of WE to be the biggest lapse in my
)parenting to date. If the teacher had just said ,"its karmic and I'm not
)going to stop it", during my *first* call to complain, we could have all
)ended our association more happily.
)
)While I have to say I did get some satisfaction out of the negative report
)from State Licensing and the judgement against our W school in small
)claims court, I would give anything to turn back time and ensure my
)child's safety.
This is exactly what happened to our family. If these incidents are
supposed to be so anomalous, why are they happening in almost the exact
same way, in schools on several different continents?
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 04:39:50 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: public schools
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
) David tells us:
)
) You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
) blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic". The truth is that
) Waldorf provides a slower academic start, teaching writing and math in
) such a way as to provide a strong base for more intense academics in
) grades 6, 7 and 8. By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his
) academic skills often surpass college level.
) )
)
) Lisa: David, I am sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that "by
) the
) time a child graduates from Waldorf, his academic skills often surpass
) college level."
) That may be true in some cases, but on this list, the survivors' list
) and elsewhere, we have heard from Waldorf graduates who contend they
) were
) not at all well-served by their Waldorf educations. Some complain that
) they
) still struggle with reading, and many seem to have enduring difficulty
) with
) math.
) When we withdrew our older girl from her Waldorf school (one of the
) older, more established schools in the US), we had her tested at a very
) well
) thought of independent school to ascertain her grade level. (She was in
) the
) middle of the Waldorf fourth grade.) The teacher who supervised and
) scored
) the test told us not to be too upset at the results because at least our
) child was able to read well and to write, unlike other children she had
) seen
) coming out of Waldorf.
) At the time, I also discussed the situation with the principal of a
) local public school with an excellent reputation. I was telling her that
) though Olivia's reading and writing skills were good (she learned to
) read on
) her own, at the age of four and a half, btw!), her math skills were very
) weak and she seemed to lack basic knowledge. The principal said we
) should
) consider ourselves lucky, as other kids she had seen emerging from
) Waldorf
) and transferring to her school were NOT in good shape, academically. "At
) least your child can read," she said.
) ` Maybe Waldorf would work better if they just eliminated the Waldorf
) elementary schools and just ran middle to high schools. That way, kids
) could
) learn to read, to write and to do mathematics via methods that work more
) often than not and would come to Waldorf with those basic skills.
)
)
And how is your daughter now? Did she really suffer for being behind
when she left Waldorf?
Nothing of what you're describing is familiar to me. It's as if you are
describing a different school.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:47:14 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
MIKE HELSHER
) ) )But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
) ) )creating my personal philosophical foundation.
DAN DUGAN
) ) I'd say you'd be foolish to do that.
MIKE HELSHER
) ) )...I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the
)) )most
)) )important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies. Would
)) )you
)) )have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical
)) )foundation
) ) )and adopt a view as you see it?
DAN DUGAN
) ) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
)) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
)) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
)) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
)) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) ) subsequent career is instructive.
DAVID
)And you say you're not a hate group...
David, I suppose you're outraged because I've dissed your guru so
frankly. Please point out where I express "hate."
* By stating my opinion that Steiner's epistemology is wrong?
* By stating the fact that Steiner's work has had next to zero effect
on the field of philosophy?
* By my analysis of Steiner's turn from public academic philosophy to
private occultism as seeking adoration?
* By my calling Anthroposophists "ignorant"? Not polite, I grant you,
but isn't it an apt description of a group that steadfastly insists
that the heart doesn't pump blood?
* By drawing a parallel with the career of Hitler? Did you know that
Hitler and Steiner were rivals for the hearts and minds of the German
people? Steiner's cult was both political and spiritual. He offered
the "threefold social order" as a solution to the world's problems
after World War I. Did you know that Steiner's party had a weekly
newspaper, and that he sent four teams of Anthroposophists to Upper
Silesia to influence an election there? Hitler's ruthlessness crushed
his rivals; I'm sure the world would be a better place if Steiner had
won. Unfortunately he was no match for Hitler. His program was too
theoretical and vague to become popular with any but a
pseudo-intellectual fringe.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:00:26 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
on 12/1/02 8:47 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
) * By my calling Anthroposophists "ignorant"? Not polite, I grant you,
) but isn't it an apt description of a group that steadfastly insists
) that the heart doesn't pump blood?
Sharon: Come on Dan, don't be silly, the blood moves because the beings that
live in the chest move it, ie. the spirits of the second Sun - Yaweh Elohim
beings who breathed the breath of life into man. The heart will one day
become the brain of the chest, and wings or antenna will sprout from the
nose area and man will fly. (This is before Vulcan, most likely to occur on
Venus during man's beelike state). "In the blood, in rhythm, in pulsebeat
the second sun dwells within us" (Vreede 42). As a Waldorf pupil?s lesson
book summarizes "The heart is the son which warms man?s house".
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 898
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Public Schools
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Public Schools
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Steiner on national character
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Steiner and Hitler
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Public Schools
By dan dandugan.com
RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re:
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re:
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: request for positive Waldorf experiences
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:38:45 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
David:
)I can assure you, having gone through Waldorf, that reading and
)'rithmatic get sufficent weight, especially in the later years.
I said:
)And I believe you told us you learned to read before you got to Waldorf,
)again correct me if I am wrong, didn't you say you started Waldorf at
)age 11?
David:
)Your point being?
Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but I've been arguing these points so long
now, I forget newcomers don't know my whole train of thought.
You didn't "go through" Waldorf all the way. Your example cannnot show us
how strong Waldorf is in reading and writing if you learned somewhere else.
)I still experienced the curriculum and saw how my peers, many of whom
)had been in the school sice kindergarten, excelled in their academic
)subjects.
Well, as you say, the only thing that would really settle it would be an
independent evaluation. I would like to see how many of said academically
excelling peers were in fact in the school since kindergarten, to start
with, and I'd like outside assessment of what this academic excellence
actually consisted of. I'd like a comparison with the students (and we can
assume there were some) who started with those same kindergarteners and left
for other schools in the first 2 or 3 years.
How come Waldorf so badly doesn't want this kind of evaluation to happen?
If the results were favorable, the movement would explode in popularity.
)My younger brother came to Waldorf in grade 4 from public school, unable
)to read. By Grade 8 Waldorf he was as literate as I was.
There are very bad public schools too; I'm glad he was able to catch up.
)You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
)blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic".
It is not a myth that I am repeating, I have observed at some length in
Waldorf schools and I have studied the philosophy underlying Waldorf
probably at far greater length than you have. Steiner is crystal clear
that academics as traditionally taught are BAD for children under puberty.
Yeah, the schools are, at base, non-academic.
)By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his
)academic skills often surpass college level.
Who told you such a thing? Surely you don't believe it.
Besides, "college level" sometimes isn't saying much these days, judging
from the frequent need for hefty remediation in reading and writing in
college freshmen.
and also:
)We'd have to ask an independent evaluator to decide the merits of
)Waldorf teacher training.
LOL!! A brilliant suggestion. Why hasn't it been done? Could it be
"independent evaluators" will never get past the front door of the school,
or I guess I should say, the Steiner portrait in the front hall?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:37:39 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
on 12/2/02 5:38 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
)
) It is not a myth that I am repeating, I have observed at some length in
) Waldorf schools and I have studied the philosophy underlying Waldorf
) probably at far greater length than you have. Steiner is crystal clear
) that academics as traditionally taught are BAD for children under puberty.
) Yeah, the schools are, at base, non-academic.
Sharon: I kept waiting, thinking "next year will be better". By fourth grade
I realized that things might not get better academically. Our ex-school was
really anti-intellectual and anti academics. There was an anti-university
bias that ran thick. Many people actually opposed university education. When
I asked a Waldorfer why he opposed university, he said that universities
invented nuclear weapons. Preparing kids for university was definitely not a
priority or goal at our ex-school. At one school meeting, I am told, they
said they were producing "future Anthroposophists". Another teacher said
they were "training revolutionaries". Even going to high school was not a
priority for many families. (Some kids are suffering now as they can't get
jobs I hear). Some of the kids that I know from our ex-school did not go to
high school or college. Some who went to college dropped out. I'm sure some
have excelled at university, though I haven't heard of many out of the the
ones I know. (Only two spring to mind, and last I saw one of them was
working in a restaurant and not furthering her education or working in her
"field"). Anyway, I personally think people who attend *any* schools either
do well or poorly. Public school produces people who "excel" and people who
"fail". I've noticed that even families produce kids that do "well" or do
"poorly" within the same upbringing and schooling. People are funny that
way...Some kids attending dumpy little backward schools in Apartheid South
Africa from poverty-stricken families have arisen to greatness. I don't
think there's *one* method for anything. But I do know that Waldorf is a
parochial school for Anthroposophy, a magical mystery school (G). And so be
it. I say that in a pluralistic society there's room for all of us, but we
just need to be clear about who we are and what our mission is. Exotericize
esotericism!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:24:00 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi David, thanks for your reply. I think that your reading of Steiner's
earlier work is pretty much on target, but your reading of the later work is
very wide of the mark. I'll follow your own presentation:
I mostly agree with your summary of Philosophy of Freedom:
)In the Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner questions how an individual can be
)free, seeing as he is constrained by his membership in subsets of
)humanity:
)
)"The view that man is destined to become a complete, self-contained,
)free individuality seems to be contested by the fact that he makes his
)appearance as a member of a naturally given totality (race, people,
)nation, family, male or female sex) and also works within a totality
)(state, church, and so on). He bears the general characteristics of the
)group to which he belongs, and he gives to his actions a content that is
)determined by the position he occupies among many others.
)
)"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
)and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
)all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
)inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
)constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
)the racial group. Therefore the physiognomy and conduct of the
)individual have something generic about them. If we ask why some
)particular thing about a man is like this or like that, we are referred
)back from the individual to the genus. The genus explains why something
)in the individual appears in the form we observe. "
This is indeed one of the conceptual continuities between Steiner's earlier
and later work (as opposed to the discontinuities I emphasized in my message
last week): even in his earlier phases, Steiner believed in a version of
racial-national determinism. I think that's an important topic, and I'll try
to post a little more about it later today.
And I certainly agree that this sort of determinism plays a central role in
the later book, Knowledge of Higher Worlds:
)In Guardian at the Threshold, he also talks about these socio-ethnic
)restrictions, albeit in a far more esoteric form:
)
)"The person belongs to a family, a nation, a race; his activity in this
)world depends upon his belonging to some such community. His individual
)character is also connected with it. The conscious activity of
)individual persons by no means exhausts everything to be reckoned with
)in a family, a nation, or a race. Besides their character, families,
)nations, and races have also their destiny. For persons restricted to
)their senses these things remain mere general ideas; and the
)materialistic thinker, in his prejudice, will look down with contempt on
)the spiritual scientist when he hears that for him, family and national
)character, lineal or racial destiny, are vested in beings just as real
)as the personality in which the character and destiny of the individual
)man are vested. The spiritual scientist becomes acquainted with higher
)worlds of which the separate personalities are members, just as arms and
)legs are members of the human being. "
Unfortunately, you cut your quote off halfway through the paragraph. The
full passage rather undermines your interpretation of this work. Here's the
rest of the paragraph, immediately following the point where you ended your
quote:
"Besides the separate individuals, a very real family and national group
soul and racial spirit is at work in the life of a family, a people, or a
race. Indeed, in a certain sense the separate individuals are merely the
executive organs of these family group souls, racial spirits, and so on. It
is nothing but the truth to say, for instance, that a national group soul
makes use of each individual man belonging to that nation for the execution
of some work. The group soul of a people does not descend into physical
reality but dwells in the higher worlds and, in order to work in the
physical world, makes use of the physical organs of each individual human
being. In a higher sense, it is like an architect making use of workmen for
executing the details of a building. In the truest sense, everyone receives
his allotted task from his family, national, or racial group soul."
Thus I can't agree that Steiner's earlier and later works advance the same
argument regarding racial-national determination. I do think, once again,
that you've gotten the message of Philosophy of Freedom more or less right:
)Individuality and Genus goes on to show how an individual can escape
)from such constraints:
)
)"Man, however, makes himself free from what is generic. For the generic
)features of the human race, when rightly understood, do not restrict
)man's freedom, and should not artificially be made to do so. A man
)develops qualities and activities of his own, and the basis for these we
)can seek only in the man himself. What is generic in him serves only as
)a medium in which to express his own individual being. He uses as a
)foundation the characteristics that nature has given him, and to these
)he gives a form appropriate to his own being. If we seek in the generic
)laws the reasons for an expression of this being, we seek in vain. We
)are concerned with something purely individual which can be explained
)only in terms of itself. If a man has achieved this emancipation from
)all that is generic, and we are nevertheless determined to explain
)everything about him in generic terms, then we have no sense for what is
)individual. "
I must note, however, that this stance remains compatible with the kind of
national prejudice that Steiner was beholden to throughout his career. In
any case, this argument in favor of a philosophically aware individualism is
hardly replicated in the later works; rather it is severly compromised. You
quote the following bits from Knowledge of Higher Worlds:
)And Guardian at the Threshold does the same:
)
)"And now, a further revelation made to him by the Guardian of the
)Threshold is that henceforth these spirits will withdraw their guiding
)hand from him. He must step out of the circle of his community."
)
)"Only the esoteric student learns what it means to be entirely cut off
)from his family, national, or racial spirit. He alone realizes, through
)personal experience, the insignificance of all such education in respect
)of the life now confronting him. For everything inculcated by education
)completely melts away when the threads binding will, thought, and
)feeling are severed. He looks back on the result of all his previous
)education as he might on a house crumbling away brick by brick, which he
)must now rebuild in a new form. "
)
)"The family, national, and racial spirits are revealed to the student in
)their full activity, so that he perceives clearly on the one hand, how
)he has hitherto been led, and no less clearly on the other hand, that he
)will henceforward no longer enjoy this guidance."
Once again, you've failed to notice the surrounding text, which by my
reading shows that you've understood the passage more or less backwards. In
fact it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that you have deliberately
picked out only those sentences that seem to endorse the interpretation you
want to promote. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly did you
have in mind when you joined the list complaining of Steiner quotes being
taken out of context? Here are the passages you skipped over (they appear
directly between your chosen quotes; I will give them in full):
"Now, the ordinary person is by no means initiated into the higher design of
his work. He joins unconsciously in the tasks of his people and of his race.
From the moment the student meets the Guardian, he must not only know his
own tasks, but must knowingly collaborate in those of his folk, his race.
Every extension of his horizon necessarily enlarges the scope of his duties.
What actually happens is that the student adds a new body to his finer
soul-body. He puts on a second garment. Hitherto he found his way through
the world with the coverings enveloping his personality; and what he had to
accomplish for his community, his nation, his race, was directed by higher
spirits who made use of his personality."
(The word "knowingly" here is italicized in the original. The 1969 Rudolf
Steiner Press translation renders this passage thus: "he [the pupil] is
required not merely to know his own tasks as a personality, but to work with
*conscious understanding* [in italics] at those of his people or his race."
p. 199)
"Yet as an isolated personality he would become hardened in himself and
decline into ruin, did he not, himself, acquire those powers which are
vested in the national and racial spirits. Many, no doubt, will say: ?Oh, I
have entirely freed myself from all lineal and racial connections; I only
want to be a human being and nothing but a human being.? To these one must
reply: ?Who, then, brought you to this freedom? Was it not your family who
placed you in the world where you now stand? Have you not your lineage, your
nation, your race to thank for being what you are? They have brought you up.
And if now, exalted above all prejudices, you are one of the light-bringers
and benefactors of your stock and even of your race, it is to their
up-bringing that you owe it. Yes, even when you say you are `nothing but a
human being,' even the fact that you have become such a personality you owe
to the spirits of your communities.?"
Hence your conclusion is quite unwarranted:
)In the first text, he is speaking about general, more practial freedom
)from one's culture/race/sex; in the second, he is speaking of attaining
)spiritual freedom from the same.
Steiner is certainly not talking about "attaining spiritual freedom" from
racial-national identity in Knowledge of Higher Worlds; he is talking about
taking on racial and national tasks and goals consciously and intentionally.
He asks the student of the occult to willingly embrace his racial-national
destiny in a conscious and active way, rather than unconsciously and
passively following along with it. Moreover, this later book revolves around
the notion that there are actual, real beings known as "racial spirits" and
"national spirits" who secretly direct human affairs, and with whom the
advanced occultist is encouraged to cooperate. Nothing of the sort is to be
found in Philosophy of Freedom.
I don't mean to portray the earlier book as particularly convincing or
worthwhile (I am a critic, not a supporter, of ethical individualism), but
it is a conventional work of philosophy, not a blueprint for achieving
special access to hidden knowledge and higher planes of reality. And on the
very question you chose as an example of continuity (racial-national
destiny), the contrast could scarcely be sharper. I therefore feel compelled
to reiterate my original claim that those anthroposophists who view
Philosophy of Freedom as the basis of Steiner's anthroposophical doctrines
are simply ignoring the actual content of those doctrines.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:00:24 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner on national character
Hello again everybody,
David got me thinking about some of the themes that stayed consistent
throughout Steiner's writings while everything else in his worldview shifted
and modified. One of those consistent themes is the notion of
racial-national determinism, that is, the idea that the characteristics of
individuals are determined by the racial and ethnic groups to which they
(ostensibly) belong. Steiner put it this way in The Philosophy of Freedom:
"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and
all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is
constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the character of
the racial group."
I'd like to share a couple of passages from another early work by Steiner,
published in English under the title Goethe The Scientist (Anthroposophic
Press 1950). The book is a collection of Steiner's original introductions to
Goethe's scientific works, which Steiner edited; his introductions were
written between 1883 and 1897. The passages I've chosen come from the
chapter on "Ethical and Historical Sciences". This is one of the earliest
texts in which Steiner introduces the notion of "national souls"
("Volksseelen"), or "folk-souls" as this translation has it.
Here Steiner explains that every individual is "a member of his people, with
whom he is united through common moral customs, a common cultural life, and
a language, and and a common view of things." (162)
"What he does seems to be not only an outflow from his own individual ego;
he seems to be determined through the mutualities which he has with his
people; his individuality seems to be eliminated by the character of his
people. Am I, then, still free when my action can be explained, not only by
my own nature, but in essential degree also by the nature of my people? Do I
not act in that way for the reason that nature hasmade me a member of just
this community of people?" (162)
Attempting to reconcile this assumption with his own stated goal of freedom,
Steiner continues:
"But, if we conceive man as at the same time a knowing and an acting being,
this contradiction is then resolved. Through man's capacity for knowledge,
he penetrates into the character of his individual people; it becomes clear
to him whither his fellow citizens are steering. That by which he seems to
be determined he surmounts and takes into himself as a fully known concept;
it becomes individual in him and takes on completely the personal character
which is possessed by action performed in freedom." (162-3)
"He must not allow himself to be led blindly by his people's character, but
must elevate himself to a knowledge of this in order that he may act
consciously in accordance with his people. He must not permit himself to be
carried along by the cultural progress of his people, but must make the
ideas of his time his own ideas. To this end, it is most of all important
that the person shall understand his time. He will then fulfill its mission
in freedom; he will apply his own effort at the right place." (163)
"But something else must be considered with regard to the action of the
human being among his people. Every personality represents a spiritual
potency, a sum-total of forces which search for the possibility of action.
Therefore, every person must find the place where his work may be
articulated in the most fruitful way into his people's organism. It must not
be left to chance to determine whether he shall find this place. The state
constitution has no other goal than to ensure that everyone shall find his
appropriate place. The state is the form in which the organism of a people
expresses itself." (164)
Perhaps such unsettling passages will encourage admirers of Steiner to
re-think the implications of his mature doctrine of "folk souls" and the
role it plays within anthroposophical thought.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:03:53 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29A03.443B1FA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Peter wrote: I am a critic, not a supporter, of ethical individualism.
Nicole: I'd be interested to hear more about your philosophical position.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 12:24 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:22:48 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Mike,
I'm glad to see you back in active mode on the list. You wrote:
)Mike:
)Ok, fair enough. But what if *I* choose to use The PoF as a guide to
)creating my personal philosophical foundation.
If it works for you, that's cool with me. But I must say that this strikes
me as an odd choice. Philosophy of Freedom is a largely derivative work, a
recapitulation of some of the main themes of German Idealist philosophy. If
that's what you're interested in, you might do better by going straight to
the source and reading some Hegel, Kant, Fichte or Schlegel (okay, that's
not necessarily the most fruitful approach, since even trained philosophers
often have severe difficulty making sense of some of those texts; but there
are some pretty good secondary works in English that cover this territory
fairly thoroughly). Also, Philosophy of Freedom basically requires the
reader to accept Steiner's peculiar epistemology in order to embrace his
ethical individualism, and that's asking a bit much, don't you think?
)Or maybe it must be rejected by those who take his writings *to* seriously
)and have an predominate intellectual bias.(Please don't take this as a
)personal dig).
Unless they're irrelevant, I don't particularly mind personal digs. I most
certainly have a "predominate intellectual bias", if you mean what I think
you mean, but then so does every thinking person. It's a big mistake to
think that one's own approach to any set of ideas is free of bias. And I
definitely take Steiner's writings more seriously than they deserve, but I
expect I'll get over that once I finish my research on anthroposophy. It
seems to me that the people who truly take Steiner's writings too seriously
are anthroposophists (some of them, anyway), who often defer to these
writings as if they were divine revelation. I just wish they'd put a little
more effort into understanding those writings in their ideological and
historical context.
)I don't understand why it *must* be rejected. It is emphasized as the most
)important book for Waldorf teacher training foundation studies.
I didn't know that. That's an interesting choice, but I still don't see what
it has to do with the internal connections and disconnections within
Steiner's published works from the various stages of his career.
)Would you
)have all Waldorf teachers reject this book as the philosophical foundation
)and adopt a view as you see it?
On the contrary, I'd be rather relieved if Waldorf teachers took the
Philosophy of Freedom as scripture rather than Steiner's mature
anthroposophical works, which are much more damaging. I'm not sure what you
mean by "adopt a view as I see it"; I don't expect any Waldorf teacher to
share my own attitude toward Steiner's work, mush less to share my own
philosophical convictions. But it doesn't seem out of line for me to ask the
anthroposophically-inclined to pay closer attention to the texts they claim
to base their own views on. That is what I was getting at in my post last
week. You certainly don't have to have the same philosophical orientation
that I do in order to agree that there is a world of difference between
Steiner's earlier, straightforwardly philosophical works and his later
theosophical/anthroposophical works.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:52:30 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner and Hitler
David wrote:
)And you say you're not a hate group...
)We have yet to compare you to Hitler.
As it happens, that second claim is mistaken; anthroposophists have compared
me to Hitler, Goebbels, and contemporary neofascists on a number of
occasions, and I suspect I am not unique in that regard. Also, the usual
definition of "hate groups" refers to groups that attack or malign some
category of people based on their (ostensible) immutable characteristics. No
critic of anthroposophy, as far as I am aware, considers an anthroposophical
worldview to constitute an immutable characteristic. There is nothing wrong
with attacking ideas, and its is crucially important to distinguish the
ideas from the people who happen to espouse them.
But more to the point: you missed the object of Dan's analogy, David. Dan
drew a "parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
subsequent career". I don't understand what troubles you about that
comparison. It would certainly be possible to point out less innocent
parallels between the two figures. To begin with, both of them came from
German populations in ethnically-mixed Austria to imperial Germany, and
turned to politics immediately after World War I. In addition to Steiner's
political involvements that Dan mentioned in his last post, it's worth
noting that anthroposophists put considerable effort into the attempt to get
Steiner appointed to the government of the state of Wurttemberg in 1919,
just as Hitler was finding his way to the much more radical and marginal
groups that would evolve into the Nazis.
Both Steiner and Hitler had roots in the pan-German movement, Steiner as an
active participant in the 1880's and Hitler as a later admirer. Both were
influenced by the racist occult subculture of the turn of the century, and
both adopted theosophical elements into their personal ideologies. And their
respective followers spoke of the two would-be leaders in remarkably similar
terms; anthroposophists in the early 1920's praised Steiner as "Germany's
savior". Probably the most significant parallel between the two figures is
the fact that both believed in the Aryan myth and promoted it in their
speeches and publications. There are a number of further parallels that we
could explore in detail. I agree with Dan's analysis that Hitler viewed
spiritual reformers like Steiner as competition to his own project of
spiritual-national renewal, and it continues to puzzle me that
anthroposophists find this interpretation offensive.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:15:12 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Nicole, you wrote:
)Nicole: I'd be interested to hear more about your philosophical position.
It would probably take us too far off topic to address that question
thoroughly, but I can tell you that a lot of my personal philosophical
coordinates are similar to the younger Steiner's; I'm mostly steeped in the
German tradition. But the things that I get out of that tradition are very
different from what Steiner got out of it. I'm a dialectician, which is a
kind of philosophy that is almost universally frowned upon within philosophy
departments in the English-speaking world today but is still very much alive
in Europe. Probably the best-known exponents of modern dialectical thought
are Hegel and Marx (I'm neither a Hegelian nor a Marxist). The contemporary
dialectician whose thinking is closest to my own is Murray Bookchin, the
founder of Social Ecology (a kind of synthesis of anarchism, dialectical
philosophy, and ecological politics); I'm a student of his. I am critical of
ethical individualism -- not just Steiner's variety but the whole tendency
-- because I think it misunderstands how all individuals are shaped by
collective forces, and wrongly locates the focus of ethical change in
individual mentalities rather than in social movements. When it comes to
ethics, I'm what's known as a consequentialist, though I'm also a harsh
critic of the most prominent version of contemporary consequentialism,
namely utilitarianism. Basically I believe that what determines the
rightness or wrongness of a given action are the likely consequences of that
action, but I don't believe (as utilitarians do) that we can or should
measure out qualities like happinesss and suffering and calculate their
relative proportions. In addition, like many latter-day anthroposophists I
am very skeptical toward positivism, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
Finally, to forestall a potential misunderstanding that has come up before
on this list: Like Dan, Ray, Sharon, and a number of other critics of
anthroposophy, I share a basically secularist outlook, and I don't believe
in god. But it is definitely not the case that I reject all spiritual ideas
out of hand. Several of my most important influences, for example the
German-Jewish anarchist Gustav Landauer, took spiritual matters very
seriously. What I reject about the anthroposophical approach to spirituality
is, first, its esoteric nature, and second, its frequent refusal to
recognize the limits of spiritual discourse within democratic public debate.
I hope that adequately answers your question. Thanks for asking,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:25:31 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
This item has been posted on the web site of Rick Ross:
http://www.cultnews.com/2002_10_13_archive.html (scroll down to item)
"Cult-like" school seeks recognition and public funding in Canada
The controversial "Waldorf School" is now seeking official
recognition for the establishment of a public school in Montreal,
reports the Montreal Mirror.
According to the Mirror Waldorf represents a "pedagogical
innovation," but within a lawsuit filed by parents and teachers in
California it was referred to as "rooted in a New Age, cultlike
religion."
Waldorf teaches something-called "anthroposophy," which is a
philosophy originated in 1919 by Austrian-born Rudolf Steiner and
first used in Germany.
Waldorf opened charter schools in the United States, which enabled it
to receive public funds. Now they want similar status and funding in
Canada.
How can a group receive public funds to advance a seemingly sectarian
religious philosophy? PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, certainly
doesn't think that's appropriate.
But Waldorf insists that's not a legitimate question and they advance
an innovative teaching method instead.
Apparently though, this method is so innovative that every teacher
must learn it only through Waldorf and be subsequently approved,
which costs about $15,000. This sounds pretty exclusive.
Does Waldorf want it both ways? That is, insisting upon its exclusive
approach, teachers and philosophy for Waldorf Schools, but with
funding from taxpayers?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:33:06 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) "Yet as an isolated personality he would become hardened in himself and
) decline into ruin, did he not, himself, acquire those powers which are
) vested in the national and racial spirits. Many, no doubt, will say:
) ?Oh, I
) have entirely freed myself from all lineal and racial connections; I
) only
) want to be a human being and nothing but a human being.? To these one
) must
) reply: ?Who, then, brought you to this freedom? Was it not your family
) who
) placed you in the world where you now stand? Have you not your lineage,
) your
) nation, your race to thank for being what you are? They have brought you
) up.
) And if now, exalted above all prejudices, you are one of the
) light-bringers
) and benefactors of your stock and even of your race, it is to their
) up-bringing that you owe it. Yes, even when you say you are `nothing but
) a
) human being,' even the fact that you have become such a personality you
) owe
) to the spirits of your communities.?"
As you well know, that's not the end of the passage; as I've posted
before:
"Only the esoteric student learns what it means to be entirely cut off
from his family, national, or racial spirit. He alone realizes, through
personal experience, the insignificance of all such education in respect
of the life now confronting him. For everything inculcated by education
completely melts away when the threads binding will, thought, and
feeling are severed. He looks back on the result of all his previous
education as he might on a house crumbling away brick by brick, which he
must now rebuild in a new form."
How does that conclusion contradict PoF?
I think that we're both reading Steiner with an agenda; yours, to find
every possible interpretation that would cast a negative light on WE;
mine, to reconcile Steiner's writings with my experiences of
Anthroposophists and how they speak of freedom and spirituality.
Thus, we both reap the fruits of our labours, and will probably always
disagree.
I want to ask you a question -- what is this all about? What are you
really trying to do here? What is your end goal? What would be the ideal
outcome for you?
Thanks,
-- David
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:35:30 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Ha! That's funny. I guess you don't know that Catholic schools are
publicly subsidised in Montreal...
Dan Dugan wrote:
) This item has been posted on the web site of Rick Ross:
)
) http://www.cultnews.com/2002_10_13_archive.html (scroll down to item)
)
) "Cult-like" school seeks recognition and public funding in Canada
)
) The controversial "Waldorf School" is now seeking official
) recognition for the establishment of a public school in Montreal,
) reports the Montreal Mirror.
)
) According to the Mirror Waldorf represents a "pedagogical
) innovation," but within a lawsuit filed by parents and teachers in
) California it was referred to as "rooted in a New Age, cultlike
) religion."
)
) Waldorf teaches something-called "anthroposophy," which is a
) philosophy originated in 1919 by Austrian-born Rudolf Steiner and
) first used in Germany.
)
) Waldorf opened charter schools in the United States, which enabled it
) to receive public funds. Now they want similar status and funding in
) Canada.
)
) How can a group receive public funds to advance a seemingly sectarian
) religious philosophy? PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, certainly
) doesn't think that's appropriate.
)
) But Waldorf insists that's not a legitimate question and they advance
) an innovative teaching method instead.
)
) Apparently though, this method is so innovative that every teacher
) must learn it only through Waldorf and be subsequently approved,
) which costs about $15,000. This sounds pretty exclusive.
)
) Does Waldorf want it both ways? That is, insisting upon its exclusive
) approach, teachers and philosophy for Waldorf Schools, but with
) funding from taxpayers?
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:27:53 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29A1F.C3AAA780
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan wrote:
This item has been posted on the web site of Rick Ross:
http://www.cultnews.com/2002_10_13_archive.html (scroll down to item)
"Cult-like" school seeks recognition and public funding in Canada
The controversial "Waldorf School" is now seeking official
recognition for the establishment of a public school in Montreal,
reports the Montreal Mirror.
Nicole:
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that some Waldorf
schools are already publicly funded in Quebec. I remember my
erstwhile colleagues saying that the school found it difficult to
attract French teachers because they could be Waldorf teachers in
Quebec while earning a public school salary. I have no idea how many
French Waldorf schools are involved and also no idea what strings may
be attached by the education ministry (ie to what extent such schools
are free to do as they please without oversight).
Education is a provincial responsibility in Canada, so each province
has its own educational rules and regulations, often quite different
from each other. In Ontario, the government recently introduced a
private school tax credit which can be claimed by Waldorf parents if
the school meets ministry guidelines for the number of hours of
instruction offered, ensures that all staff have a criminal check and
makes publicly available a list of teacher qualifications. As yet
there is no requirement for the school to follow the provincial
curriculum or submit to standardized testing. The tax credit is to be
phased in (it's currently worth very little) and additional
government requirements may follow.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Dugan
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:30 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:00:29 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
David, you wrote,
)To clarify: Anthroposophy is *not* in the classroom. The fruits of
)Anthroposophy are there. The teachers don't teach the philosophy itself;
)they teach with methods and a curriculum structure according to
)Steiner's educational philosophies.
Maybe you couldn't see the Anthroposophy because it was the
environment, like the fish doesn't see water. You did say Steiner
verses every morning, didn't you? And how about letting us have a
look at your 4th and 5th-grade science lesson books?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:26:34 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: one course in "reading and math," 1-8
David, you wrote,
)We'd have to ask an independent evaluator to decide the merits of
)Waldorf teacher training. I don't think you or I have the experience or
)qualifications to make such an asessment.
That would be very helpful. Do you know anyone with the right
qualifications who might be interested?
)Having said that, many non-Waldorf educators have apparently seen enough
)value in Waldorf methods to use them in public education.
Teachers are a very idealistic lot, and that's good. Unfortunately
that virtue does make them susceptible to the appeals of Waldorf
education. I wonder if after a few years they're just as happy to
have given up the conventional school bureaucracy for endless Waldorf
meetings...and to have given up their family lives to the demands of
Anthroposophy.
) You obviously have your own very clear picture of Waldorf education
)that is, compared to my experience, distorted and wrong.
Fair enough, but be specific, please.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:21:47 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
DAN DUGAN
) ) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
)) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
)) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
)) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
)) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) ) subsequent career is instructive.
MIKE HELSHER
)Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
)
)I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided neurotically
)absolute religious like adherence to a to a stringent non-religious
)ideology.
Mike, the ad hominem is a poor argument, and besides, it's against
the rules here. What I need from you is a succinct summary of what
PoF says and why you think it's important.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:54:19 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
David:
) Ha! That's funny. I guess you don't know that Catholic schools are
) publicly subsidised in Montreal...
Walden: So you see the parallels and agree that Waldorf schools, like
Catholic schools, are religious. Good.
Q.And the religion is....??
A. Anthroposophy
It is never too late to learn.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:13:13 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
walden wrote:
) David:
) ) Ha! That's funny. I guess you don't know that Catholic schools are
) ) publicly subsidised in Montreal...
)
) Walden: So you see the parallels and agree that Waldorf schools, like
) Catholic schools, are religious. Good.
) Q.And the religion is....??
) A. Anthroposophy
)
) It is never too late to learn.
)
Um... no...
I'm just pointing out the lack of validity in attacking Waldorf schools
in Canada in this way.
Waldorf schools are not secular, but neither are they religious.
I know you disagree, and I think it comes down to a matter of
perception. I guess your lawsuit will determine which perception the
U.S. courts agree with.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:42:01 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C29A2A.1E923F00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
David wrote: Waldorf schools are not secular, but neither are they religious.
Nicole: My children's Waldorf school is certainly based on
anthroposophy as a religion. I spent a year attending staff meetings
where it was very clear that the majority of teachers considered
Steiner's writings to be gospel. The reverential mood was, at times,
overpowering (it made me want to run a mile in the opposite
direction), and yet the school claims to be non-sectarian. The usual
impression that it gives (to observers of the various class
presentations) is one of conventional Christianity, but IMO the level
of compulsory religious observance is more extreme than is the case
for overtly religious schools (Catholic for instance). The
Anthroposophical content is not at all obvious, unless one is present
at faculty meetings, or perhaps study group (although study group
does not convey the extent to which Anthroposophy-as-religion informs
the 'thinking' of the staff - they tend to treat Steiner's writings
as a philosophy and to assume the staff does the same). Personally, I!
find that sort of thing to be very disturbing (and not just because
my own perspective is secular humanist). I don't believe in public
funding for any religious schools (church and state should be
separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools in that
category.
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:12 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:06:51 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
) Waldorf schools are not secular, but neither are they religious.
Walden:
Do the folks who put dictionaries together have it all wrong? Do those who
study religion and philosophy have it wrong? By the way - what is the
problem with calling Anthroposophy a "religion?" Why are people involved in
Anthroposophy afraid of this label? How about "cult" or "NRM" (new
religious movement)? I don't find these terms demeaning. David, would you
care to comments on a lecture given by a well respected Anthro teacher of
teachers. You might even know him. I have respect for this individual, as
well, because of one word: Integrity. If you find the time please comment
on the entire piece:
"If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So
let's at least do it the right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing
Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
"Or this way: the road less traveled, the harder stream. Where [you] say,
'I'm an Anthroposophist, I'm trying to develop a school that's religious in
nature, I look at your child as a reincarnating being, I think I have karma
with you and your child, I look at your child as a being of physical,
etheric, astral and ego--how else can I understand anyone as complicated as
your child?'
If we spoke to parents that way, we would have so many parents coming our
way we wouldn't know what to do with them. Parents feel it, they know it,
'I'm not being told everything, there's something that these teachers do
with each other, that gives them this vitality, this joy in life, and
they're not sharing it with me. They're doing something to my child that
brings her home filled with manners, a love of the world, and we say we're
just teaching them reading a little slowly ... are we asleep? are we that
condescending? that patronizing towards parents?"
"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious
experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to
a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she
learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about
respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door
in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf,
and denies her a religious experience."
-Eugene Schwartz from:
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/schwartz.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:21:13 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Nicole Foss wrote:
I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
in that category.
Then perhaps you should move to California...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:39:08 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Eugene certainly is a man of great integrity. And I agree that Waldorf
schools are religious in the sense of giving an experience of many forms
of religion (among other things), and having the teachers teach from a
position of at least understanding Anthroposphy.
Anthroposophy does permeate the teaching method; however, any
Anthroposophical ideas are offered up in a passive way (i.e., "what do
you think of the mechanistic view of the body") allowing students to
make their own critical decisions.
I have an aversion to Religion as such, and I never found Anthroposphy
to be threatening or prosthylytising in any way; I found most of its
advocates to be quite flexible in their viewpoints, and perhaps this is
why I would hesitate to call it a religion.
walden wrote:
) ) Waldorf schools are not secular, but neither are they religious.
)
)
) Walden:
) Do the folks who put dictionaries together have it all wrong? Do those
) who
) study religion and philosophy have it wrong? By the way - what is the
) problem with calling Anthroposophy a "religion?" Why are people
) involved in
) Anthroposophy afraid of this label? How about "cult" or "NRM" (new
) religious movement)? I don't find these terms demeaning. David, would
) you
) care to comments on a lecture given by a well respected Anthro teacher
) of
) teachers. You might even know him. I have respect for this individual,
) as
) well, because of one word: Integrity. If you find the time please
) comment
) on the entire piece:
)
) "If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
) responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
) which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
) ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
) Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there.
) So
) let's at least do it the right way. [32:50] Let's be bringing
) Anthroposophical [light] in ..."
)
) "Or this way: the road less traveled, the harder stream. Where [you]
) say,
) 'I'm an Anthroposophist, I'm trying to develop a school that's religious
) in
) nature, I look at your child as a reincarnating being, I think I have
) karma
) with you and your child, I look at your child as a being of physical,
) etheric, astral and ego--how else can I understand anyone as complicated
) as
) your child?'
)
) If we spoke to parents that way, we would have so many parents coming
) our
) way we wouldn't know what to do with them. Parents feel it, they know
) it,
) 'I'm not being told everything, there's something that these teachers do
) with each other, that gives them this vitality, this joy in life, and
) they're not sharing it with me. They're doing something to my child that
) brings her home filled with manners, a love of the world, and we say
) we're
) just teaching them reading a little slowly ... are we asleep? are we
) that
) condescending? that patronizing towards parents?"
)
) "That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious
) experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my
) daughter to
) a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that
) she
) learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about
) respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the
) door
) in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself
) Waldorf,
) and denies her a religious experience."
)
)
) -Eugene Schwartz from:
) http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles/schwartz.html
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:42:53 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject:
I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
experiences.
Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
all know what your negative opinions are.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:58:51 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re:
Been there done that - check the archives. To my list I would add... one of
the best things about Waldorf are the many friends we meet as we are tossed
out the revolving doors. Lots of us joined for similar reasons - needs or
beliefs which were light years from what was actually there. These
friendships are wonderful... and not "negative." But - check the archives.
-Walden
) I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
)
) Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
) I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
) you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
) experiences.
)
) Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
) all know what your negative opinions are.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:21:28 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
David wrote:
)Anthroposophy does permeate the teaching method; however, any
)Anthroposophical ideas are offered up in a passive way (i.e., "what do
)you think of the mechanistic view of the body") allowing students to
)make their own critical decisions.
)
Peter responds:
G'day David,
I have no problem with students making their own critical decisions, with
some help guidance and protection. However I would not trust a Creationist
to set the tone and the evidence for the corresponding question applied to
evolution. I would be equally uneasy if many of the DOFs who have
contributed to this list were in charge of a class in which that question
was raised.
At school were you given "rescue remedy" for minor injuries and so on? This
seems to be the case in Australia. I would put it to you that this alone is
enough to skew such a discussion away from what can be demonstrated to what
people might like to believe.
See you, Peter Farrell
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:41:25 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re:
G'day David,
I sent a reference to an article just the other day which purported to show
that art teaching in Steiner schools was superior in contrast to the
criticisms (see below). The reference I posted is one study. It is
insufficient by itself to demonsrate its conclusions, but it has the right
form in the sense that it is in a peer reviewd journal, and the authors
appear to be able to be appropriatley disinterested.
See you, Peter
Pasten from previous post.
The abstract of the article I alluded to below can be seen at
http://isacco.ingentaselect.com/vl=8072367/cl=14/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/bpsoc/00070998/v70n4/s2/p485
where those of you sufficiently wealthy can also purchase the article. A
university with an education or philosophy department in the vicinity is
likely to have this journal available for public perusal.
)From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:42:53 +0000
)
)I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
)
)Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
)I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
)you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
)experiences.
)
)Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
)all know what your negative opinions are.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:43:16 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi again David, you wrote:
)As you well know, that's not the end of the passage
Yes, of course. I think I made it clear that I was filling in the portions
of the text that you had omitted. I quoted the material that you skipped.
)as I've posted
)before:
)
)"Only the esoteric student learns what it means to be entirely cut off
)from his family, national, or racial spirit. He alone realizes, through
)personal experience, the insignificance of all such education in respect
)of the life now confronting him. For everything inculcated by education
)completely melts away when the threads binding will, thought, and
)feeling are severed. He looks back on the result of all his previous
)education as he might on a house crumbling away brick by brick, which he
)must now rebuild in a new form."
)
)How does that conclusion contradict PoF?
The conclusion that Steiner reaches in this passage, as is clear from the
full text, is that the esoteric student is to reclaim and "rebuild" the
"allotted tasks" that are incumbent upon him by virtue of his racial and
ethnic identity, so that he can pursue these racial-national tasks in a "new
form", namely through "knowingly collaborating" with his own race spirit and
national spirit, rather than passively and unconsciously following these
tasks. That conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the emphatic
individualism of PoF. It is not a form of individualism, much less of
anti-racism, to demand that people become conscious and active executive
organs of their purported racial-national destiny.
)I think that we're both reading Steiner with an agenda
Yes, every reader does this.
)yours, to find
)every possible interpretation that would cast a negative light on WE
That is not my agenda. I've barely said a word about Waldorf education.
There are any number of possible interpretations of Steiner's works that
would cast a negative light on Waldorf which I explicitly reject. This issue
arose not because I offered any negative interpretation of anything, but
because I pointed out a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship
between Steiner's early and later periods (which ought to be important to
both critics and admirers of Steiner the philosopher and Steiner the
anthroposophist). What I've tried to offer here is an accurate
interpretation of the final pages of Knowledge of Higher Worlds; this could
indeed cast a negative light on Waldorf education if Waldorf educators rely
on those passages from Knowledge of Higher Worlds in their work with Waldorf
students. I don't know whether the latter is the case or not.
)mine, to reconcile Steiner's writings with my experiences of
)Anthroposophists and how they speak of freedom and spirituality.
That makes sense regarding Steiner's anthroposophist writings, like KHW, but
why would you pursue this agenda regarding Steiner's non-anthroposophist
writings, like PoF? There's no spirituality, much less anthroposophy, in the
earlier book.
)I want to ask you a question -- what is this all about? What are you
)really trying to do here? What is your end goal? What would be the ideal
)outcome for you?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I don't have an end goal in mind
for the discussions on this email list. The end goal of my research on
Steiner is supposed to be a book, but that's still a ways off. I suppose the
ideal outcome, from my point of view, would be a more informed and
historically well-founded understanding of Steiner's doctrines and their
influence. I'd like non-anthroposophists to have a better sense of the role
that movements like anthroposophy played during a particularly volatile
period in German history, as well as a more thorough and contextual grasp of
the details of Steiner's racial and national theories, so that they can
assess the social impact of anthroposophical doctrines and practices. As for
anthroposophists, I'd like them to finally come to terms with the regressive
and damaging aspects of their teachings and of their history, and maybe even
confront the consequences of that history by undertaking a review and,
potentially, a revision of the less savory teachings. That would be a good
start, in any case.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:57:25 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
David writes:
) Anthroposophy does permeate the teaching method; however, any
) Anthroposophical ideas are offered up in a passive way (i.e., "what do
) you think of the mechanistic view of the body") allowing students to
) make their own critical decisions.
Walden: Passive? I wonder if we define *that* word differently, as well?
Contrary to the Waldorf PR each day does not begin with the main lesson.
The day starts with a prayer. Parents are rarely told about the prayer or
what it means. Steiner told the first teacher to never tell people about
the prayer - call it a "verse," he said. What if people discovered these
schools to be Anthroposophic seminaries? This prayer *must* be chanted loud
and clear - don't you remember? If you are caught not chanting the prayer
you might... get in trouble. Remember?
Morning Verse, Grades One through Four
The sun with loving light
Makes bright for me each day,
The soul with spirit power
Gives strength unto my limbs.
In sunlight shining clear
I reverence, O God,
The strength of humankind
Which Thou so graciously
Hast planted in my soul
That I, with all my might,
May strive to work and learn.
From Thee flow light and strength,
To Thee rise love and thanks.
Morning Verse, Grades Five through Eight
I look into the world
In which the sun is shining,
In which the stars are sparkling,
Where stones in stillness lie,
Where living plants are growing,
Where animals live in feeling,
Where man within the soul
Gives dwelling to the spirit.
I look into the soul
That lives within my being.
God's spirit lives and weaves
In sunlight and in soul light,
In world space there without,
In soul depths here within.
To Thee, Creator Spirit,
I turn my heart to ask
That strength and blessing
For learning and for work
May ever grow within me.
Walden adds: Then, the class will move onto the main lesson where the
important stuff happens. This is from a main lesson book:
Page One and I quote: (hand written in Anthro colors with Anthro crayons)
Human and Animal
In the heart the weaving feeling
In the head the light of thinking
In the limbs the strength of will
Lo; this is Human!
-R. Steiner
Walden: And on and on it goes.... Anthroposophy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:30:12 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29A41.9D7C0E60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole wrote:
I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
in that category.
David replied:
Then perhaps you should move to California...
Nicole:
I fail to see the logic of your proposition and am disappointed by
the tone of your response. Is the separation of church and state such
an alien notion? Are non-believers unwelcome in Canada? Religion is a
matter of free personal choice - why should indoctrination (in any
form) be subsidized by the taxpayer?
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:21 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:18:28 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: request for positive Waldorf experiences
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C29A48.5B703BC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
David asks: Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
Nicole: If I couldn't see anything of value in our local Waldorf school
then my children wouldn't still be attending it. There seems to be a
fairly large group of children who are sensitive/creative 'refugees'
from the public system and who have been able to flourish at our
school, without being ridiculed for their 'uncool' interests as they
had been previously. My two older children fit into this category (my
youngest is more interested in farm machinery than fine art) and
therefore have been able to find many like-minded friends. My
children's own teachers are very genuine and dedicated people. My
daughter's teacher in particular is the best teacher I've ever seen
(and I assisted in his class for a year, so I would know). I like the
breadth of the curriculum, with academic work enhanced by the
teaching of practical skills, music, art and drama. I like the
teaching approach which avoids the use of too much written material
for very young children, allowing them to come to re!
ading and writing in their own time rather than be forced into
literacy prematurely. I like the experiential approach to learning
whereby and children learn by doing and dry 'lectures' are avoided.
The fact that commercialism is discouraged, along with TV and
Nintendo, is also a very significant factor for me.
I don't like the religious aspects of anthroposophy, but I tolerate
them because there are presently significant unrelated benefits for
my children. The range of educational choices is somewhat limited in
our area so that I have been unable to find anywhere else which would
offer me the benefits I am looking for without the religious element.
I find that the religious approach fosters a type of siege mentality
which significantly interferes with openness and accountability and
can lead to a lack of respect for parents and other outsiders. The
governance structure is therefore dysfunctional in my view.
My approach is pragmatic - there are costs and benefits and for the
time being the benefits 'outweigh' the costs as far as my children
are concerned.
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:42 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject:
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:50:11 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
on 12/2/02 3:39 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) Eugene certainly is a man of great integrity. And I agree that Waldorf
) schools are religious in the sense of giving an experience of many forms
) of religion (among other things), and having the teachers teach from a
) position of at least understanding Anthroposphy.
Sharon: Oh so now they are "religious" are they? No David, Waldorf is giving
children an Anthroposophic perspective. Children are not learning "many
forms of religion", they are getting an undiluted version of Anthroposophy.
I respect Eugene as well, and if I were an Anthroposophist I would be
picketing the Goetheanum demanding that he be reinstalled as head of Waldorf
teacher training. (He was fired for the comments he made about
Anthroposophists not being straight. Anthroposophists deny this, but
Schwartz wrote to Dan and told us that this is what happened. And I believe
Schwartz hands down over any other Anthroposophist.) Here's some more of
what he said that got him fired:
Schwartz: "I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the child
is going to go through one religious experience after another. And if any of
the teacher trainees in the room feel that I?m not saying that clearly
enough to you, well here it is guys, if I haven?t said it to you a hundred
times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children
religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf education".
"To deny the religious basis of Waldorf education ? I would say it again ?
to satisfy public school superintendents, or a talk show host, or a
newspaper reporter is very, very wrong. And the Waldorf leadership , I would
say is waffling on this matter. I would say we are religious schools.
Religious schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious
schools light ? whatever you want to call it".
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don?t say I
didn?t tell you guys?ten years ago ! Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then".
"If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work. Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it?s there".
(From the transcript of Eugene Schwartz?s talk given November 13, 1999.
Schwartz was at that time Director of Waldorf Teacher Training, Sunbridge
College. "Waldorf Education -- For Our Times Or Against Them?" available
in the "articles" (green button) section on the PLANS site:
www.waldorfcritics.org)
)
) Anthroposophy does permeate the teaching method; however, any
) Anthroposophical ideas are offered up in a passive way (i.e., "what do
) you think of the mechanistic view of the body") allowing students to
) make their own critical decisions.
Sharon: Oh puleez! Passive? Copied off the board into lesson books: "Out of
heaven into birth from the stars to the earth I have flown", "man is the
measure of all things", "the body is the house of the spirit", "God rules
with a lawful might, and out of this home, with heaven's help, from water,
fire, air and earth, is fashioned a house for each soul to dwell in from
the time of birth", "The human being is like a little universe inside a big
one. Sun, moon and stars find their likeness in man's head, trunk and
limbs...", "The sylphs, salamanders, gnomes and undines are the earth's
scribes", on and on the Anthro Sunday school lessons go.
)
) I have an aversion to Religion as such, and I never found Anthroposphy
) to be threatening or prosthylytising in any way; I found most of its
) advocates to be quite flexible in their viewpoints, and perhaps this is
) why I would hesitate to call it a religion.
Sharon: You don't get out much do you? I recommend joining the Mormons for a
brief stint or another religious group so you have a comparison. You might
be surprised by what you find. You see, you might find that the Mormons are
also quite flexible and non threatening to you. (I on the other hand found
the Anthros I've met to be quite inflexible. Just as I find Mormons to be
inflexible). I know what it is to develop a strong aversion to a religion. I
developed such a strong aversion to Anthroposophy that I couldn't go near
our ex-school without wanting to throw up. I also found myself crying about
the school for reasons I couldn't understand. The school made me extremely
sad. And I am not alone!!! Many are having these sorts of experiences
because Anthroposophists are duping people, screwing people and it is wrong!
Get that subtext out in the open! Proselytize it! That would be preferable
than imposing Steiner's esoteric doctrine on people without their conscious
sanction.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 899
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Why I stay on the critics list
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Kimberton waldorf
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Waldorf School of Orange County
By anjhale yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:58:15 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
Nicole Foss wrote:
) Nicole wrote:
)
) I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
)
) state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
) in that category.
)
)
) David replied:
)
) Then perhaps you should move to California...
)
)
) Nicole:
)
) I fail to see the logic of your proposition and am disappointed by the
) tone of your response. Is the separation of church and state such an
) alien notion? Are non-believers unwelcome in Canada? Religion is a
) matter of free personal choice - why should indoctrination (in any form)
) be subsidized by the taxpayer?
)
Sorry... it was a joke, since we don't have a constitutional separation
of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
the states where they have those draconian measures in place.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:44:52 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Why I stay on the critics list
Sometimes (often, actually), I think about leaving the Waldorf Critics
list. It's a lot of stress, it's hard on my health, and it feels like I've
said everything I need or want to say.
Then someone at the Waldorf-run whole foods store starts insisting that my
5-year-old should believe in fairies, to the point that she's made quite
distressed by this encounter ("with a grown-up, who should know better"),
and I find I have more to say.
Or someone comes on the list and says that they're giving everything equal
weight in a balanced view - itself a fallacious assumption, as reality is
not found half-way between the truth and a lie, nor by taking the average
of veracity and falsehood - they've read the website, they've asked the
questions, and "Anthroposophy isn't taught in the schools, so why should
they worry about that part?" And I find myself remembering the deep
shadows under my daughter's eyes, the injuries to her ankles that continued
for so long that I feared permanent damage, the months I lost when I was
nearly bedridden as a result of getting nearly no sleep during her entire
time in the Steiner school, because of my daughter's frequent severe
nightmares... And I can't just leave.
We may, and do, have our differences. We may, and do, have our internal
conflicts. I keep reminding myself that all that does is to prove just how
wide a range of people wind up getting hurt by these schools. And even
that is a message in itself; one more reason to stay.
Still, as they say on the airplanes - "put your own mask on first". If you
have a personal situation, or a family situation, which needs to take
precedence, by all means, LET it!!! Take a break from the list. Leave for
a while, even. Come back when you need to, or when you start wondering if
anything's changed, or when you start worrying that maybe yours was the
voice someone else needed to hear that day, to give them the feeling that
they weren't alone in how they felt.
Or, even, if you can and need to, put your life together, move on, and
think about something else - as long as the pain and deception doesn't
suddenly touch your life without your choosing. As long as your nice quiet
post-Waldorf life doesn't suddenly have your sister-in-law telling you
that's where they're sending your nephew...
I guess that's what it comes down to, for me. I have too much in common
with too many people who are still being tempted by Waldorf's sales pitch,
and who need to know a bit more about its reality. I can't justify leaving
when my voice is unique, and too often people dismiss the various critics
on the basis of whether they feel they have common ground with the
speaker. Someone might listen to me who would not listen to Sharon or
Lisa, just as I'm sure that people listen to them who would not find equal
weight in my words. *EACH* of us here is unique, and our commonalities
form a web of ties between otherwise diverse individuals - none of us is
completely unlike the others, nor do any two members share common ground to
the point of redundancy.
I find it very telling, to read, over and over again, all sides of each
issue raised, represented among the Waldorf Critics and Survivors. It
makes it all the more telling that our one universal commonality is the
fact that we were burned by the Waldorf system, and Steiner's teachings.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me who people are listening to, as long as
they're being warned of the danger to their children and their families, in
time to make informed decisions, or at least to save their families at a
point where all they've lost is time and money. I'm sure that right about
now, many survivors, both students and parents, would be thrilled if they
could turn back the clock and leave Waldorf at a point where all they'd
lost was money and the need for a bit of remedial tutoring, instead of
greater losses such as mental and physical health, and/or a child's faith
in herself.
That's what it's all about, in the end. We can talk about the philosophy,
the teacher training, the methods, the cookie-cutter schools with their
lazured walls - but in the end, the only real key similarity is the
children who are being given, as a song of my husband's once put it,
"deception in the guise of faith, deception in the guise of friend" - so,
to finish the song's chorus, may all their lies come back to them again. I
can't stand the idea that the one lie I don't stick around to contradict
might be the one that convinces a family to "just try it", only to cost
their child(ren) consequences which may potentially be life-long. It's so
easy to be suckered, and so hard to learn how to recognize the "handling"
techniques which characterize this kind of deceptive manipulation, until
AFTER one has been burned by them.
In my opinion their most successful sales pitch is the degree to which they
make themselves look "like everyone else" who is alternative or
artsy. They intentionally present themselves as progressive, eco minded,
holistically driven, arts integrated. They say all the right things to get
people to consider trusting them with their kids.
It's so much easier to believe the person with whom we feel we have most in
common, and the Waldorf schools work very hard to maximize their appearance
of having common ground with each potential member of the "Waldorf
Community" ("I am Steiner of Waldorf - you will be
assimilated..." (chuckle) (wink)).
The Waldorf movement has adapted to the current era, figuratively taking
the long dead body of Rudolf Steiner's writings (forgotten by most) and
sewing on to its flesh (much like a philosophical Victor Von Frankenstein)
the various bits and pieces that might attract their prey. Anything old or
new that has a current interest is linked to the schools. My husband saw
advertisements for a speaker at the local school, who was going to be
talking in the evening (for a fee)...about UFO's. But then, that is what
Steiner did in his writings. He stole from everyone who sounded
interesting, and acted like the results were his own original concepts, his
own proprietary intellectual property.
This has kept the schools looking good to the current crop of new parents,
gluing the entire gamut of alternative lifestyles on, so that the school
would look "artsy", and spiritual in a harmless way. No matter what your
"thing" is... Waldorf works very hard to look like they are "into
it". Everything from natural medicine to healthy eating and/or avoiding
poisons in the home, to progressive political reform and alternative
spirituality. The way they infiltrate the local alternative community is
so intense that it becomes hard to be "alternative" and not be at least
tolerant of Steinerites - a public tolerance that in turn gives them an
even greater appearance of social approval.
No wonder Waldorf discourages critical TV viewing policies instead of a
complete ban - educating people about slick sales techniques is likely to
render them less susceptible to those methods, including the ones used by
Waldorf! That "appearance of commonality" is one of the slickest.
It is even worse than the practise of "lovemarking", an emotionally
manipulative advertising technique in which a product is deliberately
linked with a sense of emotional bonding to the brand. An example of this
is the pasta brands which seek to market "family" first, and pasta as a
small but inevitable secondary consequence of the omnipresent love of
family (while continuing to equate family with pasta).
This particular advertising technique has recently begun to sweep the print
and televised media advertisements, but Waldorf had mastered it long
since. They act like they aren't selling you "Waldorf", after all - or
more honestly, Steiner and Anthroposophy - they are selling you "the magic
of childhood", and "freedom", and "respect for the development of the
individual", and "bonding with your child" - things tailored to match the
wish list of nearly every parent - and of course, they tell you, if you
really love these things, you'll want their schools for your child.
They also sell other things. They sell quick and easy remedies to
those who want them. They sell "instant community" (just add
water, er, tuition) with a side of happy utopia on the side. They will
sell you anything that you will buy, because what they really want
is access to your children. Steiner told them to be deceptive if they need
to, as long as the end result was to get parents to trust them with their kids.
From what I've seen, the only thing that seems to effectively counteract
this sales pitch and its cultivated appearance of commonality is real
commonality (as guaranteed by a diverse range of critics) and the ongoing
honest accounts of the dangers, together with an approach tailored to
highlight the canned nature of the Steiner-scripted appearance of
"spontaneous expressions of common ground with the parents' deepest wishes
for their children". It's a lot harder to believe the script when you
start to plug in monkey wrenches, only to continue getting the canned
answers which no longer fit the questions you are asking.
Our diversity and honesty (about our widely ranging perspectives, our
common experiences, and our individual motives) is our greatest asset in
our efforts to counteract that manipulation, and help people see through
the sales pitch.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 05:19:02 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
G'day David et al,
I live in another uncivilised country (Australia) with no formal separation
of church and state, and I have to say, as I have commented before, that the
separation of religion from politics in Australia is vastly greater than it
is in the US, despite the formal separation. One might say we have actual
separation despite a formal connection to the Church of England through our
(borrowed?) Queen, whereas the US has no separation despite a formal
separation in the constitution. If you doubt this, imagine an open atheist
being elected president.
Most if not all schools in Australia get government funding regardless of
their religious affiliation, loosely according to need. I happen to have
many difficulties with the actual practice of this, but I don't have a
problem with the principle.
See you, Peter
)From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
)Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:58:15 +0000
)
)Nicole Foss wrote:
) ) Nicole wrote:
) )
) ) I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
) )
) ) state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
) ) in that category.
) )
) )
) ) David replied:
) )
) ) Then perhaps you should move to California...
) )
) )
) ) Nicole:
) )
) ) I fail to see the logic of your proposition and am disappointed by the
) ) tone of your response. Is the separation of church and state such an
) ) alien notion? Are non-believers unwelcome in Canada? Religion is a
) ) matter of free personal choice - why should indoctrination (in any form)
) ) be subsidized by the taxpayer?
) )
)
)Sorry... it was a joke, since we don't have a constitutional separation
)of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
)the states where they have those draconian measures in place.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:38:42 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Kimberton waldorf
At 27-11-02 10:18 AM Wednesday, you wrote:
)As a new Waldorf parent, and for now, happy one, I absolutely agree with
)Walden. I researched and read as much as I could - pro's and con's about
)the philosphy vs education. And believe me, there are pro's and
)con's. But it is my experience that is true for most schools. It comes
)down to what is important to you and what you as a family value and
)believe in. I also think not all Waldorf schools are alike.
)
)But, the critics list has been and continues to be very enlightening. The
)participants are knowledgable and passionate. After you spend time here,
)you can start to get why and how they came to their opinions. This site
)gave me a lot of ammunition in my questioning of the school we ultimately
)chose. Yes, I even went right to the big racism question and talked to
)families and teachers alike. I won't start that discussion here again.
)
)Anyway, don't let this info. freak you out. Use it as a guide, as very
)important and relevant information and then take it to your school. good luck
I second that wish for good luck. In fact, I will specifically wish you
better luck than my family had.
You see, we did everything you describe here: we did find this site before
enrolling our daughter, we did research the school, we did consider the
pros and cons, and we did ask the hard questions in a series of extra
interviews (including with upper school teachers) before enrolling our
daughter.
It does little good to be "informed" so you can "talk to the people at your
local school", if, when you bring up your concerns, they lie to your
face. We were lied to directly by no less than 5 teachers in our tours and
interviews. We asked the questions and they did what Steiner said to do,
what Waldorf educators are taught to do (in the college of teachers), when
parents ask critical and informed questions. They lied to us.
And, in the end, her attendance cost us close to $1000, our daughter's
health and ours both suffered greatly, and in less than six weeks total
time, in which time my daughter attended for 11 class days, and our
additional family involvement included several parent craft sessions, a
kindy harvest feast, a kindy garden day, a Harvest Fair, and one visit to
the "Anthroposophical Doctor" (how quickly Waldorf schools become one's
whole life!), our daughter reached the point of being so terrorized that
she was afraid to set foot into the Kindy building, or be around any
Waldorf children without us *immediately* with her, preferably *in front
of* her.
I wish you better luck than that, and I wish I'd heeded my own sense of
skepticism and critical thinking, together with my repulsion for that
feeling of "being handled" which arose whenever we discussed certain highly
relevant philosophical differences with the school (like our appreciation
of computers, books, educational television, recorded music (we're both
composers) and other forms of media... ...or, far more importantly, our
belief that our daughter should have the right to exercise her mind and
express her emotions).
I can, and do, teach my child the basic technologies from which our current
choices evolved, and all of the steps in between. Basic living skills such
as knitting, baking, organic garden, and other forms of sustainable living
can be taught to your child at home - and will be, if that's how you
live. But simply because I believe in using the most appropriate
technology to address a task does not mean that my values are going to be
in accordance with those of others, even those which are seemingly similar.
This is especially true when those others hold values dictated by books
which were written by a dead man, and are taken without revision. My life,
like that of any organism interested in survival, adapts. Books, and
belief systems that take them as their literal fundamentals, are simply far
more inflexible than that. The problem isn't with the books themselves -
it is with the choice to treat them as infallible, and live by them. Life
is dynamic, books are not. Authors are people, sometimes insightful,
sometimes fallible, but they grow and change over time in a way that their
canned and frozen thoughts cannot, though they can appear to take on a
variety of meanings depending on the contexts and perspective in which they
are encountered. Books allow us to keep having access to those thoughts,
even when the writers are long dead - but they do not have the capacity for
responsive adaptation.
There is an enormous difference between being informed by something, and
imposing a belief system on a child when its results in that child are
clearly destructive. When one's actions are driven by dynamic beliefs,
those can interact and adapt to the situation, in an effort to avoid
causing damage. The canned concepts and strictures of books and other
recorded media cannot.
(This is one reason why I really admire the progressive steps taken by the
Roman Catholic Church under some of the last few popes - they've worked to
take that religious movement from a fundamentalist literalist one, to a
more dynamic and responsive one, capable of the change that is necessary
for improvement. Even if the pace is still ponderously slow, and of great
concern for its other damaging impacts, that change creates the potential
for the improvement, a decrease in destructive elements and an increase in
constructive ones. Until the followers of Steiner acquire that capacity,
they are doomed to the ongoing human suffering caused by the destructive
interactions inherent in the application of a rigid guide to a flexible
system.)
All of which is really a passing secondary point, when you consider that my
child was being physically victimized, on campus, starting from her first
day in kindy. She was not physically safe. I do not believe that I, as a
parent, have the right to entrust my child to any environment which is
demonstrably unsafe to that degree, when a better alternative is available
- even if that better alternative is further isolation for my child as we
homeschool her due to lack of other options, for health reasons.
You would think the decision we'd made was a logical one - to place her in
the school after hearing their denials to the questions we learned to ask
before our first interview with the school, in the opinion that it was her
only opportunity for a social life, and as her only alternative to being
homeschooled by disabled parents in near-isolation in rural Australia. It
sounds like a rational decision.
If the situation were as rational as it is portrayed, by those who deny
that the focus of the school is Steiner's occult teachings, it WOULD have
been a valid and appropriate decision. But, the situation is not a
rational one, it felt like we were "being handled" because we were "being
handled", and if I had the choice to make over again, as much as I value
the lessons that this has taught our family about carefully packaged cult
beliefs, I would not choose again to pay the price it cost us in our
daughter's health and our family's suffering, simply in order to learn it.
One point that I found particularly telling was the curriculum for the
Waldorf Teachers Colleges - I strongly recommend including that in your
reading, as you may find it as shocking as I did. I always think of
Teachers' Colleges as including material about child development, teaching,
and the material to be taught - and by a variety of authors! What I found
instead looked much more like a specialty degree program in a theological
seminary, and the nearly-monastic environment in which the material is
taught renders the results a far more obvious and comprehensible pattern.
In the end, what I consider most important is to remember that you are the
only safety net your child has, to keep them from any of the problems
described here - so if you aren't confident in the decision to send your
child to these schools, PLEASE reconsider the alternatives. I have never
been more glad that we did, our daughter is flourishing in the home
environment dictated by our health problems, just as I'm sure she would
have thrived in any of several other local schools we had located before
the health restrictions became evident.
The other question I want to raise in the mind of any potential Waldorf
parent - are you thinking of sending your child to this school because you
think it will be best for your child - or because you, yourself, "wish you
could have gone to this school", and want to be part of it? Because the
sales pitch the schools give is very well-tailored to those of us who were
NOT well served by our educational experiences - they serve to make the
parents wish they could have attended the schools themselves, and thereby
less likely to take seriously their children's discontent with the
schools. After all, since the sales pitch is NOT about the actual content
of the schools, why shouldn't they make it reflect whatever will best
achieve the results they want?
Unfortunately, if you're not looking to let the school make your family and
your life over, in their image, you can be fairly certain that you will
have problems if you give them your money, your children, and/or control
over any aspect of your life. Look at all of the paperwork that you're
asked to sign. Ask yourself - do I really mean ALL of this? Am I really
agreeing to ALL of this?
The paperwork that you sign when you get involved with a Waldorf school is
a legal contract, and it should be treated that way. Signing it, if there
is *any* piece by which you have no intention of abiding, is unethical and
not completely legal. Yet it's hard to take seriously a school enrollment
form that attempts to dictate things like your entire family's TV viewing
choices, it's hard to believe that you're really signing a legal contract
that dictates how you raise your child and how you treat your family. Have
they told you yet about the in-home visits in which they inspect your
home? In some cases, they've even asked to inspect students' homes without
having anyone else present. They take their policies very seriously, and
fully expect you to abide by them, if you are going to participate in the
schools.
I take such things seriously, and I could barely set pen to paper to sign
those forms. I wish now that I had not signed them, that I had
acknowledged that we were too fundamentally at odds, and that no matter how
far we'd gotten in the registration process, it was still better to quit
there than to compromise myself any farther by signing forms that were
increasingly at odds with my beliefs, and which caused concerns about our
daughter's well-being in such an environment.
And they seemed to just keep coming... ...every time I thought they could
come up with no more odd or outrageous policy agreements, there came
another form...
Willow
)walden wrote:
)) I would second this suggestion from Mike, Wendy. Research Waldorf from
)) every angle.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:58:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com)
Subject: Waldorf School of Orange County
I am looking for information about the Orange County,
CA school in costa Mesa specifically. Is is possible
that this school does not incorporate some of the more
bizarre aspects of the Steiner philosophy, or is the
bizarreness just well-hidden from the eyes of
prospective parents? I have many reservations, but
friends and others insist that it must be "better than
public school..." Please email me off the list if you
feel more comfortable. I am desperate for more
information...
--Jessica
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 900
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: value in Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: value in Waldorf
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: value in Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: what critics like about Waldorf
By pstaud hotmail.com
Jamie and/or David
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Jamie and/or David
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Jamie and/or David
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Jamie and/or David
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Clarification re:Jamie and/or David
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Steiner on national character
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Questions
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:40:42 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
)
) Nicole Foss wrote:
)) Nicole wrote:
))
)) I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
))
)) state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
)) in that category.
))
))
)) David replied:
))
)) Then perhaps you should move to California...
))
))
)) Nicole:
))
)) I fail to see the logic of your proposition and am disappointed by the
)) tone of your response. Is the separation of church and state such an
)) alien notion? Are non-believers unwelcome in Canada? Religion is a
)) matter of free personal choice - why should indoctrination (in any form)
)) be subsidized by the taxpayer?
))
)
) Sorry... it was a joke, since we don't have a constitutional separation
) of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
) the states where they have those draconian measures in place.
Lisa: David, I have to say that I am getting more than a little impatient
with your snide little asides about my country, the United States of
America, during this discussion. I am sure I am not the only American who
does not consider the Constitution a "draconian" document and who
appreciates the logic in separating church and state. As Nicole notes above,
religion is a deeply personal matter and no one should be *compelled* to
practice any form it of unless that is his or her choice and free will. I
would be uncomfortable living in a country that had a state-sanctioned
religion; indeed, my Huegenot ancestors came to the US before the Revolution
from Holland after escaping a massacre in Romand Catholic France. I believe
the separation of church and state provided for by our Constitution is one
of the most important elements of that blueprint.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:57:09 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
) Lisa: David, I have to say that I am getting more than a little
) impatient
) with your snide little asides about my country, the United States of
) America, during this discussion.
That's funny, because I am getting a little impatiant with your constant
attack on an educational system that I value greatly. Ah, well, I guess
we'll both have to live with it. Freedom of speech and all that.
)I am sure I am not the only American who
) does not consider the Constitution a "draconian" document
Did I ever say it was?
)and who
) appreciates the logic in separating church and state. As Nicole notes
) above,
) religion is a deeply personal matter and no one should be *compelled* to
) practice any form it of unless that is his or her choice and free will.
) I
) would be uncomfortable living in a country that had a state-sanctioned
) religion;
What about a country that supports all religions and ideologies?
)indeed, my Huegenot ancestors came to the US before the Revolution
) from Holland after escaping a massacre in Romand Catholic France. )I
) believe
) the separation of church and state provided for by our Constitution is
) one
) of the most important elements of that blueprint.
Hmm... well, we have no such separation in Canada, and it's funny, we
don't have "In God we Trust" printed on our money (along with occult
symbols). Neither do we have Freemason Presidents who call for Crusades
against Muslim terrorists and affirm that God is on the side of America.
I guess I'd just like to point out that you have bigger problems than a
little Anthroposophy in school...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:08:37 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
David:
)What about a country that supports all religions and ideologies?
That is exactly the problem. That means everybody, then - if
anthroposophists can run government-funded schools, then so can the Moonies,
the Scientologists, UFO cults, any white supremacist group that calls itself
a religion . . . I fear we are headed in that direction anyway.
)Hmm... well, we have no such separation in Canada, and it's funny, we
)don't have "In God we Trust" printed on our money (along with occult
)symbols). Neither do we have Freemason Presidents who call for Crusades
)against Muslim terrorists and affirm that God is on the side of America.
I can't ignore this, I quite agree with you, and with Peter Farrell who also
noted that despite the formal separation of church and state in the US, we
seem to have quite a bit of trouble keeping these things separate.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:37:04 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
In response to my comment that I an not the only American who does not
consider the Constitution of the United States a "draconian" document, David
quips (I can just picture him typing this answer in, with a smile on his
face and his eyebrow cocked (g)):
((Did I ever say it was? ))
Me again: Yes, I think you did, David. In an earlier post, you said to
NIcole (( ... since we don't have a constitutional separation
of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
the states where they have those draconian measures in place.))
That "draconian" measure you mention -- separation of church and state -- is
the result of the Constitution. Ergo, the Constitution is a draconian
document. Capice? (g)
Later, when I recount how my ancestors came to the United States for
religious freedom after being persecuted in France because they were
Protestants, David replies: ((Hmm... well, we have no such separation in
Canada, and it's funny, we don't have "In God we Trust" printed on our money
(along with occult symbols). Neither do we have Freemason Presidents who
call for Crusades against Muslim terrorists and affirm that God is on the
side of America. I guess I'd just like to point out that you have bigger
problems than a little Anthroposophy in school...
Lisa: Right you are. It certainly doesn't make sense to have "In God We
Trust" on our currency; I agree with you there. Ditto on the occult symbols.
I also find that unsavory (for lack of a better word) and believe those
should be removed.
I will simply avoid responding to your attacks on President Bush, though
coming from Waldorf I would think you would heartily approve of Freemasonry
and its trappings. (Another magical mystery lodge, eh? ;) (I urge you NOT to
take this brief answer to mean I agree with you. Rather, I don't think that
the Waldorf critics list is the appropriate place for us to debate world
politics in general. And I fail to see how US policy toward the Middle East
and Iraq are relevant to our discussion of the relative merits and
weaknesses of Waldorf.)
As to our (by which I take it you mean Americans) having bigger problems
that what you call "a little Anthroposophy in school ..." I would offer that
Waldorf schools offer more than "a little anthroposophy;" Waldorf is *about*
Anthroposophy. It is a magical mystery school, a lodge aimed at initiating
children. This would be perfectly OK-- as I and other critics have said time
and again, we care little if someone wants to worship Steiner, Komodo
dragons or frankfurters! --if the schools did not make it a policy to
obscure this truth (if not to outright lie) to prospective and current
parents.
Equally are bad is the weak education that Waldorf schools seem to offer
in many cases, due to the teachers' lack of real preparation and the teacher
training institutes' emphasis on spiritual evolution rather than real
methods. (The Waldorf science curriculum also deserves criticism, but that
is another thread. Just ask the National Council for Science Education.)
As to your getting tired of hearing criticisms of Waldorf, well, this
*is* the CRITICS's list. The name alone indicates the purpose of the list:
to criticize and to debate Waldorf.
If you want lots of warm and fuzzy discussion of how wonderful your
education was, you ought to sign onto the SJU list. There, anyone who is too
critical of Waldorf gets bounced.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:07:09 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
on 12/2/02 3:42 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
)
) Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
) I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
) you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
) experiences.
)
) Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
) all know what your negative opinions are.
Sharon: A recent study shows that "negative" people might actually be
healthier and live longer that those always "positive". Fancy that!
When Dan pointed out the racist Steiner books for sale at his school and
said, "that was then, this is now" he was being "negative" and got chucked
out of the school, and we must all forget that because you don't want to
hear about it?
I remember my Waldorf daze well...you have just taken me right back.... when
everyone had to put on a smile and never say anything "negative".
Questioning was considered "negative". And people like me would volunteer
till we were blue in the face but what we did was never good enough because
it wasn't Anthro enough, and nobody told us what Anthroposophy was so we
ended up feeling like there was deep ingratitude. It was a horrible
experience. Then after hours of my time and donations, they hauled me in
before the faculty in an inquisition where they told me I was "irreverent
and "unsupportive" because I was wondering why KG kids couldn't use pencils
and draw lines which I learned after trying to raise money for the school,
why there were no black crayons in KG, why we couldn't study someone besides
Steiner if we were on a committee, what was wrong with Burt's Bees products
and why did we have to only sell Weleda, why children couldn't draw facial
features, why they had to copy smudgy drawings off the board, why they could
only paint with one color, or paint disks, suns and rainbows, why they were
teaching children that gnomes were real, why you could only use one kind of
font, one brand of paint, one brand of crayon, one brand of paper, why every
time you designed something they would get all uptight with a smile on their
faces and quickly rework it so it could be Anthro-kosher, why people were
having a fit about the color on the school store walls and Mexican day of
the dead sculptures in the windows, and products for sale like tin kitchens,
rubber dollies, Mexican paper-mache dolls and Putamaya's world music CDs.
Did I have permission from the committee I was asked. Then because I was
basically the committee, appointed by Anthros, they came up with a new
policy to assign an Anthro to all committees to maintain the Anthroness of
the school...I even said to one teacher who came to my house to sooth my
questioning about the line ban..."this is like a cult, you all follow
Steiner, he is your guru. I've never felt so oppressed"...I was right but I
didn't know I was right, she assured me that it wasn't so. She said she had
never felt so free... she wasn't "negative" I suppose.
Whoops, I forgot, you didn't want to hear anything "negative" because you've
been trained by a Waldorf school. So as not to make you feel uncomfy, I see
value in Eugene Schwartz. I also liked the way Waldorf did not use
disposable dishes. There feel better now?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:06:53 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: value in Waldorf
(Sigh...)
Actually, I just wanted to see if there was anything you liked about
Waldorf...
You're welcome, of course, to comment on what you don't like about it on
any other thread. I'm not saying don't be negative, just that I wanted
to know a certain aspect of your outlook in this case.
Obviously, it doesn't exist.
I'm truly sorry that your Waldorf experience caused you so much pain.
mysplum wrote:
) on 12/2/02 3:42 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) ) I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
) )
) ) Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
) ) I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
) ) you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
) ) experiences.
) )
) ) Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
) ) all know what your negative opinions are.
)
) Sharon: A recent study shows that "negative" people might actually be
) healthier and live longer that those always "positive". Fancy that!
)
) When Dan pointed out the racist Steiner books for sale at his school and
) said, "that was then, this is now" he was being "negative" and got
) chucked
) out of the school, and we must all forget that because you don't want to
) hear about it?
)
) I remember my Waldorf daze well...you have just taken me right back....
) when
) everyone had to put on a smile and never say anything "negative".
) Questioning was considered "negative". And people like me would
) volunteer
) till we were blue in the face but what we did was never good enough
) because
) it wasn't Anthro enough, and nobody told us what Anthroposophy was so we
) ended up feeling like there was deep ingratitude. It was a horrible
) experience. Then after hours of my time and donations, they hauled me in
) before the faculty in an inquisition where they told me I was
) "irreverent
) and "unsupportive" because I was wondering why KG kids couldn't use
) pencils
) and draw lines which I learned after trying to raise money for the
) school,
) why there were no black crayons in KG, why we couldn't study someone
) besides
) Steiner if we were on a committee, what was wrong with Burt's Bees
) products
) and why did we have to only sell Weleda, why children couldn't draw
) facial
) features, why they had to copy smudgy drawings off the board, why they
) could
) only paint with one color, or paint disks, suns and rainbows, why they
) were
) teaching children that gnomes were real, why you could only use one kind
) of
) font, one brand of paint, one brand of crayon, one brand of paper, why
) every
) time you designed something they would get all uptight with a smile on
) their
) faces and quickly rework it so it could be Anthro-kosher, why people
) were
) having a fit about the color on the school store walls and Mexican day
) of
) the dead sculptures in the windows, and products for sale like tin
) kitchens,
) rubber dollies, Mexican paper-mache dolls and Putamaya's world music
) CDs.
) Did I have permission from the committee I was asked. Then because I was
) basically the committee, appointed by Anthros, they came up with a new
) policy to assign an Anthro to all committees to maintain the Anthroness
) of
) the school...I even said to one teacher who came to my house to sooth my
) questioning about the line ban..."this is like a cult, you all follow
) Steiner, he is your guru. I've never felt so oppressed"...I was right
) but I
) didn't know I was right, she assured me that it wasn't so. She said she
) had
) never felt so free... she wasn't "negative" I suppose.
)
) Whoops, I forgot, you didn't want to hear anything "negative" because
) you've
) been trained by a Waldorf school. So as not to make you feel uncomfy, I
) see
) value in Eugene Schwartz. I also liked the way Waldorf did not use
) disposable dishes. There feel better now?
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:22:52 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Rick Ross report on Canadian public funding for Waldorf
on 12/2/02 7:58 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
))
)
) Sorry... it was a joke, since we don't have a constitutional separation
) of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
) the states where they have those draconian measures in place.
Sharon: Draconian? You need to do some more reading. Some of our little
founding fathers happened to be mystery religion believers (Freemasons) and
knew what it is to have Christianity rammed down your throat, or to be
burned for your beliefs. Why should I fund Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or
Rudolf Steiner or Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones or Bo and Peep or...?
Unfortunately, the wall is more like a picket fence.
Some of us church / state separationists do battle over the words and
symbols on our $, the Christian pledge, our president's Constitutional
violations, and other infringements. I'm a supporter of the Freedom From
Religion Foundation who litigate and are well aware of these sorts of
violations.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:50:02 -0500
From: (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
Something went wrong with this post. For some reason, it got cut off ... I
will repost it later, for anyone who cares ...
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:37:04 -0500 "Lisa D. Ercolano"
(momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
)
) In response to my comment that I an not the
) only American who does not
) consider the Constitution of the United States
) a "draconian" document, David
) quips (I can just picture him typing this
) answer in, with a smile on his
) face and his eyebrow cocked ):
)
) )
)
) Me again: Yes, I think you did, David. In an
) earlier post, you said to
) NIcole )
)
) That "draconian" measure you mention --
) separation of church and state -- is
) the result of the Constitution. Ergo, the
) Constitution is a draconian
) document. Capice?
)
) Later, when I recount how my ancestors came to
) the United States for
) religious freedom after being persecuted in
) France because they were
) Protestants, David replies:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:24:32 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29AC6.EF224D80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sharon wrote:
Questioning was considered "negative". And people like me would volunteer
till we were blue in the face but what we did was never good enough because
it wasn't Anthro enough, and nobody told us what Anthroposophy was so we
ended up feeling like there was deep ingratitude. It was a horrible
experience.
Nicole:
Well said, Sharon. I have had this exerience as well, as have others
I know. It seems to be a common thread in Waldorf that the hard work
of the many volunteers isgenerally taken for granted, and may also be
subjected to unreasonable criticism. (I remember the craft group
being chastized by a particularly obnoxious teacher for having left
the occasional tiny scrap of felt on the classroom floor when we had
all been slaving away in our own time to make things for the
Christmas fair. We were pretty thorough in cleaning up after
ourselves, but even if we hadn't been, would our efforts not have
been worth five minutes of a student's time - a student who would
have been scheduled to sweep the floor that day anyway?) If those
volunteers then ask too many questions, expect accountability when
issues need to be resolved, or perhaps object to their children being
forced to say prayers (they aren't allowed to stand respectfully
silent or to mouth the words silently - only full particip!
ation will do and the lack of it results in a reprimand), they become
'persona non grata'. They may then be shunned or even asked to leave
the school for 'negativity', no matter how much time and effort they
may have given.
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:52 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:27:26 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: what critics like about Waldorf
Hi David,
I think the last round of what-the-critics-value-in-Waldorf took place in
early December of 2001. It's easy to check the archives either at the PLANS
site or at Topica; look for the thread headed "what I like about Waldorf".
Cheers,
Peter S.
)I have a question for all of you stalwart warriors--
)
)Can you see anything of value in Waldorf at all?
)I've heard volumes about what you don't like, and I'd like to hear what
)you do like (if anything) about Waldorf, even after any painful
)experiences.
)
)Please don't reply unless you're going to say something positive, as we
)all know what your negative opinions are.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:25:10 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Jamie and/or David
Walden: I was hoping Jamie would do more than place an ad here at the
discussion list. If he has left after his PR post for Waldorf it is a
shame. Communication is what is needed here. Questions - answers -
discussion. That is what I always thought these lists were about. I
believe David invited Jamie to the list. So... David - would *you* care to
comment on my questions? Whatever truth/light you can shed on the subject
would be appreciated. Thanks.
) Walden: This *good news* post deserves comment. Thanks for taking
) the time to write.
)
) Jamie wrote: With regard to bullying, I never once experienced a case of
) bullying during my time at Waldorf.
)
) Walden: Lucky you. This is astonishing. Without betraying trusts -
there
) are bizarre cases of bullying
) in many Waldorf schools (including yours) resulting in parents pulling
their
) kids from those schools - especially in the early grades. This is a
common
) Waldorf problem and it has to do with a strange perception of "karma."
) Agreed, bullying happens elsewhere but the lack of accountability from
) Waldorf schools coupled with a laissez faire attititude ("they need to
work
) out their karma....") often drives parents away. If only parents were
made
) aware of this Karmic Rule before joining the school.
)
) Jamie: I have read a large number of the posts here regarding Steiner's
) racism, and I don't want get involved in that debate at this point,
) particularly since I
) have not yet read very many of his writings. I think the real question
for
) Waldorf schools is whether any of this racism has carried over into
current
) teachings or beliefs. If and when so, then these must be revised, and
) revised again, and never stagnate, as our thought patterns are oft times
) wont to do.
)
) Walden: Dilemma. You do not want to enter into debate with regards to
) Steiner and racism and Waldorf (where have I heard that before?). How can
we
) understand if, in fact, "this racism has carried over into current
) teachings or beliefs" if we do not debate and look deeper into the
spiritual
) *impulse* behind the pedagogy? Why not look at the entire movement? What
) is learned and why? Why not look at how many schools display a photo of
) Steiner in the staff room, quote extensively from the more innocent
Steiner
) lectures while worshiping the man and ignoring the "difficult" quotes?
) Let's look at those "difficult" quotes because they are directly linked to
) the education the children will be receiving. Do you see the problem here?
) I realize *you* are not officially part of the movement but by posting
here
) and using the same old Waldorf PR you are (perhaps inadvertently)
promoting
) a system of education which deserves to be looked at *critically* and (in
) its current incarnation) is abhorrent to many people - not only because of
) the racism...but *that* is a big part of the problem for many. As another
) critic recently pointed out - we are not necessarily talking about bigotry
) when we speak of racism. "But let's not talk about it...."
)
) Vancouver is a multicultural city, is it not? Is the ethic diversity
) reflected in your old Waldorf school? Students and teachers? How many
) Indian teachers? Chinese teachers? First Nations teachers? Check other
) schools, too - another worth while study for the "fastest growing
) independent school movement...." Think the leaders of the movement will
) look into such a study? Again - racism is not synonymous with bigotry.
) It goes deeper - and in this case it forms much of the foundation for the
) belief system behind Waldorf schools. Not easy to see - especially if you
) have been part of it for years. And what about the spiritual aspect? You
) did not mention the soul work. The prayers, the rituals, etc. BTW, we
) might agree there were other prominent racists throughout history but I,
for
) one, do not have any respect for what they stood for. While they may have
) offered up interesting tidbits to humanity (cars, philosophy, etc.) I
) certainly do not have their photo in my house - nor would I send my kids
to
) a school where there is *reverence* for these people and/or the curriculum
) is tied to their belief system and passed off as a non-sectarian arts
based
) education.
)
) Jamie wrote: The Waldorf high school here is composed of a strong faculty.
)
) Walden: Good PR. You seem to be doing well post-Waldorf and this really
is
) good to know. Really. We must, however, look at the Big Picture.
Strong
) faculty, no bullying... great school... the school must be overflowing
with
) happy students and parents? Vancouver has what - two million people? How
) many students in the high school? How many enter at various grades from
1 -
) 12 and how many stay? These questions are often asked of people who arrive
) here with PR posts so please don't take it personally.
)
) Again - thanks for taking the time to write.
)
) -Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:45:19 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Jamie and/or David
I believe that Jamie is planning to respond, (even though you inist on
calling his honest appraisal of his experience "PR"...)
It is the end University semester, and he's been a bit too busy in the
last few days to respond to your posts -- he told me he wanted to
consider what you said before he responded.
I think you can expect an answer from him in good time.
Cheers,
David.
walden wrote:
) Walden: I was hoping Jamie would do more than place an ad here at the
) discussion list. If he has left after his PR post for Waldorf it is a
) shame. Communication is what is needed here. Questions - answers -
) discussion. That is what I always thought these lists were about. I
) believe David invited Jamie to the list. So... David - would *you* care
) to
) comment on my questions? Whatever truth/light you can shed on the
) subject
) would be appreciated. Thanks.
)
) ) Walden: This *good news* post deserves comment. Thanks for taking
) ) the time to write.
) )
) ) Jamie wrote: With regard to bullying, I never once experienced a case of
) ) bullying during my time at Waldorf.
) )
) ) Walden: Lucky you. This is astonishing. Without betraying trusts -
) there
) ) are bizarre cases of bullying
) ) in many Waldorf schools (including yours) resulting in parents pulling
) their
) ) kids from those schools - especially in the early grades. This is a
) common
) ) Waldorf problem and it has to do with a strange perception of "karma."
) ) Agreed, bullying happens elsewhere but the lack of accountability from
) ) Waldorf schools coupled with a laissez faire attititude ("they need to
) work
) ) out their karma....") often drives parents away. If only parents were
) made
) ) aware of this Karmic Rule before joining the school.
) )
) ) Jamie: I have read a large number of the posts here regarding Steiner's
) ) racism, and I don't want get involved in that debate at this point,
) ) particularly since I
) ) have not yet read very many of his writings. I think the real question
) for
) ) Waldorf schools is whether any of this racism has carried over into
) current
) ) teachings or beliefs. If and when so, then these must be revised, and
) ) revised again, and never stagnate, as our thought patterns are oft times
) ) wont to do.
) )
) ) Walden: Dilemma. You do not want to enter into debate with regards to
) ) Steiner and racism and Waldorf (where have I heard that before?). How
) ) can
) we
) ) understand if, in fact, "this racism has carried over into current
) ) teachings or beliefs" if we do not debate and look deeper into the
) spiritual
) ) *impulse* behind the pedagogy? Why not look at the entire movement?
) ) What
) ) is learned and why? Why not look at how many schools display a photo of
) ) Steiner in the staff room, quote extensively from the more innocent
) Steiner
) ) lectures while worshiping the man and ignoring the "difficult" quotes?
) ) Let's look at those "difficult" quotes because they are directly linked
) ) to
) ) the education the children will be receiving. Do you see the problem
) ) here?
) ) I realize *you* are not officially part of the movement but by posting
) here
) ) and using the same old Waldorf PR you are (perhaps inadvertently)
) promoting
) ) a system of education which deserves to be looked at *critically* and
) ) (in
) ) its current incarnation) is abhorrent to many people - not only because
) ) of
) ) the racism...but *that* is a big part of the problem for many. As
) ) another
) ) critic recently pointed out - we are not necessarily talking about
) ) bigotry
) ) when we speak of racism. "But let's not talk about it...."
) )
) ) Vancouver is a multicultural city, is it not? Is the ethic diversity
) ) reflected in your old Waldorf school? Students and teachers? How many
) ) Indian teachers? Chinese teachers? First Nations teachers? Check
) ) other
) ) schools, too - another worth while study for the "fastest growing
) ) independent school movement...." Think the leaders of the movement will
) ) look into such a study? Again - racism is not synonymous with
) ) bigotry.
) ) It goes deeper - and in this case it forms much of the foundation for
) ) the
) ) belief system behind Waldorf schools. Not easy to see - especially if
) ) you
) ) have been part of it for years. And what about the spiritual aspect?
) ) You
) ) did not mention the soul work. The prayers, the rituals, etc. BTW, we
) ) might agree there were other prominent racists throughout history but I,
) for
) ) one, do not have any respect for what they stood for. While they may
) ) have
) ) offered up interesting tidbits to humanity (cars, philosophy, etc.) I
) ) certainly do not have their photo in my house - nor would I send my kids
) to
) ) a school where there is *reverence* for these people and/or the
) ) curriculum
) ) is tied to their belief system and passed off as a non-sectarian arts
) based
) ) education.
) )
) ) Jamie wrote: The Waldorf high school here is composed of a strong
) ) faculty.
) )
) ) Walden: Good PR. You seem to be doing well post-Waldorf and this
) ) really
) is
) ) good to know. Really. We must, however, look at the Big Picture.
) Strong
) ) faculty, no bullying... great school... the school must be overflowing
) with
) ) happy students and parents? Vancouver has what - two million people?
) ) How
) ) many students in the high school? How many enter at various grades from
) 1 -
) ) 12 and how many stay? These questions are often asked of people who
) ) arrive
) ) here with PR posts so please don't take it personally.
) )
) ) Again - thanks for taking the time to write.
) )
) ) -Walden
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:47:36 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
This is a resend of the post I tried to make earlier.
----------
)From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)To: "waldorf-critics" (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)Subject: re: freedom from religion/was "Rick Ross report"
)Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2002, 8:37 AM
)
)
) In response to my comment that I an not the only American who does not
) consider the Constitution of the United States a "draconian" document, David
) quips (I can just picture him typing this answer in, with a smile on his
) face and his eyebrow cocked (g)):
)
) ((Did I ever say it was? ))
)
) Me again: Yes, I think you did, David. In an earlier post, you said to
) NIcole (( ... since we don't have a constitutional separation
) of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
) the states where they have those draconian measures in place.))
)
) That "draconian" measure you mention -- separation of church and state -- is
) the result of the Constitution. Ergo, the Constitution is a draconian
) document. Capice? (g)
)
) Later, when I recount how my ancestors came to the United States for
) religious freedom after being persecuted in France because they were
) Protestants, David replies: ((Hmm... well, we have no such separation in
) Canada, and it's funny, we don't have "In God we Trust" printed on our money
) (along with occult symbols). Neither do we have Freemason Presidents who
) call for Crusades against Muslim terrorists and affirm that God is on the
) side of America. I guess I'd just like to point out that you have bigger
) problems than a little Anthroposophy in school...
)
) Lisa: Right you are. It certainly doesn't make sense to have "In God We
) Trust" on our currency; I agree with you there. Ditto on the occult symbols.
) I also find that unsavory (for lack of a better word) and believe those
) should be removed.
) I will simply avoid responding to your attacks on President Bush, though
) coming from Waldorf I would think you would heartily approve of Freemasonry
) and its trappings. (Another magical mystery lodge, eh? ;) (I urge you NOT to
) take this brief answer to mean I agree with you. Rather, I don't think that
) the Waldorf critics list is the appropriate place for us to debate world
) politics in general. And I fail to see how US policy toward the Middle East
) and Iraq are relevant to our discussion of the relative merits and
) weaknesses of Waldorf.)
) As to our (by which I take it you mean Americans) having bigger problems
) that what you call "a little Anthroposophy in school ..." I would offer that
) Waldorf schools offer more than "a little anthroposophy;" Waldorf is *about*
) Anthroposophy. It is a magical mystery school, a lodge aimed at initiating
) children. This would be perfectly OK-- as I and other critics have said time
) and again, we care little if someone wants to worship Steiner, Komodo
) dragons or frankfurters! --if the schools did not make it a policy to
) obscure this truth (if not to outright lie) to prospective and current
) parents.
) Equally are bad is the weak education that Waldorf schools seem to offer
) in many cases, due to the teachers' lack of real preparation and the teacher
) training institutes' emphasis on spiritual evolution rather than real
) methods. (The Waldorf science curriculum also deserves criticism, but that
) is another thread. Just ask the National Council for Science Education.)
) As to your getting tired of hearing criticisms of Waldorf, well, this
) *is* the CRITICS's list. The name alone indicates the purpose of the list:
) to criticize and to debate Waldorf.
) If you want lots of warm and fuzzy discussion of how wonderful your
) education was, you ought to sign onto the SJU list. There, anyone who is too
) critical of Waldorf gets bounced.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:29:05 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Jamie and/or David
Walden: That is good news. Thanks for passing it on.
) I think you can expect an answer from him in good time.
)
) Cheers,
) David.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:48:40 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Jamie and/or David
Walden:
David, in case you did not know *you* are welcome to respond to the same
post. Members here pop into threads all the time. It is entirely
appropriate. I would welcome your input - especially with regards to the
questions I had pertaining directly to your school. We were speaking of
issues of race, Anthroposophy and how they might filter into Waldorf
schools:
Vancouver is a multicultural city, is it not? Is the ethic diversity
reflected in your old Waldorf school? Students and teachers? How many
Indian teachers? Chinese teachers? First Nations teachers? Check other
schools, too - another worth while study for the "fastest growing
independent school movement...." Think the leaders of the movement will
look into such a study? Again - racism is synonymous with bigotry. It
goes deeper.
And...
Vancouver has what - two million people? How
many students in the high school? How many enter at various grades from 1 -
12 and how many stay?
Again - I understand you believe it worked for you but we are looking trying
to get a handle on various claims and the Big Picture. Thanks for your
input.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:09:17 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Clarification re:Jamie and/or David
I wrote: Again - racism is synonymous with bigotry. It
) goes deeper.
Walden: Sorry for the error - it should have been ... "racism is *NOT*
synonymous with bigotry."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:18:08 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
-----
) DAN DUGAN
) ) ) I would urge them to reject it because it's wrong. Steiner's thesis
) )) was universally rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may
) )) have been a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult
) )) of ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The
) )) parallel with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his
) ) ) subsequent career is instructive.
)
) MIKE HELSHER
) )Ok, your opinion is noted. Here's mine:
) )
) )I'd say that your rejection of Pof is based on a one sided neurotically
) )absolute religious like adherence to a to a stringent non-religious
) )ideology.
)
) Mike, the ad hominem is a poor argument, and besides, it's against
) the rules here. What I need from you is a succinct summary of what
) PoF says and why you think it's important.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Humble apologies! However, I disagree that it is a poor argument.
There are many who have much more familiarity with Pof than I, but for the
sake of healthy discussion I'll briefly highlight a portion that appeals to
me. This from chapter nine called "The Idea of Freedom":
(snip misguided moralism definition) "Such moralism fails to understand the
unity of the world of ideas." A few sentences later: "The difference between
me and my neighbor consists not in living in two completely distinct
spiritual worlds, [i.e. me, you, us, them, Plans, Waldorf, religion, state]
but in my neighbors receiving intuitions other than my own out of the world
of ideas common to us both. My neighbor's want to live their intuitions. I
mine. If we all really draw from the idea, and follow no external (physical
or spiritual) impulses, then we cannot but meet in the same striving, the
same intentions. An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among
ethically free human beings. Only someone who is ethically unfree, who obeys
natural drives or the conventional demands of duty, will thrust aside
someone else who does not follow the same instincts and the same demands.
To live in love of action, and to let live in understanding of the others
will, is the fundamental maxim of free human beings."
Now, I realize that this implies that *thought* somehow exists outside of
the brain, and that this is obviously problematic from a purely scientific
point of view, but the whole realm of human consciousness is still
uncertain. I like this article from Tarjei's site:
http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/brainchaos.html
It is lengthy but the highlight for me was this:
"The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a
consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound.
The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics,
quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may
thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and
decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects
of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle
symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain
(King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be
central to cosmology".
I'd also like to talk about this line in particular form PoF: "An ethical
misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human beings"
and it's relevance to this kind of debate forum.
Food for thought.
Sub-quantum regards
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:36:24 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on national character
Peter S quotes Steiner:
) "He must not allow himself to be led blindly by his people's
) character, but
) must elevate himself to a knowledge of this in order that he may
) act
) consciously in accordance with his people. He must not permit
) himself to be
) carried along by the cultural progress of his people, but must
) make the
) ideas of his time his own ideas. To this end, it is most of all
) important
) that the person shall understand his time. He will then fulfill
) its mission
) in freedom; he will apply his own effort at the right place." (163)
)
) "But something else must be considered with regard to the action
) of the
) human being among his people.
Hi Peter. Considered by whom?
Every personality represents a
) spiritual
) potency, a sum-total of forces which search for the possibility of
) action.
Hold on...first, by having the knowledge of context, history
assimulated by the ego, one becomes conciously free-willed and yet we
are all catalysts for forces/beings?
) Therefore, every person must find the place where his work may be
) articulated in the most fruitful way into his people's organism.
) It must not
) be left to chance to determine whether he shall find this place.
) The state
) constitution has no other goal than to ensure that everyone shall
) find his
) appropriate place. The state is the form in which the organism of
) a people
) expresses itself." (164)
You mentioned in another post that PoF is a continuation of German
idealism. Moreso the above. Hegel phrased it as the freedom to obey.
I assume that "understanding one's time" as a condition for individual
freedom does not necessarily include the knowledge of folk souls at
this stage of the game.According to the quote from Higher Worlds that
David provided,when one does come about this knowledge it is then time
to say goodbye to these formitive forces and move on to the next level.
Following Steiner's reasoning, this would be a level of higher
individual freedom. And yet how is it, in a controlled society, can one
be forced to be free? Waldorf?
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:07:58 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Questions
From: http://www.steinercollege.org/waldorfhist.html
"Steiner's detailed psychology of child development, described early in the
20th century, has been supported by modern research in education and
neuropsychology. Through Waldorf education, Steiner hoped that young people
would develop the capacities of soul and intellect and the strength of will
that would prepare them to meet the challenges of their own time and the
future."
Walden: Can anyone point me to who the "modern research in education and
neuropyschology" people might be who support "Steiner's detailed psychology
of child development?" Are these same researchers also supporting the
"capacities of soul, etc.?"
While we're at it can anyone explain how, through Waldorf education, young
people can develop "capacities of soul and intellect and the strength of
will that would prepare them to meet the challenges of their own time and
the future?" The future? Their own time "and the future?" Does this mean
that they are developing these capacities (soul, etc.) for a subsequent
incarnation? If so - why not say just that? If not - what is this all
about?
Thanks for any answers.
-Walden
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 901
-- Topica Digest --
Re: value in Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: value in Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
lawsuit
By debharve hotmail.com
lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
By debharve hotmail.com
RE: lawsuit
By Neil.wc faiman.org
Re: lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: lawsuit
By Neil.wc faiman.org
RE: lawsuit
By debharve hotmail.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Steiner on national character
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re:
By jones9876 cs.com
Re: Waldorf School of Orange County
By jones9876 cs.com
The Advent Spiral
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
Re: lawsuit
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Logical Fallacies
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: The Advent Spiral
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Logical Fallacies
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Logical Fallacies
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Logical Fallacies
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Logical Fallacies
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: The Advent Spiral
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Re: Steiner on national character
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions and language
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: Logical Fallacies
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions a
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Logical Fallacies
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: positives in Waldorf/Steiner schools
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:07:30 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
on 12/3/02 6:06 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) (Sigh...)
)
) Actually, I just wanted to see if there was anything you liked about
) Waldorf...
)
) You're welcome, of course, to comment on what you don't like about it on
) any other thread. I'm not saying don't be negative, just that I wanted
) to know a certain aspect of your outlook in this case.
)
) Obviously, it doesn't exist.
Sharon: I answered...
)I see value in Eugene Schwartz. I also liked the way Waldorf did not use
) disposable dishes.
And I'll add one more positive thing. My family's Waldorf experience taught
us more than we've ever learned before. From Waldorf, I have learned more
about people than I ever expected to. I've learned how people manipulate
others and how others follow. I have a better understanding of history now,
how movements reappear. How that in one generation people can completely
lose touch with something so that it becomes unrecognizable to the next
generation, I didn't have a deep understanding of this before. I have begun
to read things that I would never have dreamed of reading before, books like
"The Jung Cult", "Mormon America" and "Self Initiation Into The Golden
Dawn". Ten years ago, if I'd come across Max Heindel for example, I would
probably have glanced at the book, chuckled, read a page or two and put it
down. Now I actually read such stuff. If not for Waldorf, I would not have
become fascinated with cults and realities. I may never have grappled with
"what is real and unreal, what is true and untrue". I might never have
experienced months of intense nightmares, brought about from being duped and
from discovering and reading Steiner's bizarre doctrine...which in the end
did me some good because I am now over the hard part and I'm onto the fun
part. (Now reading Steiner makes me laugh). Most importantly, I am left with
a deep and lasting understanding of what it is to be illiterate, and trying
to function in a world of manipulation and control without knowledge. I
value education even more than I did before Waldorf.
My child no longer clings to the railings pleading not to go to school. She
no longer pleads for the Eurythmist to stop humiliating her - telling her
not to be afraid because she has helped many people, taking her out of class
to a room, draping her in silk and speaking in a voice "like she was
praying". She no longer stands alone on the playground. And my child no
longer writes things like "The sylphs, salamanders, gnomes and undines are
the earth's scribes". No more drawings of faceless gnomes mining in metal
mines because Steiner taught that this is where they can be found. She is
healthy and happy and wise. She's thirteen now and writing things that
surprise me. In her last paper entitled "Liberty and the Consequences that
Follow", she writes,
"Egyptians were harsh, seemingly heartless creatures when it came to their
property, the Jews. Their torture, hatred, and discrimination prompted the
Jewish exodus, which seemingly freed them, but to their dismay, the
hardships had barely begun. Although no longer the property of other humans,
the Jews found that life in the so called "Promised Land" wasn't what they
had expected. Not only did they have to toil, as they did in Egypt, but in
return they received nothing. At least, under Egypt's rule, they had food on
the table, and clothes on their backs."
Then she launches into Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Khant. And in conclusion:
"People should be free to do as they like, however, one can see how slavery
could help some poor lost souls searching for food and shelter. At least it
could offer some minute securities, which the free world can only hope to
do."
They are making her think at her new school.
) I'm truly sorry that your Waldorf experience caused you so much pain.
Sharon: Well, I appreciate your kind words, you are quite possibly the only
Anthro to express pity to me, but as I said, I am over the sadness so don't
feel sorry for me, rather work to make the changes that are needed in the
Anthro movement to prevent other people's suffering, so PLANS can pack up,
and we can put this behind us. As Eugene said, people want to know about the
esotericism - they can sense it, it surfaces all the time in peculiar ways.
Your movement will run smoother and will probably grow faster if you are
just up front about the esoteric subtext. As the Mormons have proven, the
wackier the religion, the more inclined people are to follow. (G) Next to
Islam, Mormonism has become the fastest growing religion. It's growth has
stunned sociologists and religion scholars. I mention the Mormons because
there are many parallels with Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophists can learn
a lot from them. The Mormons changed racist church doctrine in 1978 by
having Jesus change his mind and whisper into church leaders' ears. That was
a smart move because it enabled the church to become more respectable, and
be more inclusive. So work to change what is wrong so that people like
ex-Waldorf teacher Charmaigne Usher Paulson aren't hurt. She writes:
"When you are involved in the movement you are either "in" or "out." If you
do not espouse and adhere to the group, then you are "out.""
Sharon: Exotericize esotericism, make it so people who are "in" are "in the
know". Eliminate the exclusivity. If you want to be an exclusive group, you
have to let people know that you are a religious group. People understand
sectarianism ie: exclusion. Put Waldorf back in context. If I had understood
that I had inadvertently been included in a religious movement, I would have
left much sooner. If I had known before moving across states for Waldorf, I
would have found another school because I am not a spiritual seeker. I did
not want to be part of a religious group. If participants know that they are
working to usher in the Sixth Epoch, your movement will not have the Dan
Dugans, Dianna Winters, Waldens and the Sharons....etc. You can't toy with
people's lives. It needs to stop.
If people don't know that they will be united in Anthroposophy going into
Waldorf, it's difficult for them to understand all the rules and follow
them. If people don't know what Anthroposophy is, how can they properly
function in such an environment? Let us not kid each other, Anthroposophy is
a radical divergence from modern scientific thinking, and people should be
given the courtesy of an honest presentation of the movement. So work to
make the changes that need to be made. Charmaine writes:
"I realized today, that we all are in mourning. We mourn the loss of what
could, should have been. The sorrow, anguish, and anger that are laced
within
our words demonstrate the sincerity of our aspirations for true community
and
our reaction to deception.
I believe that we will utilize our strength, integrity, vision and hope
towards true renewal.
The Waldorf movement does not "own" beauty, art, songs, and the idea of
reverence for the earth. These ideals belong to us all and we will impart
these principles to our own family and community.
Furthermore, we will impart these things to others in a way the Waldorf
movement could never do. We will impart these things with love. That is the
thing that is missing from them, love.
Sharon: You cannot claim to love people if you are duping them, and Waldorf
critics are all reacting to our being deceived. Charmaine and the rest of us
are also reacting to Steiner's racist doctrine that followers adhere to and
deny is racist. These issues are what motivates us critics, so please David,
work to make the necessary changes. Anthroposophist Van Baarde wrote: "We
cannot afford to lose", well you will never "win" if you keep deceiving
people. I watched the old South African government take the same route that
the Anthroposophical movement has chosen, to try to cover things up, to
deny, to attack and blame critics, but it didn't work, and it won't work for
the Anthroposophical movement either. It is impossible to ignore moral
truths.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:11:31 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29B8E.47BFAB00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole: What a wonderful post, Sharon. That really is the essence of
the issue. Thanks for the time to put it all together so succinctly.
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:52 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: value in Waldorf
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:54:35 +0000
From: Debra Harvey (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: lawsuit
Hi,
Got a message from Lisa yesterday in what was probably a virus. It
jogged my memory about this list. I unsubscribed about 2 1/2 years ago.
I resubscribed to ask what happened with the PLANS lawsuit in
California?
Debra Harvey
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:22:37 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
Debra Harvey -
I will let someone else who speaks better "legal-ese" than do I update you
on the California lawsuit.
You may also be interested in another legal matter relating to Waldorf
schools (apologies to all those who read this the first time around!):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 9, 2002
LAWSUITS CHARGE RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION IN WALDORF SCHOOLS
The oldest Waldorf school in North America, the Rudolf Steiner School of New
York, is being sued by a former fourth grade teacher for racial and
retaliatory discrimination in employment. Before her dismissal in June,
according to the summons and complaint, Charmaine Paulson was the only
African-American teacher ever employed by the school in its 74-year history,
and one of only approximately five African-Americans among 5,000 teachers at
member schools of the controversial Association of Waldorf Schools of North
America (AWSNA). Paulson alleges that in a faculty meeting she objected to
the school's racially discriminatory hiring practices and to the lack of
diversity among teachers and in the school community. Two days later, she
was fired. Paulson also alleges that when she suggested including the
African-American festival of Kwanzaa in a lesson on celebrations, the lead
teacher of the school's administrative body, the "College of Teachers,"
disapproved her plan, stating, "I can't relate to that." (Waldorf schools
generally claim, however, to be multicultural.)
Although the school stated that Paulson was fired due to her performance,
the suit alleges this reason was merely a pretext for racial discrimination.
Paulson further charges the school with creating a hostile and intimidating
work environment and thus racially harassing her. The lawsuit also names
AWSNA, which, according to its website, "takes a leading role in
articulating a vision and coordinating a plan for supporting the growth and
development of Waldorf education and Waldorf schools in North America." The
suit charges a system-wide pattern of discrimination against
African-Americans because of their minority status, stating that
African-Americans are provided unequal terms, conditions and benefits of
employment. African-Americans who applied or were qualified to continue in
available teaching positions were allegedly denied employment because of
their minority status. After denying African-Americans employment, the suit
charges, the school hired and continued to seek applicants and employ
non-African-Americans with the same or lesser qualifications, and evaluated
Paulson with stricter methods than its non-African-American teachers.
Paulson says that her classroom was observed by her supervisors 30 times in
her 1-year tenure at the school, far more often than a white teacher hired
at the same time.
Waldorf schools are based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, an occultist
who died in 1925. Steiner taught that a person's race is part of his or her
karma, and that different races have different spiritual qualities.
According to Steiner, "The black or Negro race is substantially determined
by . . . childhood characteristics" (Steiner, The Mission of the Individual
Folk-Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology, 1910, 1970 edition). Karma
also explains why a person is born with a handicap or disability.
A suit against a publicly funded Waldorf school, Bitney Springs Charter High
School in Nevada City, California, alleges that a disabled student did not
receive a free and appropriate public education. The 17-year-old former
student has neurofibromatosis, a neurological disorder resulting in
learning, language, social, and motor disabilities. When the boy had
difficulty in school, his mother alleges that the school administrator, Kent
Ratekin, repeatedly refused to meet with her and told her to "stay out of"
her son's life. The suit claims the school's policies worsened the boy's
condition and resulted in his being illegally coerced to leave the school.
The family is seeking damages for defamation, assaultive behavior, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision of employees. A
court date of January 2003 has been set.
In a third ongoing lawsuit against Waldorf schools in the US, People for
Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), a nonprofit group, is suing public
Waldorf schools in California, alleging that the schools are based on
Anthroposophy, Steiner's occult religion, and that public use and reliance
on these doctrines endorse that religion in violation of the US and
California constitutions. According to Dan Dugan, secretary of PLANS, the
charges brought in the three lawsuits "are consistent with principles of
Anthroposophy, the religious milieu of Waldorf schools," and are "symptoms
of a sick social system."
The PLANS group presently awaits the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals regarding their right to sue. PLANS president Debra Snell said, "If
taxpayers, who solely support the school, don't have the right to sue, what
does that mean? What about the checks and balances in a democracy?" Snell
added, "It was only a matter of time before these important issues found
their way to court. Hopefully, these court cases will shed public light on
Rudolf Steiner's outdated child development model and the racist beliefs
that continue to thrive in Waldorf schools today." She noted that Steiner
even believed that some children with learning difficulties are actually
"demons in human form" (Steiner, Conferences with Teachers 1923 to 1924,
vol. 2, 1989 edition).
BACKGROUND
PLANS was organized in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers
concerned about both private and public Waldorf schools. It became a
California non-profit corporation in 1997. PLANS' volunteer board includes
two public school teachers, one of whom has received Waldorf teacher
training; the president of a skeptical society; the associate director of a
Christian anti-cult ministry, and two former Waldorf parents. PLANS'
President, Debra Snell, was a director of a private Waldorf school and
helped found a Waldorf charter school. For more information, please see the
PLANS web site, http://www.waldorfcritics.org.
PLANS contends that public Waldorf schools are intrinsically and inseparably
based upon Anthroposophy, a New Age occultic religion. Curriculum decisions
and teacher training in public Waldorf schools are based on Anthroposophy's
spiritually based child development model. Publicly funded use and reliance
upon the doctrines of Anthroposophy impermissibly endorse that religion in
violation of the United States and California constitutions.
PLANS filed its federal lawsuit in Sacramento on February 11, 1998, naming
as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District, which operates a
"Waldorf Method" magnet school, and the Twin Ridges Elementary School
District, which has established seven "Waldorf-inspired" charter schools.
return to list
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:49:12 -0600
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
I guess the conversation hasn't changed much in 3 years. Take one situation
and apply it to all. I don't know the details of the New York situation but
I know that there are many many many employment litigation suits alleging
race filed--some with good reason, some not. I recently handled one where
the plaintiff alleged race, gender and age--even though she was the same
age, gender and race (white) as one of the two individual defendants.
As I recall, the california suit was based on the establishment clause. Is
it ongoing?
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:55:40 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (Neil.wc faiman.org)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Debra Harvey wrote:
) Hi,
)
) Got a message from Lisa yesterday in what was probably a virus. It
) jogged my memory about this list. I unsubscribed about 2 1/2 years ago.
)
) I resubscribed to ask what happened with the PLANS lawsuit in
) California?
)
) Debra Harvey
Hi, Debra.
The short story is that the judge dismissed the suit.
There was a case in New York where a couple of parents sued the local
public school for what they claimed were religious practices. The case
was thrown out on appeal (at the circuit court level, I think) on the
grounds that the plaintiffs no longer had a connection to the school
district, and therefore they had no standing.
Taking that as a precedent, the judge in California ruled that PLANS
didn't have standing and dismissed their suit.
I believe that PLANS has appealed the ruling.
-Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:54:21 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: lawsuit against Waldorf schools for racism, discrimination
) I guess the conversation hasn't changed much in 3 years. Take one situation
) and apply it to all. I don't know the details of the New York situation but
) I know that there are many many many employment litigation suits alleging
) race filed--some with good reason, some not. I recently handled one where
) the plaintiff alleged race, gender and age--even though she was the same
) age, gender and race (white) as one of the two individual defendants.
)
) As I recall, the california suit was based on the establishment clause. Is
) it ongoing?
)
)
Lisa here: I am not sure if you read through the press release, Debra, but
there is some info on the status of the 9th Circuit Court case you refer to.
There also are press releases updating the situation on the pLANS web site.
The release I posted also includes data on another case you might be
interested in, which involves what the plaintiff alleges was discrimination
at a Waldorf school against her son, who has neurofibromatosis. The school
in question is a California Waldorf charter school, and the mother alleges
that the administration stood by and allowed her son to be bullied because
of his physical problems.
PLANS' president Debra Snell has more information about this than do I;
she has dealt extensively with the boys' mother. According to details
supplied here, it was a very sad situation.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:08:27 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (Neil.wc faiman.org)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Debra Harvey wrote:
) Hi,
)
) Got a message from Lisa yesterday in what was probably a virus. It
) jogged my memory about this list. I unsubscribed about 2 1/2 years ago.
)
) I resubscribed to ask what happened with the PLANS lawsuit in
) California?
)
) Debra Harvey
The relevant documents are available at the PLANS web site. The New
York circuit court decision is here:
(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Appeals_Court_Decision_MWD.htm)
and the dismissal notice in the PLANS case is here:
(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Damrell_010523_dismissal.pdf)
-Neil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:13:27 -0600
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Thanks--I'll look at them later. Who is paying Waldorfs' legal costs?
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:30:56 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Mike,
thanks for raising some interesting issues. Here are a couple of my
thoughts:
)"The difference between
)me and my neighbor consists not in living in two completely distinct
)spiritual worlds, [i.e. me, you, us, them, Plans, Waldorf, religion, state]
)but in my neighbors receiving intuitions other than my own out of the world
)of ideas common to us both. My neighbor's want to live their intuitions. I
)mine. If we all really draw from the idea, and follow no external (physical
)or spiritual) impulses, then we cannot but meet in the same striving, the
)same intentions. An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among
)ethically free human beings. Only someone who is ethically unfree, who
)obeys
)natural drives or the conventional demands of duty, will thrust aside
)someone else who does not follow the same instincts and the same demands.
)To live in love of action, and to let live in understanding of the others
)will, is the fundamental maxim of free human beings."
One minor point on translation: The word "spiritual" here should probably
read "intellectual" (the German word "Geist" is notoriously difficult to
translate, but in this context I think it's clear that Steiner is talking
about intellectual worlds and intellectual impulses, that is, about ideas).
As for the substance of this passage, I'd say it's a good example of why
Steiner's epistemology is a major stumbling block for many readers of this
book. Wanting to live one's intuitions isn't a promising way to make sense
of the world, and the notion that there is one overarching idea, or world of
ideas, from which all of our various intuitions are drawn is, shall we say,
rather implausible. If such beliefs really were the prerequisite of freedom,
it would be bad news for freedom.
)Now, I realize that this implies that *thought* somehow exists outside of
)the brain, and that this is obviously problematic from a purely scientific
)point of view, but the whole realm of human consciousness is still
)uncertain.
I quite agree that human consciousness remains largely mysterious. But
Steiner's position isn't merely problematic from a purely scientific point
of view, it's problematic from many purely philosophical points of view
(though it also has a long lineage of very capable and respected
philosophers behind it). Instead of positing some free-floating realm of
ideas out there somewhere in the universe from which all human intuitions
are drawn, wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that our ideas are
formed within social contexts, and that they are thus intersubjective in
nature? That is, that thought certainly exists outside of my own brain,
simply because it exists within lots of other people's brains? If we
recognize the intersubjective nature of thinking, there's no need to point
toward some separate realm of ideas that supplies all of our mental
material.
)I'd also like to talk about this line in particular form PoF: "An ethical
)misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human beings"
)and it's relevance to this kind of debate forum.
That claim is incompatible with meaningful debate, and shows exactly why
Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes many people as deeply unfree. The view
of ethics that this notion implies is remarkably primitive; it assumes that
people who disagree on ethical matters are simply confused, and denies the
reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict with one another. If
such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here, merely illusory, there
would be very little need for ethical debate in the first place; the only
point would be for all of us to somehow realize that we actually already
agree. I think Steiner has it exactly backwards. I'd say that working
through our "ethical misunderstandings" and "clashes", via rational debate
and moral reasoning, is a necessary part of becoming and remaining ethically
free human beings. We stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend that
such clashes are a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
Supra-quantum greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:02:18 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner on national character
Hi Ray, you wrote:
) )
) ) "But something else must be considered with regard to the action
) ) of the
) ) human being among his people.
)
)Hi Peter. Considered by whom?
By the readers, I think. I still haven't tracked down the originals of these
essays, so I'm relying solely on the English translations. I think Steiner
was simply saying that we need to consider one other aspect of the question
of individual action and its ethnic-national determinants.
) Every personality represents a
) ) spiritual
) ) potency, a sum-total of forces which search for the possibility of
) ) action.
)
)Hold on...first, by having the knowledge of context, history
)assimulated by the ego, one becomes conciously free-willed and yet we
)are all catalysts for forces/beings?
I'm not sure. He could mean simply that an individual personality itself
represents a sum total of forces, and/or that free will consists in
acknowledging the various forces that drive us.
) ) Therefore, every person must find the place where his work may be
) ) articulated in the most fruitful way into his people's organism.
) ) It must not
) ) be left to chance to determine whether he shall find this place.
) ) The state
) ) constitution has no other goal than to ensure that everyone shall
) ) find his
) ) appropriate place. The state is the form in which the organism of
) ) a people
) ) expresses itself." (164)
)
)You mentioned in another post that PoF is a continuation of German
)idealism. Moreso the above. Hegel phrased it as the freedom to obey.
Yep. This is one of those Steiner passages that makes you realize just how
authoritarian the Idealists could be when it came to politics. But whereas
Hegel at least had the (admittedly weak) excuse that he wrote his paeans to
the Prussian state before the advent of modern democratic forms in central
Europe, Steiner took this position after the 1848 revolutions, after the
unification of Germany, after Bismarck's suppression of dissent, etc etc.
Thankfully he somewhat revised these views when he promulgated his doctrine
of threefolding after WWI, but that wasn't necessarliy a great step toward
genuine freedom, in my view.
)I assume that "understanding one's time" as a condition for individual
)freedom does not necessarily include the knowledge of folk souls at
)this stage of the game.
That is certainly my reading, though part of what's at stake here is the
ambiguous meaning of the term "folk soul" or national soul/national spirit.
As used by Herder, Hegel, and others, the term designated a sort of shared
cultural disposition, what we might call national character nowadays. I
reject even that conception, but to believe in it in the 19th century was
not at all to believe that these "souls" or "spirits" were themselves
independently existing beings, spiritual creatures who inhabited the higher,
hidden realms of reality. It seems clear to me that Steiner's own
understanding of the notion of "folk souls" underwent a significant
transformation at the time of his conversion to theosophy.
)According to the quote from Higher Worlds that
)David provided,when one does come about this knowledge it is then time
)to say goodbye to these formitive forces and move on to the next level.
I think that was part of David's reading, though I don't entirely agree with
it. I think KHW asks the occult student to say goodbye to being passively
lead by the national spirits and race spirits that had heretefore guided his
path, precisely so that the student can begin to take a pro-active role in
consciously collaborating with the national spirits and race spirits. It's
not really so much saying goodbye as saying hello, pleased to meet you,
let's work together on our national-racial tasks. That is what the next
level is supposed to be like, according to KHW.
)Following Steiner's reasoning, this would be a level of higher
)individual freedom.
Yes, that's the idea.
)And yet how is it, in a controlled society, can one
)be forced to be free? Waldorf?
A fine question. This deeply ambivalent approach to freedom runs throughout
anthroposophical thinking, and I imagine that at some level it must come to
expression in Waldorf's practices and self-conception. Anybody have
experiences about what Waldorf folks think freedom means?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:20:48 EST
From: Jones9876 cs.com
Subject: Re:
--part1_126.1bf1105b.2b1fbda0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Anything positive, handwork, beautiful playthings, good food and time in
nature are completely unimportant when your child is being attacked and
terrorized at W school. jones9876
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:38:26 EST
From: Jones9876 cs.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf School of Orange County
--part1_97.31bb0af7.2b1fc1c2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jessica please be careful. Even if this school is less based on Steiner all
it takes is a new teacher with *more* training to change things.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:23:50 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: The Advent Spiral
This is copy-pasted from PLANS-pages (conserns):
"the Advent Spiral, in which the children walk a spiral symbolizing
reincarnation, becomes a "Garden of Light." The ritual is the same
despite the name change, however, and the religious content, conveyed to
the children in songs, verses, puppetry, and drama, is unchanged. In
public schools in the US, such ceremonies, which teach and promote
Anthroposophy, are in violation of church-state separation laws, which
guarantee religious freedom for all US citizens."
The Advent Spiral is called here The Advent Spiral. Could someone give
further information, how it symbolizises reincarnation? Is there any
good quotes?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:06:37 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: lawsuit
Debra Harvey, you asked,
)what happened with the PLANS lawsuit in
)California?
Since July 2001 it's been waiting for the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals. For details see the press release section of the PLANS web
site.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/pressreleases.html
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:37:27 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
DAN DUGAN
) ) Mike, the ad hominem is a poor argument, and besides, it's against
)) the rules here. What I need from you is a succinct summary of what
) ) PoF says and why you think it's important.
MIKE HELSHER
)Humble apologies! However, I disagree that it is a poor argument.
It's not my opinion, the ad hominem is one of the traditional logical
fallacies codified by the medieval monks studying rhetoric.
QUOTE http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
)Description of Ad Hominem
)
)Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the
)man" or "against the person."
)
)An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
)argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
)author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
)this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
)character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
)actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
)person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
)evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
)making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following
)form:
)
)1. Person A makes claim X.
)2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
)3. Therefore A's claim is false.
)
)The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
)character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most
)cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being
)made (or the quality of the argument being made).
MIKE HELSHER
)There are many who have much more familiarity with Pof than I, but for the
)sake of healthy discussion I'll briefly highlight a portion that appeals to
)me. This from chapter nine called "The Idea of Freedom":
)
)(snip misguided moralism definition) "Such moralism fails to understand the
)unity of the world of ideas." A few sentences later: "The difference between
)me and my neighbor consists not in living in two completely distinct
)spiritual worlds, [i.e. me, you, us, them, Plans, Waldorf, religion, state]
)but in my neighbors receiving intuitions other than my own out of the world
)of ideas common to us both.
What Steiner meant by "intuition" later in his career was different
from the common use of the word, so one must be alert here...
)My neighbor's want to live their intuitions. I
)mine. If we all really draw from the idea, and follow no external (physical
)or spiritual) impulses, then we cannot but meet in the same striving, the
)same intentions. An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among
)ethically free human beings. Only someone who is ethically unfree, who obeys
)natural drives or the conventional demands of duty, will thrust aside
)someone else who does not follow the same instincts and the same demands.
)To live in love of action, and to let live in understanding of the others
)will, is the fundamental maxim of free human beings."
)
)Now, I realize that this implies that *thought* somehow exists outside of
)the brain, and that this is obviously problematic from a purely scientific
)point of view,
It's problematic the way that Anthroposophists talk about it, saying
that there is a spiritual world of ideas that we all get our ideas
from. But ideas do exist outside of people's heads, in this writing
here on your screen, for example. For my money Carl Popper solved a
lot of the problems about consciousness that philosophers have been
wrestling with in his invention of the "three worlds" concept. World
one is the physical world, world two what goes on inside people's
heads, and world three the coding of thoughts into the physical
world, e.g. speech in the air and words on the page. World three has
a life of its own, in that problems may appear there that didn't
exist in the original thinker's thoughts.
I recommend Magee, Bryan. Philosophy and the Real World: An
Introduction to Karl Popper. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1975.
)but the whole realm of human consciousness is still
)uncertain. I like this article from Tarjei's site:
)http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/brainchaos.html
)It is lengthy but the highlight for me was this:
)
)"The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a
)consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound.
)The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics,
)quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may
)thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and
)decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects
)of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle
)symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain
)(King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be
)central to cosmology".
Careful. A lot of balderdash is being passed off with frequent use of
the word "quantum." There's an interesting parallel. In Steiner's
day, science was revolutionary, with world-altering concepts and
powerful new tools appearing frequently. So fuzzy thinkers wanting to
tap into some of that power appropriated the word "science"
liberally. Thus appeared Christian Science and Spiritual Science.
Today we have things like "quantum healing." Same game.
For clarification of the relationship of quantum effects to the real
world, I recommend Lindley, David. Where Does the Weirdness Go?: Why
Quantum Mechanics is Strange, But Not As Strange As You Think. New
York: Basic Books, 1996.
)I'd also like to talk about this line in particular form PoF: "An ethical
)misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human beings"
)and it's relevance to this kind of debate forum.
I think that's quite relevant as an example of the totalistic society
that develops among Steiner's followers. He's saying that when we all
find the truth there won't be any more arguments about principles.
That's the way it is in a "threefold community," isn't it?
Everybody's so "free" they have to kick out anybody who disagrees.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:54:31 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Dan Said:
) It's not my opinion, the ad hominem is one of the traditional logical
) fallacies codified by the medieval monks studying rhetoric.
)
.
) )
) )The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
) )character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most
) )cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being
) )made (or the quality of the argument being made).
)
Very true. However, notice how it states "in most cases".
In some cases (such as a neurosis that had a direct bearing on the
subject at hand) the Ad Hominem could have some relevance, though I
still wouldn't use it to prove the veracity of a claim.
) I think that's quite relevant as an example of the totalistic society
) that develops among Steiner's followers. He's saying that when we all
) find the truth there won't be any more arguments about principles.
Actually, what I think he means (and the way I've observed monism in
practice) is that people don't take an adversarial stance, and instead
look at the deeper issues to discover what two sides have in common.
) That's the way it is in a "threefold community," isn't it?
) Everybody's so "free" they have to kick out anybody who disagrees.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Well, that's some heavy rhetoric in itself. Care to further explain your
reasoning on that point, Dan?
-- David Gill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:18:07 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Logical Fallacies
Some more useful fallacy descriptions:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:10:27 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Advent Spiral
Klaudia, you wrote,
)The Advent Spiral is called here The Advent Spiral. Could someone give
)further information, how it symbolizises reincarnation? Is there any
)good quotes?
The spiral traditionally symbolizes reincarnation, but I think the
Advent Spiral is mostly about the return of light symbolizing
redemption.
Here's a story about it:
-Dan Dugan
*** start quotation
This story is more appropriate for elementary aged children than for
those in the kindergarten, but we include it because it gives us
adults such a wonderful picture of the Advent Garden.
Once long ago, longer than your Father and Mother or their Father and
Mother or their Father and Mother can remember, the earth was a
light-filled garden. Many flowers, shrubs, and trees grew in it; also
many fruits-strawberries, blueberries, peaches, and so on. The sun
shone all the time and the sky was blue. In the middle stood a tree
bigger than the others and from it hung down red, ripe, juicy apples.
God Father, who created all this splendor, walked in the garden and
liked it so much that he wanted to share it, and so created a man and
woman to enjoy it, too. But he said to them, "Everything enjoy, play
and feast as much as you like-only from this one tree in the middle
you shall not eat." So Adam and Eve had a lovely time, until one day
Eve looked at and smelled the apple, and could not resist tasting it,
and gave it to Adam also. But God Father saw them and was wrathful
and commanded the Angel with the fiery sword to cast them out, for
they had disobeyed.
At the moment that they left, the garden became dark, like you see
this one before you, and the Angel took his sword and cut down the
tree in the middle, and he plunged the hilt of his golden sword deep
into the earth where the tree had been. You know, the sword is like a
cross with the flame shining up, like you at this moment see this big
candle in the middle. The garden of earth transformed into one huge
juicy red apple.
Ever since, the garden has been dark, but every year we are allowed
to come and lighten it up, with our own little light from the true
light which lights every man that comes into the world. This is the
true light which no darkness can overcome. At the same time as we
place our light into the garden, up above in the starry world Mother
Mary goes from star to star collecting the gold and silver threads
for the garment for her child. And you know she does not find enough,
but the Angel comforts her by pointing to the lighted apples from the
many, many Advent Gardens which the children of earth have placed
there to prepare for her child. It is with their joy, loving deeds,
and good thoughts that she can complete the garment for the child.
Now, every child can come and light his candle and place it wherever
he likes, and we will lighten this deed with our lyres and singing.
When the deed is over and all is complete, and even the extra candles
are lit for all children who are sick or who have died that we know,
or for all children in the world, etc., then one can say: Now you
leave the garden which is full of light nearly like it was. And when
you come outside and wait, the you will receive your apple to bring
home. And if you do not munch into it like the horses or cows do, but
ask Father or Mother to cut a thin slice across it, and hold it to
the candlelight, then you will see the fine form of the earth as it
is going to be in times to come.
*** end quotation [Anonymous. "A Story for the Advent Garden." An
Overview of the Waldorf Kindergarten: Articles from the Waldorf
Kindergarten Newsletter 1981 to 1992 Volume One. Silver Spring, MD:
Waldorf Kindergarten Association of North America, Inc., 1993, p. 95]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:10:16 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
Very interesting, David. Waldorf school leaders may want to investigate this
theorem, as they promote their methods/schools based on "logical fallacies."
Perhaps you need to read the sites cited, as well, as you are telling us
that Waldorf schools *do* do a good job of educating children based on a
very, very small sample (your graduating class.)
It's very interesting to me that AWSNA has *not* conducted, to my knowledge,
any studies that would prove that your claims (the same as theirs) are
sound. It would not be that difficult for AWSNA to track not only retention
rates among Waldorf students, but also rates of college attendance after
graduation, etc. etc.
Lisa
) Some more useful fallacy descriptions:
)
) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 03:19:16 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Logical Fallacies
Gosh darn it, Lisa, how did I know you would say that?
Do I need to mention that you are telling us that Waldorf schools do
*not* do a good job based on a very small sample?
My purpose in posting these was to point out that all sides in this
debate engage in these fallacies from time to time, and we should all
at least be aware of their dangers.
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) Very interesting, David. Waldorf school leaders may want to investigate
) this
) theorem, as they promote their methods/schools based on "logical
) fallacies."
) Perhaps you need to read the sites cited, as well, as you are telling us
) that Waldorf schools *do* do a good job of educating children based on a
) very, very small sample (your graduating class.)
)
) It's very interesting to me that AWSNA has *not* conducted, to my
) knowledge,
) any studies that would prove that your claims (the same as theirs) are
) sound. It would not be that difficult for AWSNA to track not only
) retention
) rates among Waldorf students, but also rates of college attendance after
) graduation, etc. etc.
)
) Lisa
)
)
) ) Some more useful fallacy descriptions:
) )
) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
) )
) )
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 03:53:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Logical Fallacies
G'day David,
I think you may be able to determine that the sample is not all that small
if you consider the number of different contributors to this list over time,
it is not a localised sample but is spread throughout the English speaking
world and beyond. I have consistently asked for evidence in my posts on this
list. What we have is a reasonably large number of independent anecdotes
that very strongly suggest that there are a number of common problems with
Waldorf Schools, and that the schools themselves seem unable or unwilling to
address.
Equally, the WCs seem to be able show a philosophic basis for some of these
anecdotal problems in the writings and lectures of Steiner, and in Waldorf
educational material.
Perhaps the anecdotes reflect an expected statistical population of
dissatisfied parents. Perhaps not.
Let me compare it with the recent worldwide(?) reporting of child sexual
abuse in Catholic Schools in the 50s and 60s in particular. I went to a
Catholic school in some of those years and I was not molested. To the best
of my knowledge, no molestation occured at the school I attended. That is
not an argument that no molestation occured in any Catholic school in
Brisbane, or in Queensland, or in Australia, or in the world. I think it is
clear that molestation occured, and that the Catholic Church did not sort
this out in an appropriate way, and it is still not sorted out, although I
think we are seeing some better efforts.
Many referred to the initial reports as anecdotal evidence. In the end, it
seems like this was a serious and reasonably widespread problem in Catholic
schools.
Are there problems with Waldorf schools? (Note I am not suggesting
molestation). Is there a mentality in the schools that attempts to cover up
problems in order to protect the good work that they are doing from
criticism?
Thanks for the fallacy site.
See you, Peter
)From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
)Gosh darn it, Lisa, how did I know you would say that?
)
)Do I need to mention that you are telling us that Waldorf schools do
)*not* do a good job based on a very small sample?
)
)My purpose in posting these was to point out that all sides in this
)debate engage in these fallacies from time to time, and we should all
)at least be aware of their dangers.
)
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 23:07:36 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
How did you know I would say that? Guess maybe some of Steiner's
clairvoyance rubbed off on your during your Waldorf years, kiddo! (g)
Seriously, though, I *do* agree with your assertion that *all* sides in this
(and probably every other) debate engage in logical fallacies from time to
time, and yes, we *should* be aware of that.
David, you say that we critics are making our assertions about Waldorf based
on a "very small sample." I don't know how many children attend/graduate
from Waldorf schools the world over -- aren't there something like 600
Waldorf schools just in North America? --so technically, you are correct
there, too. As I said before, I know of no studies on the subject of
Waldorf's success/lack thereof.
But I have to tell you: I have spent the last four years listening to some
very alarming and negative stories -- stories that often are startling in
their commonalities -- about Waldorf that were told to me by parents whose
children were enrolled in Waldorf schools and by Waldorf students
themselves. (I am not even mentioning the stories told by Waldorf teachers.)
You hear the same stories over and over -- stories having to do with
children who are bullied while teachers stand by and do nothing, stories
about children who are in the fifth grade and are still struggling to learn
to read, stories about families who are ostracized when they begin asking
questions about the "strange"* (read: Anthroposophic) things going on at
their children's schools, stories about parents who enroll their children in
Waldorf believing the schools are non-religious -- and a
less-than-flattering picture of Waldorf begins to emerge.
Had it not been for the internet (Ahrmanic as it may be! (g)) I might have
thought that what happened to my daughter and to our family at Waldorf was
just peculiar to our particular school -- a fluke perhaps. Through this list
and others, however, I was able to quickly discover that we were far from
alone; we learned that other people, people in England, Australia, New
Zealand, Holland, Germany, Canada, etc. had had experiences eerily similar
to ours.
David, I am very glad that you enjoyed your years at Waldorf and feel they
benefitted you. I wish every child graduating from every school -- Waldorf
or other -- felt the same way.
Lisa
* Please note I am not passing judgment on Anthroposophy. I am just saying
that to those who come into Waldorf schools never having seen the word --
much less able to pronounce it! -- various customs, rituals, etc. may seem
"strange" indeed. It is a very disconcerting and disorienting experience to
be confronted with these things (not to mention the way Anthroposophers use
everyday words to express esoteric meanings!) and not "get" what is going
on. On the survivors list, we often hear from people who actually begin to
feel physically ill because of the sense of cognitive dissonance they
experience at Waldorf.
) Gosh darn it, Lisa, how did I know you would say that?
)
) Do I need to mention that you are telling us that Waldorf schools do
) *not* do a good job based on a very small sample?
)
) My purpose in posting these was to point out that all sides in this
) debate engage in these fallacies from time to time, and we should all
) at least be aware of their dangers.
)
) Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)) Very interesting, David. Waldorf school leaders may want to investigate
)) this
)) theorem, as they promote their methods/schools based on "logical
)) fallacies."
)) Perhaps you need to read the sites cited, as well, as you are telling us
)) that Waldorf schools *do* do a good job of educating children based on a
)) very, very small sample (your graduating class.)
))
)) It's very interesting to me that AWSNA has *not* conducted, to my
)) knowledge,
)) any studies that would prove that your claims (the same as theirs) are
)) sound. It would not be that difficult for AWSNA to track not only
)) retention
)) rates among Waldorf students, but also rates of college attendance after
)) graduation, etc. etc.
))
)) Lisa
))
))
)) ) Some more useful fallacy descriptions:
)) )
)) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
)) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
)) ) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
)) )
)) )
))
))
))
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:20:25 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: The Advent Spiral
Anonymous advent quote:
) "And
) when
) you come outside and wait, the you will receive your apple to
) bring
) home. And if you do not munch into it like the horses or cows do,
) but
) ask Father or Mother to cut a thin slice across it, and hold it to
) the candlelight, then you will see the fine form of the earth as
) it
) is going to be in times to come."
There's that 5 pointed star again.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:33:49 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner on national character
) Yep. This is one of those Steiner passages that makes you realize
) just how
) authoritarian the Idealists could be when it came to politics. But
) whereas
) Hegel at least had the (admittedly weak) excuse that he wrote his
) paeans to
) the Prussian state before the advent of modern democratic forms in
) central
) Europe, Steiner took this position after the 1848 revolutions,
) after the
) unification of Germany, after Bismarck's suppression of dissent,
) etc etc.
The dust must settle before you can write in it. Thankyou for the
clarifications. Very interesting discussion. I must chew on all this
for a bit.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:00:22 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions and language use - was RE: Rick Ross report on Canadian
public funding for Waldorf
))) ) Nicole wrote:
))) ) I don't believe in public funding for any religious schools (church and
))) ) state should be separate), and I would certainly count Waldorf schools
))) ) in that category.
)) )
)) ) David replied:
)) ) Then perhaps you should move to California...
) )
) ) Nicole responded:
) ) I fail to see the logic of your proposition and am disappointed by the
) ) tone of your response. Is the separation of church and state such an
) ) alien notion? Are non-believers unwelcome in Canada? Religion is a
) ) matter of free personal choice - why should indoctrination (in any form)
) ) be subsidized by the taxpayer?
)
)David replied:
)Sorry... it was a joke, since we don't have a constitutional separation
)of church and state in Canada, I thought you might want to go down to
)the states where they have those draconian measures in place.
Draconian??? There are things about the US that warrant criticism, I'll
grant you that (after all, I left...) - but can you honestly say that you
consider "constitutional separation of church and state" to be "draconian
measures"???
And, I would also like to see an answer to Nicole's question. You've
stated that you don't believe that schools should indoctrinate children in
a consumerist mindset - yet here you appear to support state-funded
school-implemented indoctrination in religion. Is this actually the
case? Do you simply oppose consumerism, and not the process of
indoctrination, as was my impression?
If you're in favour of this, why do you have so much difficulty admitting
that your definition of "religion" (which you supplied several posts back
on one of these threads, and which I have already called into question
without receiving a response) does not accord with that used by society at
large, as exemplified by the definitions given by the dictionaries in
common use?
Your definition (from your post of Thu, 21 Nov 2002 titled: Subject: RE: no
DOFs):
"My definition of religion is blind adherence to a set of tenets which
are taken literally and given no room for change."
(begin quoted definitions)
---
re-li-gion
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi,
religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.]
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---
religion
\Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens
pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the
existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom
obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human
love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by
profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the
conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety;
as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed
religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
An orderly life so far as others are able to observe us is now and then
produced by prudential motives or by dint of habit; but without seriousness
there can be no religious principle at the bottom, no course of conduct
from religious motives; in a word, there can be no religion. --Paley.
Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; but
. . . it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of
a true or a false devotion assumed. --Trench.
Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to
different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in
common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion
without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however
elaborate, does not constitute a religion. --C. P. Tiele (Encyc. Brit.).
Religion . . . means the conscious relation between man and God, and the
expression of that relation in human conduct. --J. K["o]stlin
(Schaff-Herzog Encyc.)
After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. --Acts
xxvi. 5.
The image of a brute, adorned With gay religions full of pomp and gold.
--Milton.
2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in
the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the
Christian faith and practice.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. --Washington.
Religion will attend you . . . as a pleasant and useful companion in every
proper place, and every temperate occupation of life. --Buckminster.
3. (R. C. Ch.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of
life; the religious state; as, to enter religion. --Trench.
A good man was there of religion. --Chaucer.
4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an
enjoined rule of conduct. [R.]
Those parts of pleading which in ancient times might perhaps be material,
but at this time are become only mere styles and forms, are still continued
with much religion. --Sir M. Hale.
Note: Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating
the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is
objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God
whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As
distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to
human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality
describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As
distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and
spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect
to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child
toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love
which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion
is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily
that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with
God, and a sense of his continual presence.
Natural religion, a religion based upon the evidences of a God and his
qualities, which is supplied by natural phenomena. See Natural theology,
under Natural.
Religion of humanity, a name sometimes given to a religion founded upon
positivism as a philosophical basis.
Revealed religion, that which is based upon direct communication of God's
will to mankind; especially, the Christian religion, based on the
revelations recorded in the Old and New Testaments.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
---
religion
n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human
destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: faith, religious
belief] 2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised
in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
[syn: faith]
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
---
(end quoted definitions)
As you can see, by these definitions, which supersede yours on any scale
other than the personal (in that they are the definitions agreed upon by
the larger society, and are thus suitable for communicating with the larger
society, whereas your definition is at best useful only in communicating
with you), Anthroposophy is clearly religious in nature, and so too are the
Waldorf Schools. In other words - you may not consider the Waldorf
Schools, or Anthroposophy, to be religious in nature, because you have
chosen to redefine the word - but, according to the definition used by the
rest of society, both clearly ARE religious.
Clear examples:
Morning Verse, Grades One through Four
The sun with loving light
Makes bright for me each day,
The soul with spirit power
Gives strength unto my limbs.
In sunlight shining clear
I reverence, O God,
The strength of humankind
Which Thou so graciously
Hast planted in my soul
That I, with all my might,
May strive to work and learn.
From Thee flow light and strength,
To Thee rise love and thanks.
Morning Verse, Grades Five through Eight
I look into the world
In which the sun is shining,
In which the stars are sparkling,
Where stones in stillness lie,
Where living plants are growing,
Where animals live in feeling,
Where man within the soul
Gives dwelling to the spirit.
I look into the soul
That lives within my being.
God's spirit lives and weaves
In sunlight and in soul light,
In world space there without,
In soul depths here within.
To Thee, Creator Spirit,
I turn my heart to ask
That strength and blessing
For learning and for work
May ever grow within me.
"Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the
feelings and acts of men which relate to God."
These verses clearly designate the feelings and acts of men in relation to
a deity or "Creator Spirit".
"As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and
motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God,
while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always
influences."
These verses clearly "denote the influences and motives to human duty which
are found in the character and will of God".
"As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation
and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with
respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a
child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and
love which we owe to the Father of all."
These verses clearly contain a "high sense of moral obligation and spirit
of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the
Deity".
"As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is
achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which
results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual
presence."
These verses clearly represent the Anthroposophical view of "the means by
which" one may "achieve [...] that purity of heart and life which results
from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual
presence". In fact, I would say that that last point VERY closely
corresponds with the descriptions of "Anthroposophy as a method" as given
here on the list, by practicioners and advocates of Anthroposophy.
People have tried to find many different words to describe Anthroposophy,
both in general and as manifested to the students in a Waldorf or Steiner
school. However, very clearly, the one which fits it best is the term
"religion". It could not more clearly fit, point by point, each of the
defining elements of the word's meaning.
If you truly are unable to understand the position of others on this list
(regardless of whether or not you agree with it) due to your individual
difference in language use, that is a matter of SERIOUS concern.
It is one thing to write poetry, or even novels or other personally
expressive pieces of creative writing in one's preferred spoken dialect,
which need have very little similarity to standard language use. However,
in order to function in society enough to take on the responsibilities of a
citizen and a mature adult, one requires the ability to communicate with
others well enough to fill in a form, fill out a job application, create a
resume or Curriculum Vitae, conduct an interview, vote, etc. To fail to
prepare a child to function as an independent adult is a serious indictment
of the quality of a school.
If Waldorf teaches use of the language that is so different from that of
the rest of society, either directly or through acceptance of its use as a
personal variation WITHOUT insistence that the individual employing the
variation should be able to communicate with those who do not use it, it
leads me to wonder how useful this education can actually prove to a
child; after all, it is quite clear that the result of accepting such a
variation, in a person who lacks the ability to communicate with those who
do not employ it, is that it leaves the graduate of such a school lacking
in basic skills. Such a graduate would be, as you appear to be
demonstrating, unable to communicate with others due to a redefinition of
the fundamentals.
This entire discussion has already taken place in academic and educational
circles, with regard to the teaching of "Ebonics" as an accepted
alternative in US schools. The conclusion was that schools have the right
to teach variations in language use, and to accept variations in language
use, only as long as the school is teaching standard usage as well, and the
students are all demonstrating at least minimally adequate proficiency in
that standard usage.
While you, and any other subcommunity within the larger society of the
nation within which you live, have the right to use the language as you see
fit, to teach or accept these variations in the schools is quite another
matter entirely. The issue has seen quite thorough argument, and I believe
you'll find all of the relevant issues were thoroughly explored. In the
end, however, it was determined that regardless of its value as a valid
linguistic dialect or variation, it did not meet the criteria with which
the schools were required to comply, as it did not provide the child with
an adequate grounding in the fundamental skills required for them to be
capable of functioning as an independent adult in the society of which they
were to be a citizen.
We were concerned about the effects of this kind of redefinition of basic
fundamental concepts in the sciences - I'd say that the language arts
skills that result from a Waldorf Education also leave something to be
desired, if their result is so large a divergence from the larger society
that a graduate is unable to communicate with others outside of the
Anthroposophical community.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 05:46:30 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Logical Fallacies
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) How did you know I would say that? Guess maybe some of Steiner's
) clairvoyance rubbed off on your during your Waldorf years, kiddo! )(g)
I'll never tell... (g)
)
) Seriously, though, I *do* agree with your assertion that *all* sides in
) this
) (and probably every other) debate engage in logical fallacies from time
) to
) time, and yes, we *should* be aware of that.
Very good.
)
) David, you say that we critics are making our assertions about Waldorf
) based
) on a "very small sample." I don't know how many children attend/graduate
) from Waldorf schools the world over -- aren't there something like 600
) Waldorf schools just in North America? --so technically, you are correct
) there, too. As I said before, I know of no studies on the subject of
) Waldorf's success/lack thereof.
Somebody really should do such a study -- for the health of the movement
as well as for the benefit of critics/supporters. Are you sure there
hasn't been anything from AWSNA?
But perhaps an independent study would be better anyway.
)
) But I have to tell you: I have spent the last four years listening to
) some
) very alarming and negative stories -- stories that often are startling
) in
) their commonalities -- about Waldorf that were told to me by parents
) whose
) children were enrolled in Waldorf schools and by Waldorf students
) themselves. (I am not even mentioning the stories told by Waldorf
) )teachers.)
Those are serious concerns.
) You hear the same stories over and over -- stories having to do with
) children who are bullied while teachers stand by and do nothing,
Though I have never witnessed this in Waldorf schools (as opposed to my
experiences in other public/private schools), if it is occuring, those
teachers are grossly misinterpreting Steiner's theory of karma. It's
almost unthinkable that any Waldorf teacher I know would do such a
thing, but if they are out there, they should be stopped!
stories
) about children who are in the fifth grade and are still struggling to
) learn
) to read,
That complaint is offset by Waldorf's overall success in imparting a
meaningful understanding of literature, but again, there might be real
problems out there, I don't know.
)stories about families who are ostracized when they begin asking
) questions about the "strange"* (read: Anthroposophic) things going on at
) their children's schools, stories about parents who enroll their
) children in
) Waldorf believing the schools are non-religious -- and a
) less-than-flattering picture of Waldorf begins to emerge.
Well, we all know where that debate takes us! But I do agree that there
should be a clear explanation available of how Anthroposophy permeates
the curriculum. Some people, secular or otherwise, will not have a
problem with it, and some will. But all should be informed.
) Had it not been for the internet (Ahrmanic as it may be! (g)) I might
) have
) thought that what happened to my daughter and to our family at Waldorf
) was
) just peculiar to our particular school -- a fluke perhaps. Through this
) list
) and others, however, I was able to quickly discover that we were far
) from
) alone; we learned that other people, people in England, Australia, New
) Zealand, Holland, Germany, Canada, etc. had had experiences eerily
) similar
) to ours.
No, you're right. There are pervasive problems within the movement, and
we definitely need to be more aware of them -- especially, that each
school must be accountable to its parents for the quality of the
teachers it hires. But I think the intentions are good, and the methods
work for many families, so I'm willing to work for change.
However, as I've said, there are many people who had wonderful, informed
experiences in Waldorf schools -- even if they were not
Anthroposophists.
)
) David, I am very glad that you enjoyed your years at Waldorf and feel
) they
) benefitted you. I wish every child graduating from every school --
) Waldorf
) or other -- felt the same way.
)
) Lisa
Well, we can always dream, can't we?
I understand where you are coming from on this list, and I hope we can
begin to work together to create a workable solution and some meaningful
change. And agree to disagree.
As to your lawsuit against Waldorf/public initiatives -- well, I don't
necessarily oppose that, and the courts will decide on whether they se
religion in the classroom or not. In any case, it might be a good way of
airing some dirty laundry.
)
) * Please note I am not passing judgment on Anthroposophy. I am just
) saying
) that to those who come into Waldorf schools never having seen the word
) --
) much less able to pronounce it! -- various customs, rituals, etc. may
) seem
) "strange" indeed.
Yes, and that experience could be avoided if there was more
understanding of the underlying principles.
Yours in good "faith",
David.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 05:51:46 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions a
Sorry, I was just giving my experience of the "religious", not as a term
of definition in that particular post.
I don't support any kind of indoctrination, but I saw Waldorf as giving
any religious content as ideas, or stories rather than doctrine. And
Waldorf grads *can* fill out forms, thank you very much...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:03:33 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
David wrote:
) My purpose in posting these was to point out that all sides in this
) debate engage in these fallacies from time to time, and we should all
) at least be aware of their dangers.
Walden: Thanks for the good links as they pertain to what I (for one) am
talking about. The only real danger I see, however, is Waldorf promoting
their schools in a deceptive way. I ask questions here, David, and they are
rarely answered. See my two previous posts, for example. The only thing
close to an answer is your latest post with links to the logical fallacies
sites. While these *are* certainly interesting it seems that your post
serves to (once again) ignore the questions. Deflection. I am not trying
to be rude as I do appreciate your being here but -believe me - this is a
pattern. A logical pattern, in fact. I find it disturbing.
Small samples? We'll have to define the word "small" for starters but we
must also remember that even ONE family - that believes they were lied to
and hurt by Waldorf dishonesty or weirdness (whether that perception is
*real* or not) must warrant investigation by that individual school and the
issue must be dealt with, don't you think? More than a few folks end up
here (or at Survivors) scratching their heads and looking for
accountability. On the other hand...
Let us, then, look a large sample. This is not rocket science. Why has
this not been done? I don't know - do you? I wrote a small piece for the
PLANS site some time ago. Personal anecdotes mixed with real research. Not
a gem of an article but I refused to spend more than two hours on it (it was
unpaid work (g)). The Waldorf school and Anthro website research part took
me less than an hour. One guy - one hour. Imagine. The Anthroposophists
have The Research Institute for Waldorf Education at Sunbridge. What kind
of research is done there?
For now we must rely on people who arrive here to espouse the virtues of
Waldorf education. You speak of "all sides in this debate." I asked you
some questions. Debate can involve questions. Why not start by answering
the questions?
Logically Yours,
Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:40:04 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: positives in Waldorf/Steiner schools
At 04-12-02 03:20 PM Wednesday, jones9876 wrote:
)Anything positive, handwork, beautiful playthings, good food and time in
)nature are completely unimportant when your child is being attacked and
)terrorized at W school.
This is my view, exactly. It was nice to find a school where we could
breathe the air without getting sick, due to the emphasis on a
chemical-free environment. It was nice to have value placed on many things
which I value - but my child's safety, and my family's health, were far too
high a price for me to ever consider any of these things even worth
*considering* the cost.
Willow
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 902
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Public Schools
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Proof and objective studies - was RE: public schools
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: Logical Fallacies
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: Public Schools
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Clarification:
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Public Schools
By dan dandugan.com
RE: comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Public Schools
By dan dandugan.com
Goodbye
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Clarification:
By lumiere paris.com
RE: Clarification:
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Clarification:
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Logical Fallacies
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:47:02 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
)David:
)You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
)blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic".
David, I find your patronizing tone here rather ridiculous, considering
that you are lecturing in this way to a collection of experienced Waldorf
parents, who have collectively, among them, many decades of experience with
Waldorf, its methods, and its results *on their own children*. To dismiss
this as "blithely repeating unfortunate myths" is to dismiss completely
their knowledge of their own personal experience.
The children in these families have suffered greatly. Others have
specifically been told that excessive thinking causes illness - in so many
words - by "Anthroposophical Doctors". It is very hard to consider all of
this to be "an unfortunate myth" - these are clear manifestations of an
"anti-intellectual" bias within the entire scope of Anthroposophy's
influence, including Anthroposophical "medicine" and Waldorf schools. The
Waldorf schools in Hitler's Germany were kept open for quite some time by
the Nazi party, because of Steiner's anti-intellectual philosophy. These
are facts, David - you cannot dismiss them as myth or interpretation. The
children of many of the critics here have required thousands of dollars /
pounds to be spent on tutoring, remedial education, counseling, and other
efforts to pick up the pieces that Waldorf has left behind, when it was
removed from their lives as a consequence of the damage it had done there.
These parents often began as Waldorf enthusiasts, David, and indeed a
number of the critics here came to the list initially in opposition to
PLANS and the claims made. But, *seeing the damage done to their own
children*, and hearing the same anti-intellectual Steiner quotes and
Anthroposophical justifications offered in answer to their inquiries, in
the end, these parents were forced by years of experience to abandon
beliefs that they had held for even more years, before that.
That's a lot of time, investigation, personal experience, personal
suffering, and individual critical thinking, that you're dismissing so
lightly, and I think it's indicative of your attitude, which I find
disturbing. You began with a series of articulate posts that attracted my
attention and gave me the impression that you were interested in a
reasonable discussion of the subject. However, when other people have
described experiences and conclusions that were at odds with your own, you
began to find pigeonholes and preconceived explanations that you tried to
fit to the information and the people sharing it, and though I differ with
many of these people about many things, I have also spent enough time here
to learn of, and respect, the very considerable weight of first-hand
knowledge and thorough research that they bring to these conversations.
You had my attention, in other words, and my judgement was at worst
withheld pending further evidence, and at best positive - until you were
confronted by experience at odds with your own, and rather than taking the
intellectually honest route of attempting to consider all possibilities and
find an explanation that fit all available data points, you began to
discard significant data as irrelevant, based on excuses which *clearly do
not fit* the circumstances.
You see, David, your school may have been anomalous - or, the ones attended
by the critics may have been the anomalies. But pretending that they don't
exist doesn't have the same effect as an objective assessment of the number
of schools that are as good as yours, the number which suffered horrific
incidents such as those recounted first-hand by critics, and the number
that probably lie somewhere on the middle ground in between.
When you consider your unrelated experience to contradict that of another
person, you are drawing some very unwarranted conclusions, which are
essentially based on your belief that *the conclusions* that you drew from
your experience carry more weight than the first-hand account of the
individual in question. At that point, you might as well simply say "I
don't believe you, because you are telling me something other than what I
think I know about the world", and end the conversation right there,
because there's no point in continuing it if the other speaker is wasting
their breath on ears that have chosen to feign deafness, in the smug belief
that your knowledge of the world has allowed you to spot a liar.
If you are going to bother with the conversation, why not try giving other
speakers the same respect that they give you - that of asking questions,
albeit some hard and probing ones, rather than assuming that they know
better than you do what your experiences have been? You'll almost
certainly find that it's more effective, and you're more likely to come to
a correct conclusion if you do not simply dismiss as inaccurate any data
which conflicts with your current views.
It is true that there are people in the world who get their jollies by
telling lies. However, it is unreasonable to simply dismiss as liars, or
deluded, every individual one may meet who tells one something that is in
any way at odds with one's own beliefs - at least, without
investigation. Facts can disprove a claim - sometimes without more than
the most minimal of consideration - but that is NOT the same thing as
dismissing a claim simply because it is not in accordance with one's
preconceived notions.
As an example, for many decades people dismissed the idea that any Catholic
priest would ever commit a sexual act, and with the idea, the growing
numbers of specific first-person accounts of sexual molestation, by
priests, of children and parishioners. Now we recognize that priests are
just people, and some of them commit crimes, just like any other sub-group
of people, so when such a claim is made, it is investigated on a fact-based
approach ("that claim can't be accurate, Father Murphy was in Wichita
visiting his mother that month"), rather than a belief-based one ("that
claim can't be accurate - I mean, Father Murphy is a *PRIEST*!").
If you are here to discuss these issues in a truly open-minded, skeptical,
critical thinking approach, then I suggest you find some approach that
either disproves the claims you are attempting to refute, or calls them
into question on a logical or factual basis, rather than simply dismissing
them on clearly inapplicable grounds, simply because they differed from
your own experience.
You wouldn't make the criticisms of Waldorf that the critics here have
made, would you? Well, then, either the critics are here because their
experiences are different from yours, or because they drew different
conclusions from the same types of experiences, or they are lying about
their experiences. Now, it's very hard to reach the conclusion that
someone is illiterate if they are an excellent communicator in written
media, so it would be hard for a parent to come to that conclusion if their
experiences had been like yours - they'd have to be pretty deluded, if
you're accurately describing your school experiences. So, that leaves us
with the following range of possibilities:
a) the people here have different experiences, in which case it is
unreasonable to call their experiences into question simply because they
differ with yours.
b) the people here have had the same kind of school experiences as yours,
but were deluded into thinking that they were damaging nightmarish
experiences that in some cases seriously harmed their children. There's
not much point in conversing with the critics if you believe that's the
case, given the level of delusion that would be involved.
c) the critics are lying. If that is your view, you're better off being
open about it, instead of attempting to act conciliatory while being
patronizingly dismissive toward people with more years of experience with
Waldorf schools than you've been alive. People are more likely to take you
seriously as a hoax-buster, if that is indeed your goal, if you have been
honest about your views.
In short, either you see the critics as lying, or deluded - or else your
patronizingly dismissive attitude is pretty inappropriate, since what
you're reading is precisely what you came here to read - first-person
accounts of the experiences which motivate the critics in their
criticism. If you believe that the critics are reasonable people, and you
believe that they became critics based on their experiences, then you can't
expect those experiences to be like yours, or you would have become a critic.
)The truth is that Waldorf provides a slower academic start,
)teaching writing and math in such a way as to provide a
)strong base for more intense academics in grades 6, 7 and 8.
)By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his academic
)skills often surpass college level.
As for the "truth" about Waldorf, I find this oft-repeated claim rather
interesting, considering that the teachers at the local Waldorf school told
us directly that their graduates need to take remedial science in
University to get up to speed if they choose a science major. That would
not be necessary if the schools were as solid in basic academic skills as
you portray them. While your school may have the results you describe (can
you suggest how we could verify this claim?), that claim must at very least
be less universal than it is portrayed; there remain schools such as the
one Dan Dugan's son attended. It is hard to move on to a university when
you have been taught that the heart does not pump blood, that gnomes are
real, and that the basic elements are "Earth, Air, Fire and Water" (as
opposed to Hydrogen, Helium, etc).
True or false, your efforts to discredit the claims made here are not going
to help your cause unless and until you can back them up with points of
factual conflict. Without them, you come across as yet another teenager
smug in the certainty that nobody over 25 actually thinks or knows
anything... which really doesn't do a lot to support your contention that
Waldorf schools turn out graduates with a firm grasp of educational basics
such as logic.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:24:20 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Proof and objective studies - was RE: public schools
) ) David:
) )
) And how is your daughter now? Did she really suffer for being behind
)when she left Waldorf?
Perhaps you could define what you mean by "really suffer". Lisa has
already explained at some length what her daughter's experience was, and a
variety of other people have posted their first-person accounts that are
clearly of children "suffering" by my understanding of the word.
)Nothing of what you're describing is familiar to me. It's as if you are
)describing a different school.
First of all, perhaps part of that is because it *is* a different
school. While there are systemic problems throughout the Waldorf schools,
how they manifest is going to be different from one school to the next.
Your school may have been at one extreme, within the range of possibilities
for a Waldorf schools; it may have been the rare exception. Or, it may
have been the norm, and the experiences critics have had may be the
exception. Until independent studies of their methods and results are
allowed, supporters of Waldorf really have no objective basis for either
their present claims, or any attempts to refute the accusations of
pervasive problems, accusations which the critics have made on the basis of
their first-hand experience of problems with Waldorf and Steiner schools
world-wide.
In other words, your problem is that you are trying to prove a negative, or
a context (by claiming that the experiences of the critics are taken out of
context, you are claiming that there is a context which will put these
experiences into a different perspective), both of which require an
objective overview.
The critics, on the other hand, are establishing that there ARE at least
*some* Waldorf schools that have serious problems, for which their
anecdotal evidence of their own personal experience serves quite effectively.
Clearly, it's not accurate to say that "all Waldorf / Steiner schools
provide a quality education", or "no Waldorf / Steiner school has
problems", just because your experience has been good, by your
standards; that would be as silly as saying that "no homes burn down"
because "mine hasn't". On the other hand, there IS some merit to the
statements that "some homes burn down - mine did", and "there ARE problems
in the Waldorf schools, I encountered them".
You are arguing that these problems don't exist, for which your own
experience is not sufficient proof. We are arguing that these problems DO
exist, for which our experience IS adequate proof. The prevalence remains
undetermined, through lack of objective studies, which is why we call for
them.
However, we ourselves cannot conduct them, as we are what is considered to
be an "interested party", and would not meet the most stringent standards
for complete objectivity that are generally required for such
studies. Likewise, Waldorf schools are not really in a position to conduct
a truly objective study, but they can at least maintain such statistics as
are useful as raw data for such a study, such as pupil retention, further
academic pursuits of their alumni, and success rates within those academic
pursuits.
Perhaps if the Waldorf / Steiner schools were to add their voices to ours
in the calls for such studies, it would encourage a truly objective third
party to take up the challenge and conduct them.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:12:45 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Logical Fallacies
walden wrote:
) I ask questions here, David, and they are
) rarely answered. See my two previous posts, for example. The only
) thing
) close to an answer is your latest post with links to the logical
) fallacies
) sites. While these *are* certainly interesting it seems that your post
) serves to (once again) ignore the questions. Deflection.
Be patient. I've asked Jamie to answer those questions, as he has more
experience in this particular school. He will answer them, he just wants
to consider them more deeply. In fact, just last night we had a lively
discussion about diversity in Waldorf schools! So just cool it a bit --
we're not ignoring you, quite the opposite. You'll get your answers.
)I am not trying
) to be rude as I do appreciate your being here but -believe me - this is
) a
) pattern. A logical pattern, in fact. I find it disturbing.
)
) Small samples? We'll have to define the word "small" for starters but
) we
) must also remember that even ONE family - that believes they were lied
) to
) and hurt by Waldorf dishonesty or weirdness (whether that perception is
) *real* or not) must warrant investigation by that individual school and
) the
) issue must be dealt with, don't you think?
Absolutely! And AWNSNA -- or somebody -- needs to take more of a
leadership role to at least investigate claims like those.
)More than a few folks end up
) here (or at Survivors) scratching their heads and looking for
) accountability. On the other hand...
)
) Let us, then, look a large sample. This is not rocket science. Why
) has
) this not been done? I don't know - do you? I wrote a small piece for
) the
) PLANS site some time ago. Personal anecdotes mixed with real research.
) Not
) a gem of an article but I refused to spend more than two hours on it (it
) was
) unpaid work (g)). The Waldorf school and Anthro website research part
) took
) me less than an hour. One guy - one hour. Imagine. The
) Anthroposophists
) have The Research Institute for Waldorf Education at Sunbridge. What
) kind
) of research is done there?
I wouldn't know.
Are you sure that they haven't done research like that? It needs to be
done.
)
) For now we must rely on people who arrive here to espouse the virtues of
) Waldorf education.
And people who declaim its faults (and more). And people who ask
questions of both "sides".
)You speak of "all sides in this debate." I asked you
) some questions. Debate can involve questions. Why not start by
) )answering
) the questions?
)
) Logically Yours,
)
) Walden
I use the word "debate" very loosely, but I hope that we can evolve the
discussion in that direction. You'll get those answers.
Phenomenologically yours,
David.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:52:06 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
At 02-12-02 12:27 AM Monday, you wrote:
)mysplum wrote:
) ) on 12/1/02 12:25 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) )
) )
) ) ) And you say you're not a hate group...
) )
) ) Sharon: If PLANS is a hate group, then Anthroposophists are a hate group
) ) against "materialists" and public school and TV and science and Waldorf
) ) critics.
)
)We have yet to compare you to Hitler.
Hitler, like everything else in the world, has some commonalities and
differences with a wide variety of individuals and subjects. Sometimes
these are relevant - particularly when dealing with racist occultists in
German society of the early 20th century - and constitute the most
effective way to make a point.
For instance, some people claim to be inherently morally superior by virtue
of their choice not to eat meat - yet, as I've been known to point out,
Hitler was a vegetarian; this, in my opinion, does an excellent job of
illustrating the point that the one characteristic does not serve to
establish the other. This is also one of the flaws in the "ad hominem"
argument - one cannot measure the value of an idea by the character of an
individual adherent, because any person can subscribe to any idea,
regardless of flaws in their own character.
And, I think shutting down the public service advertising of a consumer
watchdog group on the basis that they are "a hate group" draws its own
implied comparisons. People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass
houses. Allowing and/or encouraging discrimination and abusive behaviour
in an educational institution which is open to the public is a very
effective way of ensuring that sooner or later, there will be some negative
feedback.
Venerating a racist occultist dedicated to promoting the evolution of the
Aryan race, as humanity's most advanced, is something that can only be
described in so many ways, and which renders certain comparisons
inevitable. Were such comparisons to highlight the differences, rather
than the similarities, of the individuals thus compared, I suspect that
they would not be considered to be as threatening. However, the data speak
for themselves, we're merely correlating and commenting upon them.
If the comparison of Steiner with Hitler didn't hold water, it would be so
much easier to dismiss, wouldn't it? Yet it's so inevitable, due to their
broad areas of commonality, that people keep coming back to it, as a result
of their own independent thinking.
I, myself, was actually noticing it all over again, recently, while
watching an historical documentary on Hitler's relationship with the Wagner
family and his classic fanatic's desire to live in the utopian fantasy on
which he was fixated. The use of the pageantry and trappings of the
nation's theatrical self-representation, as a way to reach beyond the
intellect to trigger a more basic emotional response based on the
simplistic world-view of the heroic tale, sounded very familiar. I've
encountered it before, both from the Waldorf / Steiner school context and
elsewhere, most notably including a variety of cults and cult-like groups,
who have likewise noticed the power of the temptation to view the world as
a great mythic war between good and evil, with ourselves always on the side
of right, of course. If one can offer people a chance to participate in
that great epic battle as the first chosen people of a new era or covenant
with higher powers, it's not hard to find people eager to jump onto such a
bandwagon.
The fact is that Hitler and Steiner were products of a society in which a
false view of the past was venerated, and where people were despised based
on their race. They were products, by their own choice, of a bad time
filled with a variety of really ugly philosophical ideas. Others in the
same era made different choices (including many which stem from far less
racist, discriminatory, or abusive ideas), which serves quite adequately to
demonstrate that there were other options available to Hitler and Steiner
both, along with the other anti-intellectual Aryan supremacists within
early 20th century Germany. Despite this, many new and existing esoteric
concepts were contrived and invoked, to explain why bigotry was reasonable
and right.
However, in the end, there are only so many ways to describe a belief in
the intellectual superiority of the Aryan race and its advancement with
regard to other races, combined with its ultimate destiny as the future of
humanity, as bolstered by a mythic view of history and a combination of
common occult beliefs and practises. They logically self-group, due to
their commonalities, in a way that is as obvious as the idea of putting the
green things together, or the books, or the Amazonian freshwater fish. As
a result, there are going to continue to be ongoing comparisons between
Hitler and Steiner, simply because such a description so thoroughly fits
them both.
But I think it's important to remember that comparisons can as easily
reveal differences as commonality - so, if I were you, I wouldn't be
seeking to avoid comparisons between Steiner (or any other person/group)
and Hitler, I would be seeking to use such comparisons to demonstrate how
different they were. The only logical reason to avoid the comparison is if
you are afraid that they have too much in common, and too few differences,
for a comparison to be complimentary to Steiner (or whoever else is being
thus compared).
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:49:35 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
Willow Firesong wrote:
)
) )David:
) )You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
) )blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic".
)
) David, I find your patronizing tone here rather ridiculous, considering
) that you are lecturing in this way to a collection of experienced
) Waldorf
) parents, who have collectively, among them, many decades of experience
) with
) Waldorf, its methods, and its results *on their own children*. To
) dismiss
) this as "blithely repeating unfortunate myths" is to dismiss completely
) their knowledge of their own personal experience.
Okay, I'm sorry. I should have said that the methods are not meant to be
non-academic, or that the philosophy behind it isn't non-academic. I
don't mean to trivialise anyone's experience.
The myths I am referring to mistake Waldorf's practice of delayed,
thorough academics in the early years as a more general rejection of the
intellect.
This practise very well may have been misrepresented in your cases. I
don't know.
)The
) Waldorf schools in Hitler's Germany were kept open for quite some )time
) by
) the Nazi party, because of Steiner's anti-intellectual
)philosophy.
Um... Willow? Exactly what are you trying to say here?
) These
) are facts, David - you cannot dismiss them as myth or interpretation.
) The
) children of many of the critics here have required thousands of dollars
) /
) pounds to be spent on tutoring, remedial education, counseling, and
) other
) efforts to pick up the pieces that Waldorf has left behind, when it was
) removed from their lives as a consequence of the damage it had done
) there.
That's certainly possible. I really can't judge what went on there.
) That's a lot of time, investigation, personal experience, personal
) suffering, and individual critical thinking, that you're dismissing so
) lightly, and I think it's indicative of your attitude, which I find
) disturbing.
Well, there are a lot of disturbing attitudes on this list. In fact, I
sometimes find myself feeling physically ill after reading a post or
two...
But I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
)You began with a series of articulate posts that attracted my
) attention and gave me the impression that you were interested in a
) reasonable discussion of the subject. However, when other people have
) described experiences and conclusions that were at odds with your own,
) you
) began to find pigeonholes and preconceived explanations that you tried
) to
) fit to the information and the people sharing it, and though I differ
) with
) many of these people about many things, I have also spent enough time
) here
) to learn of, and respect, the very considerable weight of first-hand
) knowledge and thorough research that they bring to these conversations.
)
I'm sorry that my initial reaction to these claims was incredulity, but
they are so far removed from *anything* I've ever experienced that I did
have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
) You had my attention, in other words, and my judgement was at worst
) withheld pending further evidence, and at best positive - until you were
)
) confronted by experience at odds with your own, and rather than taking
) the
) intellectually honest route of attempting to consider all possibilities
) and
) find an explanation that fit all available data points, you began to
) discard significant data as irrelevant, based on excuses which *clearly
) do
) not fit* the circumstances.
Well, whether my "excuses" were irrelevant is your outlook -- it may be
valid, or not. But you're right. I'll try to consider what you say.
)
) You see, David, your school may have been anomalous - or, the ones
) attended
) by the critics may have been the anomalies. But pretending that they
) don't
) exist doesn't have the same effect as an objective assessment of the
) number
) of schools that are as good as yours, the number which suffered horrific
)
) incidents such as those recounted first-hand by critics, and the number
) that probably lie somewhere on the middle ground in between.
)
) When you consider your unrelated experience to contradict that of
) another
) person, you are drawing some very unwarranted conclusions, which are
) essentially based on your belief that *the conclusions* that you drew
) from
) your experience carry more weight than the first-hand account of the
) individual in question. At that point, you might as well simply say "I
) don't believe you, because you are telling me something other than what
) I
) think I know about the world", and end the conversation right there,
) because there's no point in continuing it if the other speaker is
) wasting
) their breath on ears that have chosen to feign deafness, in the smug
) belief
) that your knowledge of the world has allowed you to spot a liar.
Forgive me... the enflamed, accusatory nature of the board in general
contributed to my defensiveness at first... but there have since been
some truly good discussions.
)
) If you are going to bother with the conversation, why not try giving
) other
) speakers the same respect that they give you - that of asking questions,
)
) albeit some hard and probing ones, rather than assuming that they know
) better than you do what your experiences have been? You'll almost
) certainly find that it's more effective, and you're more likely to come
) to
) a correct conclusion if you do not simply dismiss as inaccurate any data
)
) which conflicts with your current views.
)
) It is true that there are people in the world who get their jollies by
) telling lies. However, it is unreasonable to simply dismiss as liars,
) or
) deluded, every individual one may meet who tells one something that is
) in
) any way at odds with one's own beliefs - at least, without
) investigation. Facts can disprove a claim - sometimes without more than
)
) the most minimal of consideration - but that is NOT the same thing as
) dismissing a claim simply because it is not in accordance with one's
) preconceived notions.
)
That's our real problem, isn't it? Lack of real, objective facts.
) If you are here to discuss these issues in a truly open-minded,
) skeptical,
) critical thinking approach, then I suggest you find some approach that
) either disproves the claims you are attempting to refute, or calls them
) into question on a logical or factual basis, rather than simply
) dismissing
) them on clearly inapplicable grounds, simply because they differed from
) your own experience.
I guess my point in relating my experiences was not to invalidate
others' experiences, but to show that Waldorf *does* work in at least
some cases. Neither of us can draw conclusions about the entire movement
based on single instances of good or bad experience.
)
) You wouldn't make the criticisms of Waldorf that the critics here have
) made, would you?
For the most part, no, although you do make some valid points.
I wish there was a more constructive attitude here(precluded, I assume,
by frustration and hard feelings).
I never had reason to make those criticisms -- that's whay it may be
hard for me to understand yours, at least initially.
)Well, then, either the critics are here because their
) experiences are different from yours, or because they drew different
) conclusions from the same types of experiences, or they are lying about
) their experiences. Now, it's very hard to reach the conclusion that
) someone is illiterate if they are an excellent communicator in written
) media, so it would be hard for a parent to come to that conclusion if
) their
) experiences had been like yours - they'd have to be pretty deluded, if
) you're accurately describing your school experiences. So, that leaves
) us
) with the following range of possibilities:
)
) a) the people here have different experiences, in which case it is
) unreasonable to call their experiences into question simply because they
)
) differ with yours.
) b) the people here have had the same kind of school experiences as
) yours,
) but were deluded into thinking that they were damaging nightmarish
) experiences that in some cases seriously harmed their children. There's
)
) not much point in conversing with the critics if you believe that's the
) case, given the level of delusion that would be involved.
) c) the critics are lying. If that is your view, you're better off
) being
) open about it, instead of attempting to act conciliatory while being
) patronizingly dismissive toward people with more years of experience
) with
) Waldorf schools than you've been alive. People are more likely to take
) you
) seriously as a hoax-buster, if that is indeed your goal, if you have
) been
) honest about your views.
)
) In short, either you see the critics as lying, or deluded - or else your
)
) patronizingly dismissive attitude is pretty inappropriate, since what
) you're reading is precisely what you came here to read - first-person
) accounts of the experiences which motivate the critics in their
) criticism. If you believe that the critics are reasonable people, and
) you
) believe that they became critics based on their experiences, then you
) can't
) expect those experiences to be like yours, or you would have become a
) critic.
)
Whew! Okay, okay. Point taken. I reserve judgement, but thusfar, I think
that most critics have at least a solid, if subjective, basis for their
claims.
) )The truth is that Waldorf provides a slower academic start,
) )teaching writing and math in such a way as to provide a
) )strong base for more intense academics in grades 6, 7 and 8.
) )By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his academic
) )skills often surpass college level.
)
) As for the "truth" about Waldorf, I find this oft-repeated claim rather
) interesting, considering that the teachers at the local Waldorf school
) told
) us directly that their graduates need to take remedial science in
) University to get up to speed if they choose a science major. That
) would
) not be necessary if the schools were as solid in basic academic skills
) as
) you portray them. While your school may have the results you describe
) (can
) you suggest how we could verify this claim?), that claim must at very
) least
) be less universal than it is portrayed; there remain schools such as
) the
) one Dan Dugan's son attended. It is hard to move on to a university
) when
) you have been taught that the heart does not pump blood, that gnomes are
)
) real, and that the basic elements are "Earth, Air, Fire and Water" (as
) opposed to Hydrogen, Helium, etc).
Again, those experiences are so far removed from mine, or seemingly
distorted versions of them, that I can't comment except to say that
"that's not how it is everywhere". I was taught that the heart pumps
blood, and everything that the provincal curriculum had, but also to
question a purely mechanistic view of the human body. And there was a
periodic table up on the wall. We can's ignore either experience.
)
) True or false, your efforts to discredit the claims made here are not
) going
) to help your cause unless and until you can back them up with points of
) factual conflict.
And I would ask the same of you.
) Without them, you come across as yet another teenager
) smug in the certainty that nobody over 25 actually thinks or knows
) anything... which really doesn't do a lot to support your contention
) that
) Waldorf schools turn out graduates with a firm grasp of educational
) basics
) such as logic.
)
)
) Willow
)
)
)
(Sigh) Now who's being patronising? By the way, I'm 23. And I try not to
judge people by their age.
David.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:14:07 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
Willow Firesong wrote:
) Hitler, like everything else in the world, has some commonalities and
) differences with a wide variety of individuals and subjects. Sometimes
) these are relevant - particularly when dealing with racist occultists in
)
) German society of the early 20th century - and constitute the most
) effective way to make a point.
)
) For instance, some people claim to be inherently morally superior by
) virtue
) of their choice not to eat meat - yet, as I've been known to point out,
) Hitler was a vegetarian; this, in my opinion, does an excellent job of
) illustrating the point that the one characteristic does not serve to
) establish the other. This is also one of the flaws in the "ad hominem"
) argument - one cannot measure the value of an idea by the character of
) an
) individual adherent, because any person can subscribe to any idea,
) regardless of flaws in their own character.
)
) And, I think shutting down the public service advertising of a consumer
) watchdog group on the basis that they are "a hate group" draws its own
) implied comparisons. People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass
) houses.
A watchdog group? I think a more objective and less vitriolic tone would
lend more credibility to that term.
Allowing and/or encouraging discrimination and abusive behaviour
) in an educational institution which is open to the public is a very
) effective way of ensuring that sooner or later, there will be some
) negative
) feedback.
)
) Venerating a racist occultist dedicated to promoting the evolution of
) the
) Aryan race, as humanity's most advanced, is something that can only be
) described in so many ways, and which renders certain comparisons
) inevitable.
I say that's at worst slander, and at best, a gross misunderstanding of
Steiner's philosophy. But you're free to draw whatever conclusions you
want.
)Were such comparisons to highlight the differences, rather
) than the similarities, of the individuals thus compared, I suspect that
) they would not be considered to be as threatening. However, the data
) speak
) for themselves, we're merely correlating and commenting upon them.
)
) If the comparison of Steiner with Hitler didn't hold water, it would be
) so
) much easier to dismiss, wouldn't it? Yet it's so inevitable, due to
) their
) broad areas of commonality, that people keep coming back to it, as a
) result
) of their own independent thinking.
)
Or because they find it convenient to draw casual associations between
the two becuse of the superficial things they had in common.
) I, myself, was actually noticing it all over again, recently, while
) watching an historical documentary on Hitler's relationship with the
) Wagner
) family and his classic fanatic's desire to live in the utopian fantasy
) on
) which he was fixated. The use of the pageantry and trappings of the
) nation's theatrical self-representation, as a way to reach beyond the
) intellect to trigger a more basic emotional response based on the
) simplistic world-view of the heroic tale, sounded very familiar. I've
) encountered it before, both from the Waldorf / Steiner school context
) and
) elsewhere, most notably including a variety of cults and cult-like
) groups,
) who have likewise noticed the power of the temptation to view the world
) as
) a great mythic war between good and evil, with ourselves always on the
) side
) of right, of course. If one can offer people a chance to participate in
)
) that great epic battle as the first chosen people of a new era or
) covenant
) with higher powers, it's not hard to find people eager to jump onto such
) a
) bandwagon.
)
I'm thinking of leaving the group, and this kind of thing is why. A
desire for utopia or for a mythic understanding of the world do not
denote offering people a "chance to participate in a great epic battle
as the first chosen people of a new era or covenant". Unless you think
that Jung, Campbell, Yolen and Tolkien were cultists.
(snip long section descring Steiner and Hitler as Aryan white
supremacists)
) But I think it's important to remember that comparisons can as easily
) reveal differences as commonality - so, if I were you, I wouldn't be
) seeking to avoid comparisons between Steiner (or any other person/group)
)
) and Hitler, I would be seeking to use such comparisons to demonstrate
) how
) different they were. The only logical reason to avoid the comparison is
) if
) you are afraid that they have too much in common, and too few
) differences,
) for a comparison to be complimentary to Steiner (or whoever else is
) being
) thus compared).
)
What I object to is the casual, underhanded "name dropping" of Steiner
and the most evil man of the 20th century.
One could draw the same parallel between Hitler and Diagalev, because
they were both failed artists, or W.B. Yeats and Crowley because they
were both occultists -- but it's hardly ethical to do so.
Just try for a little moderation and a little less fury in your attacks
on Waldorf. You're more likely to get people to listen if you show a
little more respect
And you know very well that Steiner and Hitler were enemies, not
associates, as Dan later pointed out.
David.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:27:06 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Clarification:
I'm not an Anthroposophist, as I've already said much earlier. However,
I do see value in the Anthroposophical world view, along with many other
world views and mythologies. I guess you could say that I'm a
pantheistic/sceptic/occultist/agnostic. For what it's worth.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:48:53 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
David, you wrote,
)Again, those experiences are so far removed from mine, or seemingly
)distorted versions of them, that I can't comment except to say that
)"that's not how it is everywhere". I was taught that the heart pumps
)blood, and everything that the provincal curriculum had, but also to
)question a purely mechanistic view of the human body. And there was a
)periodic table up on the wall. We can's ignore either experience.
I'm sure there are Waldorf teachers who teach real science, though
they have to go against the grain to do it. How about we start with
your 4th grade "man and animal" lesson book, David.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:55:00 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: comparisons with Hitler - was RE: Philosophy of Freedom
David, you wrote,
)What I object to is the casual, underhanded "name dropping" of Steiner
)and the most evil man of the 20th century.
)
)One could draw the same parallel between Hitler and Diagalev, because
)they were both failed artists, or W.B. Yeats and Crowley because they
)were both occultists -- but it's hardly ethical to do so.
But David, Waldorf asked for it! I was only curious when I took one
of Steiner's books off the shelf at our school. I wasn't looking for
1920s German racism! What the hell was it doing in our school in San
Francisco?
)Just try for a little moderation and a little less fury in your attacks
)on Waldorf. You're more likely to get people to listen if you show a
)little more respect
Anthroposophy and its works will be respectable when it becomes honest.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:01:43 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Public Schools
Willow wrote,
)You see, David, your school may have been anomalous - or, the ones
)attended by the critics may have been the anomalies.
Or David's school may not have been as good as he likes to think it
was. Let's see some evidence beyond your opinion, David.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:13:01 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Goodbye
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Willow wrote,
)
) )You see, David, your school may have been anomalous - or, the ones
) )attended by the critics may have been the anomalies.
)
) Or David's school may not have been as good as he likes to think it
) was. Let's see some evidence beyond your opinion, David.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
(Sigh) I give up. There's no hope of actually accomplishing anything
here. I have listened, and I will try to get people to listen to your
valid concerns, but participation here is making me ill. Good luck with
your lawsuit (I don't think much will come of it, but we'll see) and
here's hoping that we can eventually all be content with the state of
Waldorf in the world.
But for now, adieu, though I'll keep reading and thinking.
-- David.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 05:36:00 -0500
From: lumiere paris.com
Subject: Re: Clarification:
David Gill (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca) gives _lumiere
an opportunity to follow my earlier post to this list,
From: "_ lumiere" (lumiere paris.com)
Sent: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 05:08:44 -0500
Subject: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
wherein I said "What about the children?"
Indeed:
David said:
)'m not an Anthroposophist, as I've already said much earlier.
)However, do see value in the Anthroposophical world view,
)along with many other world views and mythologies. I guess
)you could say that I'm a pantheistic/sceptic/occultist/agnostic.
)For what it's worth.
_lumiere says:
Not much.
You're a bit young and wet behind the ears to be all things to all men.
Only God, saints and apostles, Nietzsche -- and modern politicians -- even
attempt it, usually without much success.
Young people, of course, like to try out the variety of human philosophical
and religious -ics and -isms, wallowing in the whole panoply of
intellectual and anti-intellectual fashions much as they try out the latest
consumer fads in pop music, clothes, shoes, body adornment and mutilation,
and mind altering substances.
It's certainly typical of Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical mystery school
graduates.
You're halfway to being an Anthroposophist, whether you know it or not.
First, you're a skeptic -- of everything except Steiner and Anthrposophy.
Nothing you've said since arriving on this list has indicated any
skepticism of either guru or his religion. So you're skeptical of the
things Steiner wanted you to be, but not of the things you should be.
Second, you're an "agnostic" -- literally meaning you reject the
possibility of knowing if there is one overarching god. Thus you exceed
the bounds of skepticism, which by its nature allows for the possibility of
a thing to be so. The true meaning of modern agnosticism was always a
*search* for evidence of God. Hardly the occupation of pantheistic
occultists.
Third, you're a pantheist -- literally meaning that you DO believe there
are SOME -- many -- gods (or spirits, or gnomes, or undines, incubi and
succubi, or whatever creatures populate the higher astral planes of
Steiner's cosmology). Thus your skepticism fails you again, and serves
Steiner well, because belief in ANY MULTIPLE supernatural beings is
desirable, and negates skepticism.
Fourth, you're an occultist -- literally meaning that you are a believer in
things which are not in evidence, specifically supernatural beings, forces,
evil and good, light and dark, Ahura Mazda and Lucifer. Again, so much for
skepticism, and precisely according to Steiner's "pedagogy".
This is exactly what your "teachers" (priests) at your Waldorf school
wanted: to programme you *spiritually* to accept movement towards Steiner's
"Sixth Epoch" when all the good souls who have been instructed properly,
and have found their true place in his scheme of things (ubermenschen) will
rule the rest of us poor dregs, and, eventually replace the need for us by
reproducing (cloning) yourselves ("man shall speak forth man").
You didn't get an education, you got brainwashed.
And the proof is your reactionary defense of Steiner and Waldorf. Again, so
much for skepticism. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Steiner's
smoke and mirrors guru trick that you are a free-thinking individual whose
every thought must be right because you imagine it to be so.
This is what it means to "see value in the Anthroposophical world view" --
to be inculcated with the belief in the irrational, intuitional,
spiritual-insight into higher realms that Steiner promised, that leads to
unshakeable belief in the world as you imagine it.
Turn that skepticism on yourself and your guru and your world-view, young pup.
For real, in the evidence-based world-view of reason, not Steiner's
fantasy-land.
_lumiere
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
One click access to the Top Search Engines
http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:45:56 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Clarification:
Oooh! you must be right. I am an Anthro. How clear-headed of you to see
that.
I say: Smeg off! Who are you to question the validity of my beliefs and
the variety of my questing? This kind of dogmatic closed-mindedness is
the reason I'm leaving this place. You obviously don't need me here as
you obviously know everythng about be already.
Goodnight, Mr. "lumiere"
lumiere paris.com wrote:
) David Gill (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca) gives _lumiere
) an opportunity to follow my earlier post to this list,
) From: "_ lumiere" (lumiere paris.com)
) Sent: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 05:08:44 -0500
) Subject: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
) wherein I said "What about the children?"
)
) Indeed:
)
) David said:
)
) )'m not an Anthroposophist, as I've already said much earlier.
) )However, do see value in the Anthroposophical world view,
) )along with many other world views and mythologies. I guess
) )you could say that I'm a pantheistic/sceptic/occultist/agnostic.
)
) )For what it's worth.
)
) _lumiere says:
)
) Not much.
)
) You're a bit young and wet behind the ears to be all things to all men.
)
) Only God, saints and apostles, Nietzsche -- and modern politicians --
) even
) attempt it, usually without much success.
)
) Young people, of course, like to try out the variety of human
) philosophical
) and religious -ics and -isms, wallowing in the whole panoply of
) intellectual and anti-intellectual fashions much as they try out the
) latest
) consumer fads in pop music, clothes, shoes, body adornment and
) mutilation,
) and mind altering substances.
)
) It's certainly typical of Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical mystery
) school
) graduates.
)
) You're halfway to being an Anthroposophist, whether you know it or not.
)
) First, you're a skeptic -- of everything except Steiner and
) Anthrposophy.
) Nothing you've said since arriving on this list has indicated any
) skepticism of either guru or his religion. So you're skeptical of the
) things Steiner wanted you to be, but not of the things you should be.
)
) Second, you're an "agnostic" -- literally meaning you reject the
) possibility of knowing if there is one overarching god. Thus you exceed
) the bounds of skepticism, which by its nature allows for the possibility
) of
) a thing to be so. The true meaning of modern agnosticism was always a
) *search* for evidence of God. Hardly the occupation of pantheistic
) occultists.
)
) Third, you're a pantheist -- literally meaning that you DO believe there
) are SOME -- many -- gods (or spirits, or gnomes, or undines, incubi and
) succubi, or whatever creatures populate the higher astral planes of
) Steiner's cosmology). Thus your skepticism fails you again, and serves
) Steiner well, because belief in ANY MULTIPLE supernatural beings is
) desirable, and negates skepticism.
)
) Fourth, you're an occultist -- literally meaning that you are a believer
) in
) things which are not in evidence, specifically supernatural beings,
) forces,
) evil and good, light and dark, Ahura Mazda and Lucifer. Again, so much
) for
) skepticism, and precisely according to Steiner's "pedagogy".
)
) This is exactly what your "teachers" (priests) at your Waldorf school
) wanted: to programme you *spiritually* to accept movement towards
) Steiner's
) "Sixth Epoch" when all the good souls who have been instructed properly,
) and have found their true place in his scheme of things (ubermenschen)
) will
) rule the rest of us poor dregs, and, eventually replace the need for us
) by
) reproducing (cloning) yourselves ("man shall speak forth man").
)
) You didn't get an education, you got brainwashed.
)
) And the proof is your reactionary defense of Steiner and Waldorf. Again,
) so
) much for skepticism. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Steiner's
) smoke and mirrors guru trick that you are a free-thinking individual
) whose
) every thought must be right because you imagine it to be so.
)
) This is what it means to "see value in the Anthroposophical world view"
) --
) to be inculcated with the belief in the irrational, intuitional,
) spiritual-insight into higher realms that Steiner promised, that leads
) to
) unshakeable belief in the world as you imagine it.
)
) Turn that skepticism on yourself and your guru and your world-view,
) young pup.
)
) For real, in the evidence-based world-view of reason, not Steiner's
) fantasy-land.
)
) _lumiere
)
)
)
)
)
) --
) __________________________________________________________
) Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
) http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
)
) One click access to the Top Search Engines
) http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:48:24 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Clarification:
)You obviously don't need me here as
) you obviously know everythng about *be* already.
That's *me*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:09:19 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
on 12/4/02 9:46 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) Though I have never witnessed this in Waldorf schools (as opposed to my
) experiences in other public/private schools), if it is occuring, those
) teachers are grossly misinterpreting Steiner's theory of karma. It's
) almost unthinkable that any Waldorf teacher I know would do such a
) thing, but if they are out there, they should be stopped!
Sharon: My child's W teacher made her sit between two bullies (for ages and
ages) which in retrospect is probably one of the things that made her most
miserable. I never understood the logic of this but the teacher thought it
should be done. Waldorf teachers are very deliberate about who sits next to
who. A journalist once told us that she saw a list of children's names and
their Zodiac sign which probably helped in decision making. When we left
Waldorf, I was relieved because I knew my kid would not have to sit in
between these two boys who were making her cry and stressed. Unfortunately
one of the boys left at the same time and ended up in my daughter's public
school class. I was really worried because I wanted the situation to be
resolved and now he was going to be in her new class. When my daughter found
out she was very upset. The public school teacher did not sit them near each
other and I never heard another word about him. He wasn't an issue anymore.
(I actually really liked this little boy, but for some reason my kid and he
didn't like each other. Probably because of their time together in ancient
Greece which the teacher knew all about (G)).
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 903
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Public Schools
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Proof and objective studies - was RE: public schools
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: The Advent Spiral
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Goodbye
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: comparisons with Hitler
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Clarification:
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Goodbye
By dan dandugan.com
RE: lawsuit
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Goodbye
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Goodbye
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Goodbye
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Goodbye
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Goodbye
By dan dandugan.com
RE: lawsuit
By debharve hotmail.com
Re: Clarification:-cynicism
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Clarification:-cynicism
By lumiere paris.com
Re: Goodbye
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions a
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: lawsuit
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:46:26 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Public Schools
on 12/4/02 11:49 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) I guess my point in relating my experiences was not to invalidate
) others' experiences, but to show that Waldorf *does* work in at least
) some cases. Neither of us can draw conclusions about the entire movement
) based on single instances of good or bad experience.
Sharon: Waldorf works best if your parents are believers and consequently
"in the know". In your case it worked perfectly because your mother is a
believer and now you have been drawn into the fold.
Steiner told his followers that an "occultist will never dream of imposing
dogmas", instead "he is one who tells what he has seen and tested in the
astral and spiritual worlds or what has been revealed to him by trustworthy
and reliable teachers. He does not desire to convert but to quicken in
others the sense that has awakened in him and to enable them to see
likewise" (An Esoteric Cosmology The Astral World X
http://wnelib.com/Steiner/Lectures/Places/Paris/19060606p01.html).
Sharon: Waldorf sure worked for your family, it 'quickened your sense to see
likewise'. Waldorf had the same effect on me, only with a different outcome.
After my awakening we became ardent critics. Your mom must be pleased with
your appetite for Anthroposophy, now we will wait to see if you end up being
a Waldorf teacher sometime in the future (G). Unfortunately Ballet is a real
no no in Waldorf, but perhaps you'll enjoy the deeper aspects of Eurythmy
which is a "form of dance" - not! (G) Hey, here's an idea, you could become
a high priest of Waldorf, you could pursue Eurythmy training, become a
Eurythmist and sell Eurythmy slippers. (G) Yikes! Better put a protective B
on a spiral so as to protect my astral body from being slapped by yours!
(Just ribbing you).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:26:22 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Proof and objective studies - was RE: public schools
on 12/4/02 10:54 PM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
)
) First of all, perhaps part of that is because it *is* a different
) school. While there are systemic problems throughout the Waldorf schools,
) how they manifest is going to be different from one school to the next.
Sharon: I noticed "A Call for Courtesy" in our ex-school's paper "Calyx vol.
23 issue 3 2002". Evidently, the Dutch Anthroposophist Leo Klein who visits
our ex-school with regularity has told a teacher there that the school needs
to teach the children better manners.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:48:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The Advent Spiral
on 12/4/02 8:20 PM, Ray Fulk at fractalfrydaddy comcast.net wrote:
)
)
)
) Anonymous advent quote:
)) "And
)) when
)) you come outside and wait, the you will receive your apple to
)) bring
)) home. And if you do not munch into it like the horses or cows do,
)) but
)) ask Father or Mother to cut a thin slice across it, and hold it to
)) the candlelight, then you will see the fine form of the earth as
)) it
)) is going to be in times to come."
)
) There's that 5 pointed star again.
) Ray
Sharon: Yup. A Vulcan lesson for juniors. Christ has united himself with the
Earth, on Vulcan man becomes the creator - the Sun - because the Second Sun
which dwells in the chest-being and makes the blood circulate unites with
the Christ on Vulcan.
Elizabeth Vreede: "At the holy Christmas time we celebrate the birth of that
child who was to become the bearer of the Christ. The Christ child is born
year after year, for the Sun comes year after year once more to the same
point, which is the lowest one for its annual course. At that point it
develops least the high powers that lead it astray at the same hour it is
visible without perceptible light to the spiritual gaze as the midnight sun.
In the Christ events that commence thirty years after the birth - with the
baptism in the Jordan River on January 6 - and last for three and a half
years, lies the germ of the fact that the second sun will be able to unite
itself with the finally spiritualized Earth at the end of Earth evolution.
There too is the germ for the redemption of the luciferic sun that,
unredeemed, must consume the earth. So at the Christmas festival let us
remember that from now humanity must make it possible for the earth to
realize its destiny, which is to become a sun" (43-44 Anthroposophy and
Astrology. Elizabeth Vreede. Anthroposophic Press 2001. Letter from 1928).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:54:56 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Or David's school may not have been as good as he likes to think it
) ) was. Let's see some evidence beyond your opinion, David.
David replied: ) (Sigh) I give up. There's no hope of actually accomplishing
anything
) here.
Walden wonders: Why give up? The question was entirely appropriate and not
an attack. "No hope of accomplishing anything?" Au contraire... this is
the perfect place to accomplish something. However, I was told to "cool it"
and my previous questions about that particular school will be answered. I
will be patient and trust that David has not really given up.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:05:46 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: comparisons with Hitler
Hi Willow, hi David,
that was a fine reflection on the question of comparisons, Willow. Thanks
for posting it. I have a couple of bones to pick with David's replies:
) )The
) ) Waldorf schools in Hitler's Germany were kept open for quite some )time
) ) by
) ) the Nazi party, because of Steiner's anti-intellectual
) )philosophy.
)
)Um... Willow? Exactly what are you trying to say here?
I think she's trying to let you in on some of the history of the Waldorf
movement, David. I must say I am a little puzzled by your apparent lack of
interest in this topic. When the Nazis came to power, a considerable portion
of the Waldorf leadership in Germany -- along with quite a few other
anthroposophists -- took the initiative in cozying up to the new rulers, and
succeeded in keeping Waldorf schools open for a remarkably long time (the
Nazis took over at the beginning of 1933, and the last Waldorf school didn't
close until the middle of 1941, after Rudolf Hess, anthroposophy's chief
protector within the Nazi hierarchy, flew to Britain). One of the arguments
that Waldorf leaders used most frequently and effectively in their
negotiations with the Nazi educational bureaucracy was Steiner's (and
Waldorf's) anti-intellectualism. A number of contemporary German
anthroposophists have explored this history at length and divulged some very
interesting documents from the period, by Waldorf leaders as well as by Nazi
functionaries. If you know anyone who reads German, I would be happy to send
you photocopies of some of this material. You can also find some brief
summaries of the existing research in the articles by Peter Zegers and me at
the PLANS site.
) ) Venerating a racist occultist dedicated to promoting the evolution of
) ) the
) ) Aryan race, as humanity's most advanced, is something that can only be
) ) described in so many ways, and which renders certain comparisons
) ) inevitable.
)
)I say that's at worst slander, and at best, a gross misunderstanding of
)Steiner's philosophy. But you're free to draw whatever conclusions you
)want.
There is nothing slanderous in that passage. Also, nobody is ever free to
draw whatever conclusions they want, at least not if they expect other
people to take them seriously. We ought to draw conclusions that are
warranted by the available evidence. You seem to be unfamiliar with a fair
bit of that evidence, however. If I understand what you wrote above, you are
denying that Steiner considered the Aryan race to be humanity's most
advanced. If so, you are mistaken, and this makes it hard for those of us
who are familiar with Steiner's racial doctrines to take your complaints
about "gross misunderstanding" seriously. Could you perhaps tell us what you
think Steiner's philosophy of race was, and what you think he taught about
the Aryan race, and why you think that?
)Or because they find it convenient to draw casual associations between
)the two becuse of the superficial things they had in common.
The ideological commonalities between Steiner and Hitler were far from
casual or superficial, as I pointed out a few days ago. I must ask, once
again, what you base your conclusion on. Do you dispute that Steiner
believed in the Aryan myth, that his followers looked to him as "Germany's
savior", that he was an active German nationalist in his youth and remained
attached to the notion of German cultural-spiritual superiority throughout
his life, that he was deeply influenced by the turn-of-the-century occult
subculture and its racial doctrines? Or do you dispute that the same is true
of Hitler? Or do you think that these are merely superficial similarities?
)I'm thinking of leaving the group, and this kind of thing is why. A
)desire for utopia or for a mythic understanding of the world do not
)denote offering people a "chance to participate in a great epic battle
)as the first chosen people of a new era or covenant". Unless you think
)that Jung, Campbell, Yolen and Tolkien were cultists.
That's a non-sequitur. But to get to the point: Steiner's version of utopia
and mythic worldview most certainly *does* involve a great epic battle --
explicitly divided along racial lines, among others -- starring
anthroposophists as the first chosen people of the new era. I take it that
you haven't yet encountered those particular texts by Steiner, but I've
tried several times now to get you to look into them. Why are you confident
that Willow's summary of their content is mistaken if you haven't consulted
the texts yourself? And by the way: do you think that Jung, Campbell, and
Tolkien had no racist or antisemitic strands in their thinking?
)What I object to is the casual, underhanded "name dropping" of Steiner
)and the most evil man of the 20th century.
I don't think anyone has done that lately on this list. Dan made a specific
analogy, which evidently went right over your head, but it was hardly
underhanded. It isn't name dropping to point to the commonalities between
two people who pursued relevantly similar ideological agendas at nearly the
same time within the very same cultural context. Nobody is denying the
crucial differences between the two. Would you be offended if people pointed
out parallels between Jung and Hitler? How about Heidegger and Hitler? Why
exactly does this bother you?
)One could draw the same parallel between Hitler and Diagalev, because
)they were both failed artists, or W.B. Yeats and Crowley because they
)were both occultists -- but it's hardly ethical to do so.
Don't be silly. There is nothing unethical about such comparisons, if the
point of the comparison is the specific similarity you mention. That's how
analogies work: you take two otherwise disparate phenomena and compare a
specific area of overlap. And who on earth could possibly take issue with
comparing Yeats and Crowley, for goodness' sake? Their rivalry within the
Golden Dawn is one of the more studied phenomena in the history of British
occultism, no?
)And you know very well that Steiner and Hitler were enemies, not
)associates, as Dan later pointed out.
Enemies and associates are not, of course, mutually exclusive categories.
Since we're talking about Hitler: A number of Hitler's associates, including
very close ones, eventually became his enemies, and vice versa. This happens
rather alot in history, don't you think? In any case, the fact that Steiner
and Hitler were rivals simply highlights their partially convergent goals
and teachings. Why don't you take a moment to explore those convergences in
a sober way instead of bristling at the mere suggestion that the two might
ever had anything in common? I think you might be surprised at some of what
you'll find.
Yours for comparative thinking,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:10:19 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification:
)I say: Smeg off! Who are you to question the validity of my beliefs and
)the variety of my questing?
C'mon, David. That's what public debate is for. The whole point is to
question the validity of beliefs, our own as well as other people's. I hope
you'll continue your questioning.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:47:59 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
David, you wrote,
)(Sigh) I give up. There's no hope of actually accomplishing anything
)here.
Chicken! When I ask you to back up your opinions with evidence, you
run away. This is the real world, not the Anthroposophical
never-never land where "An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is
impossible among ethically free human beings."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:10:11 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Debra Harvey, you asked,
)Who is paying Waldorfs' legal costs?
PLANS has reimbursed Scott Kendall, our 1st Amendment lawyer, for
some of his out-of-pocket expenses from our general fund (donations).
Two or three years ago we got an earmarked grant of $14,000 from a
right-wing Christian organization, Pacific Justice Institute, that
was paid directly to Kendall. The main part of his bill, currently
$28,066.36, he has graciously put on hold pending the outcome of the
lawsuit.
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:52:50 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Goodbye
Dan, I obviously don't have any evidence, other than my experience. What
I object to is the tone on the board and the fact that I don't think
that you are discussing in good faith.
) Chicken! When I ask you to back up your opinions with evidence, you
) run away. This is the real world, not the Anthroposophical
) never-never land where "An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is
) impossible among ethically free human beings."
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:59:39 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Goodbye
Walden, I really am leaving. I can no longer stomach the tone on the
board, and I don't see that anything more productive can come out of
these conversations.
Thanks for your time; I have gained some more insight into Waldorf and
it's critics from my active time here. I've also read more Steiner in
the last couple weeks than in my whole life previously. Unfortunately, I
don't agree with most of the readings I've seen here, but at least I'm
better informed.
Jamie will answer your questions, and then I think he may depart as
well. He has better things to do.
Goodnight, Mr. Walden,
David.
) Walden wonders: Why give up? The question was entirely appropriate and
) not
) an attack. "No hope of accomplishing anything?" Au contraire... this
) is
) the perfect place to accomplish something. However, I was told to "cool
) it"
) and my previous questions about that particular school will be answered.
) I
) will be patient and trust that David has not really given up.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:25:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
David wrote:
) Walden, I really am leaving. I can no longer stomach the tone on the
) board, and I don't see that anything more productive can come out of
) these conversations.
Walden: This is unfortunate but not unusual. When the conversation gets
interesting many people tend to leave. I joined and left a few times many
years ago. I did not want to learn what I thought I might just learn.
That's what it boiled down to. Like you I thought it was the *tone* that
really bothered me. Took me a while to discover it was actually the
*content* of the discussion I found very disturbing. Actually - it really
shook me. I was studying threefolding at the time and people were telling
me to become a Waldorf teacher. Really. Stop giggling. Workshops,
lectures, books... amazing, huh? True.
Anyhoooo... I found some of your *tone* rather abrasive but I try to
listen to *what* you are saying as opposed to the *tone* which is not always
easy to fathom in this medium. However, I would not hold your tone against
you and I do understand how it feels when a preconceived view of the world
is questioned. The feelings resulting from this awakening (though it might
feel like it really *is* something one can no longer stomach) can be
difficult to deal with. Believe me when I say... I can relate.
) Thanks for your time; I have gained some more insight into Waldorf and
) it's critics from my active time here.
Thanks for stopping by and for *your* time, as well.
I've also read more Steiner in
) the last couple weeks than in my whole life previously. Unfortunately, I
) don't agree with most of the readings I've seen here, but at least I'm
) better informed.
I don't know if you mean the "readings" from Steiner or critics. In any
case - reading Steiner and the Critics is always interesting. Learning is a
good thing and this list is the only place I know of where healthy
discussions regarding Steiner and Waldorf (despite the tone) are available.
) Jamie will answer your questions, and then I think he may depart as
) well. He has better things to do.
You were invited to answer those questions, as well. You choose not to do
so.
Let's let Jamie decide for himself, shall we? He is free.
) Goodnight, Mr. Walden,
Goodnight, David. I wish you well.
-Steve Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:52:28 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
on 12/5/02 1:59 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) Walden, I really am leaving.
Sharon: So long it's been nice ta know ya!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:38:49 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Goodbye
David, you wrote,
)Dan, I obviously don't have any evidence, other than my experience.
You do have evidence. Twice you've ignored my request to see your
lesson books. I'll put them on the web so we can discuss them.
)What
)I object to is the tone on the board and the fact that I don't think
)that you are discussing in good faith.
This assertion you'll have to back up with evidence, also.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:44:18 -0600
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Interesting response Dan but I asked about Waldorf not PLANS.
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:10:11 -0800
Debra Harvey, you asked,
)Who is paying Waldorfs' legal costs?
PLANS has reimbursed Scott Kendall, our 1st Amendment lawyer, for some of
his out-of-pocket expenses from our general fund (donations). Two or three
years ago we got an earmarked grant of $14,000 from a right-wing Christian
organization, Pacific Justice Institute, that was paid directly to Kendall.
The main part of his bill, currently $28,066.36, he has graciously put on
hold pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:54:09 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification:-cynicism
I find your post strewn with a kind of militant ignorance that seems to
prevail among the so called "critical thinkers". Especially when it comes to
the idea of compassion.
)
) You're a bit young and wet behind the ears to be all things to all men.
So, I take it that you are *old* and *wise* then.
) Only God, saints and apostles, Nietzsche -- and modern politicians -- even
) attempt it, usually without much success.
Well, it takes one to know one.
) Young people, of course, like to try out the variety of human
philosophical
) and religious -ics and -isms, wallowing in the whole panoply of
) intellectual and anti-intellectual fashions much as they try out the
latest
) consumer fads in pop music, clothes, shoes, body adornment and mutilation,
) and mind altering substances.
) It's certainly typical of Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophical mystery school
) graduates.
It's also typical of intellectually biased, emotionally ignorant old wise
men to categorize people as such.
) You're halfway to being an Anthroposophist, whether you know it or not.
Did you say something about God earlier?
) First, you're a skeptic -- of everything except Steiner and Anthrposophy.
) Nothing you've said since arriving on this list has indicated any
) skepticism of either guru or his religion. So you're skeptical of the
) things Steiner wanted you to be, but not of the things you should be.
I think he should be very skeptical of intellectually biased, emotionally
ignorant old wise men.
) Second, you're an "agnostic" -- literally meaning you reject the
) possibility of knowing if there is one overarching god. Thus you exceed
) the bounds of skepticism, which by its nature allows for the possibility
of
) a thing to be so. The true meaning of modern agnosticism was always a
) *search* for evidence of God. Hardly the occupation of pantheistic
) occultists.
Twisted rhetoric.
) Third, you're a pantheist -- literally meaning that you DO believe there
) are SOME -- many -- gods (or spirits, or gnomes, or undines, incubi and
) succubi, or whatever creatures populate the higher astral planes of
) Steiner's cosmology). Thus your skepticism fails you again, and serves
) Steiner well, because belief in ANY MULTIPLE supernatural beings is
) desirable, and negates skepticism.
)
) Fourth, you're an occultist -- literally meaning that you are a believer
in
) things which are not in evidence, specifically supernatural beings,
forces,
) evil and good, light and dark, Ahura Mazda and Lucifer. Again, so much for
) skepticism, and precisely according to Steiner's "pedagogy".
More twisted rhetoric.
) This is exactly what your "teachers" (priests) at your Waldorf school
) wanted: to programme you *spiritually* to accept movement towards
Steiner's
) "Sixth Epoch" when all the good souls who have been instructed properly,
) and have found their true place in his scheme of things (ubermenschen)
will
) rule the rest of us poor dregs, and, eventually replace the need for us by
) reproducing (cloning) yourselves ("man shall speak forth man").
Even more twisted rhetoric with a touch of the old "us and them" added in.
) You didn't get an education, you got brainwashed.
And you forgot to develop the emotional aspect of your intelligence.
) And the proof is your reactionary defense of Steiner and Waldorf.
Ah.... your whole post sounds a bit like a *reactionary* defense to me.
Again, so
) much for skepticism. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Steiner's
) smoke and mirrors guru trick that you are a free-thinking individual whose
) every thought must be right because you imagine it to be so.
A fine example of bitterness and paranoia.
)
) This is what it means to "see value in the Anthroposophical world view" --
) to be inculcated with the belief in the irrational, intuitional,
) spiritual-insight into higher realms that Steiner promised, that leads to
) unshakeable belief in the world as you imagine it.
So you are absolutely right, and anyone that might even be inclined to
disagree, ever so slightly, is absolutely wrong, and thus brainwashed. Did
I get that right?
) Turn that skepticism on yourself and your guru and your world-view, young
pup.
And you turn your militant emotional ignorance into emotional maturity, old
wise man.
) For real, in the evidence-based world-view of reason, not Steiner's
) fantasy-land.
Personally, I'd take Tolkien's fantasy-land over Steiner's. But, if your
post is any indication of what's it's like to live in your *Real*
"evidence-based world-view of reason", then I'd take Steiner's, hands down.
Eye for an eye
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 00:53:05 -0500
From: lumiere paris.com
Subject: Re: Clarification:-cynicism
At 22:54 -0500 5/12/02, Mike Helsher wrote, in answer to _lumiere's
critique of David Gill's swan song:
)I find your post strewn with a kind of militant ignorance that seems to
)prevail among the so called "critical thinkers". Especially when it comes to
)the idea of compassion.
_lumiere says:
I'm not going to engage in an ad-hominem battle with you.
My comments about David's logical faults were argued from his own words and
gave examples and made statements of ideas about David's logical faults. I
did not engage in ad hominem.
To all of your remarks I would say: do you have a point of argument here,
other than to -- as you say in your closing paragraph -- take "an eye for
an eye"?
If you have some intellectual arguments against my critique, please supply
them, and there might be something to debate. The same was true of David,
and has always been true of people who come on this list with praise
for Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposoophy, then huff and puff and fluff off
when challenged.
)Well, it takes one to know one.
)
)Did you say something about God earlier?
)
)I think he should be very skeptical of intellectually biased, emotionally
)ignorant old wise men.
Oh, I will interject one comment here: how do you know I am old?
Or, were you talking about Steiner? Fits him better than me ...
)Twisted rhetoric.
Elucidate or your comment fails. Show HOW it is twisted, and exactly what
you mean.
)More twisted rhetoric.
Sheesh! Same requirement.
)Even more twisted rhetoric with a touch of the old "us and them" added in.
Oh, boy! Same requirement. There is certainly a wide gulf between my
world-view and David's, but that does not make it an "us and them" issue
--whatever that is. I think you are engaging in the logical fallacy of
setting up a straw man. Your comments create divisiveness, not mine.
)) You didn't get an education, you got brainwashed.
)
)And you forgot to develop the emotional aspect of your intelligence.
This would be the new-age EQ (emotional quotient) perhaps?
Can you provide an argument that gives evidence of how what I said
indicates that my EQ is ... underdeveloped?
)) And the proof is your reactionary defense of Steiner and Waldorf.
)
)Ah.... your whole post sounds a bit like a *reactionary* defense to me.
What did I say that is reactionary? What am I defending? I thought I was
attacking David's arguments with other arguments. Did I miss something?
))Again, so
)) much for skepticism. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Steiner's
)) smoke and mirrors guru trick that you are a free-thinking individual whose
)) every thought must be right because you imagine it to be so.
)
)A fine example of bitterness and paranoia.
??? (sound of speechlessness) ... Um, erm, can you say how this is so?
)So you are absolutely right, and anyone that might even be inclined to
)disagree, ever so slightly, is absolutely wrong, and thus brainwashed. Did
)I get that right?
No, I don't think so. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of putting
words in my mouth. Would you like to try addressing the arguments?
)) Turn that skepticism on yourself and your guru and your world-view, young
))pup.
)
)And you turn your militant emotional ignorance into emotional maturity, old
)wise man.
So ... David, by virtue of his Steiner brainwashing (and you, also, feel
this way about yourself, I can tell by your responses) are emotionally
mature, and I'm not? Did I get that right?
)) For real, in the evidence-based world-view of reason, not Steiner's
)) fantasy-land.
)
)Personally, I'd take Tolkien's fantasy-land over Steiner's. But, if your
)post is any indication of what's it's like to live in your *Real*
)"evidence-based world-view of reason", then I'd take Steiner's, hands down.
Yes, that's obvious, as are all posts by people who come here with nothing
but praise and devotion for Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
But ... *why* are my arguments a good illustration of why you, or anyone,
should prefer Steiner's irrational fantasy land over the rationalist's
evidence-based world-view?
This argument has been canvassed on this list many times, and comes down to
the epistemological problem of how do we know what we know, how do we know
that what we think is real, is?
You, David, and hundreds of others who have been here, will simply not deal
with evidence -- ever. You want to argue from "imagination" and "insight"
-- literally, Steiner's fantasyland of clairvoyant vision into the higher
realms. That is the brainwashing. I am prepared to deal with any
evidence of these
higher realms and supernatural things; you cannot give me any
evidence of them. A
world-view founded on self-invention is not to my liking, and I have never seen
convincing arguments -- forget the evidence I really want -- to give
me any confidence
that it can possibly be.
Like so many other critics before me, apparently, I guess I'll have to wait
till the Sixth Epoch for the answers to critical questions and comments
about your world-view. We're certainly not getting any evidence from you
all.
)Eye for an eye
)
)Mike
Well, no. And I'm surprised to hear you say it. I thought Steiner Waldorf
Anthroposophical people were gentles.
Provide logical argument based on evidence, and eschew ad hominem
invective, and we'll talk. Otherwise, peddle your flame-bait elsewhere -- I
won't bite.
_lumiere
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
One click access to the Top Search Engines
http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:22:31 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
David says Goodbye. Various WCs repond to this in various ways. At least one
DOF criticises at least one of these ways. Peter Farrell decides to add his
own farewell comments with a plea that David stays.
G'day David et alia.
I for one am sorry to see you go. My own opinion is that as long as you are
still arguing someone in the vicinity might learn something even if the
protagonists only escape with their own points of view further entrenched. I
can only assure that I have an open mind which is persuaded by argument and
evidence. I have changed my mind in recent times. I am regularly moved to
reconsider long held opinions.
The WCs are not a monolithic block any more than the DOFs are. I have no
idea about the lurkers although I have spent some time lurking from time to
time. Perhaps the moderators can give us sime idea of the fraction of the
subscribers who actually contribute.
The question really is why are you here. If you thought you could convert
all the WCs to DOFhood in a week or so, I think that could best be descibed
as misplaced youthful exuberance. Perhaps you need to reconsider why you are
here at all. It seems clearly evident to me that one thing that you have
from your education is an interest in Steiner and Anthroposophy. Despite
suggestions to the contrary from DOFs, I think this is one of the best
places one can learn more about Anthroposophy and Steiner, precisely because
here there is real debate. It's tough to change someone else's mind but how
about starting with a goal of changing your own. If you want to see non
debate and emptiness check out the Anthropop science list sometime. After
that, the debates here seem downright refreshing.
Lastly I am going to say that this list needs you or others like you. I
think contrary to some other WCs on this list that you do show some evidence
of an open mind. Give us heaps. You'll get it back. But I think you will
also find after some time that even those of us with the loudest voices and
the sharpest criticisms are not that bad after all.
Let me remind you that the post you made early in the piece, criticising me
for the use of the term DOF. My post was a call for gentler treatment of
DOFs.
Good luck with your studies,
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:07:59 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: RE: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions a
At 05-12-02 05:51 AM Thursday, you wrote:
)Sorry, I was just giving my experience of the "religious", not as a term
)of definition in that particular post.
No, you weren't. I suggest you re-read your own post. You were arguing
that the Anthroposophical influence on the Waldorf/Steiner schools could
not be considered religious, and that's a very different kettle of
fish. You were, in other words, attempting to define the Waldorf schools
as not being religious, a point which affects far more people than your own
experience of the term "religion". Using your own definition of a word in
order to avoid acknowledging that a point is valid is a very different
thing from attempting to discuss your experiences.
)I don't support any kind of indoctrination, but I saw Waldorf as giving
)any religious content as ideas, or stories rather than doctrine.
Why did they "give" them to you? They are a school, so presumably they
"gave" them to you in order to teach you *something*. Can you be certain
what they intended to teach, as opposed to what you learned from the
lessons? Have you examined the teachers' training and curriculum guides to
see what their goals were? Have you sat in on the faculty meetings? Many
of the critics have done exactly these things, and it is from that
knowledge and with that documentation that they are speaking to the intent
of this material - on what basis do you claim to know its intent?
The Waldorf method, as acknowledged by its more open proponents such as
Eugene Schwartz, is to teach things indirectly. Your only experience of
Waldorf is as a student, and your only experience of being a student (past
the age of 11) was at Waldorf - so how can you be certain that you did not
take away from this education certain ideas and views that were
deliberately fostered by what was taught to you, and the methods by which
it was taught, which you would not have had as a result of a different kind
of education? It is very hard to define the limits of a cloud when you are
inside of it, and it is much the same with any form of indoctrinated
belief; it is very hard to recognize its extent or outline from the inside.
)And Waldorf grads *can* fill out forms, thank you very much...
How many Waldorf graduates can? How many can't? It sounds like you're
saying that all of them can.
As for you, how can you correctly fill in a form that asks your religion
(like the one we encountered on the form for our local Waldorf / Steiner
school), for instance, if you do not use the same definition for the word
that was intended by the person asking the question? People who make forms
expect you to use the word in accordance to the dictionary definition, and
you are not.
We have encountered personal accounts here of Waldorf students and
graduates who cannot make change for $5 out of a $10 bill, and others who
cannot read, or cannot read at anything close to grade level, on
graduation. Do you honestly expect me to believe that all of these
students and graduates are easily capable of functioning at a mature adult
level within their societies, despite such pervasive problems?
I personally know of cases in which there is serious question whether the
students in question will be *surviving* their Waldorf/Steiner scholastic
experience, and have read first-hand accounts from the siblings of students
who did not.
Once again, are you basing your argument on the premise that all of these
people are lying about their experiences? If that is the case, on what
basis are you dismissing these people as liars? And, in turn, can you
offer a good reason why we should believe your accounts of your own
experiences, if you are unwilling to return the respect of accepting the
personal accounts of other list members?
Of those whose problems are only a little less severe, I think it would be
unrealistic to expect that their educational experiences fitted them for
life as an independent mature adult within their society, given results
like children hitting themselves in the head saying "I hate my brain"
(because they had been made to feel bad for actually being able to think at
an age when their Waldorf teachers were convinced that they should be
discouraged from doing so, regardless of the damage that such
discouragement might cause), and the many other accounts I have seen of
children with a pervasive self-loathing or fear of thinking, or independent
action or creativity.
That last one doesn't surprise me - given Waldorf's emphasis on "imitation,
authority, reverence", in which children are not allowed free creative
expression, but are instead required to copy everything *exactly* from the
teacher.
My daughter spent only 6 weeks in that school, after spending her first 5
years in an explosion of independent creativity - but it took us several
*months* to get her to stop asking us what colour she should make
everything, after her weeks in Waldorf, because they had worked so hard to
break her of all capacity for independent decision making, considering it
to be inappropriate for a child of her age.
She's a very independent child, and breaking her spirit wasn't the result
of subtle influence - she was being subjected to daily physical violence as
a result of bullying by the other children, and in the environment,
pressure from the adult who is supposed to be the surety of safety is a
very big deal.
The person with the power to keep you from the violence that is otherwise
being enforced upon you is a person with a lot of power to change a
person's way of thinking - just ask the world's military officers in charge
of torturing and brainwashing. While that is an extreme example, the fact
remains that the threat of physical violence lends a lot of weight to the
desires of the person with the power to stop that threat, of whom such an
action can nominally be expected.
This may be seen as a form of "protection racket", similar to that
classically depicted as being enacted by the Mafia - "do what we say, and
nothing bad happens to you"... or the subtle sadism of the observing
officer interacting with Prisoners of War, who says "why won't you let me
help you? If you'll just give me something I can give to my superiors, I
can intervene to stop the torture - as it is, I can do nothing."
There is really no difference between this and the use of "bullying as
karmic manifestation" as a means of enforcement, where the teacher
supposedly cannot protect the child, because the problems are a result of
their own choices to diverge from the Waldorf norm, unless they attempt to
"live into" the Waldorf methods as dictated by Steiner. The violence is
the result of a managed social system, where the "protector" is nominally
in charge, and could protect you "if only you'll work within the system".
You cannot work that hard to break a person's spirit, to break a child of
their capacity for independence, and then expect people to be grateful to
you for reconstructing your own cookie-cutter version of creativity in its
place, where the children all make identical Madonnas (in their
"non-sectarian secular school"), identical Anthroposophically meaningful
colour blob washes designed to help the incarnative process of their soul
fully entering their body(?), identical rainbow pictures, identical
"original child-created main lesson books"...
To a reader of Madeleine l'Engle, this sounds more like Camazotz - a
*fictional* planet (for those who need this spelled out) where all thoughts
are imposed on the mind from outside of the brain of the individual with no
room for variation in healthy individuals fully attuned to the external
reality of embodied thought, and those who *DO* vary require reconstruction
no matter how destructive it might be to them in other respects, until they
conform to the externally imposed ideal (hmm, sound familiar?) - than like
any real kind of meaningful freedom.
And, without that freedom, it is hard to cultivate the capacity for
independent functioning as a mature adult.
So, in summary, my point is two-fold:
First, you've established that you use your own definitions of words even
in contexts where you are being asked to communicate with other members of
society, which can (in and of itself) prevent you from accurately filling
out forms, and (more importantly) otherwise impedes your ability to
communicate with others.
Secondly, as I've said before on these points, David, even if *you* can
accurately fill out a form, that doesn't prove that *all* Waldorf graduates
are able to do so.
On the other hand, the personal accounts of those whose children *cannot*
function independently post-Waldorf, or who have required substantial
remedial efforts in order to help them recover any degree of functional
capacity, are very telling, in that they reveal that *not all* Waldorf /
Steiner school graduates *are* capable of filling out a form, or otherwise
functioning as mature, independently functional adults, within any society
other than the subcommunity of Anthroposophy.
You would better serve your case if you would make more effort to
communicate with others in a respectful way that does not require you to
redefine your terms in an attempt to make your point, and if you would
acknowledge that the concerns of the critics are motivated by some very
seriously negative impacts on children, up to and including the suicide of
Waldorf students as a result of the self-loathing caused by the denigration
of their natural capacities, often for such things as abstract thought,
logical reasoning, independent action, and creativity. The far more common
impacts, while not as severe as the occasional cases of suicide, are still
matters of very serious concern, and are not going to just go away as a
result of your flippant dismissals.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:22:25 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Sorry, I misread your question. We're not suing Waldorf or
Anthroposophy, we're suing two public school districts, Twin Ridges
Elementary and Sacramento Unified, in California.
DEBRA HARVEY
)Interesting response Dan but I asked about Waldorf not PLANS.
))Who is paying Waldorfs' legal costs?
)
)PLANS has reimbursed Scott Kendall, our 1st Amendment lawyer, for
)some of his out-of-pocket expenses from our general fund
)(donations). Two or three years ago we got an earmarked grant of
)$14,000 from a right-wing Christian organization, Pacific Justice
)Institute, that was paid directly to Kendall. The main part of his
)bill, currently $28,066.36, he has graciously put on hold pending
)the outcome of the lawsuit.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 904
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Goodbye
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools: definitions a
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification:-cynicism
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: comparisons with Hitler
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: lawsuit
By debharve hotmail.com
Facts and dismissing the critics - was RE: Public Schools
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Apology
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:01:38 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Goodbye
on 12/5/02 1:59 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) Thanks for your time; I have gained some more insight into Waldorf and
) it's critics from my active time here. I've also read more Steiner in
) the last couple weeks than in my whole life previously. Unfortunately, I
) don't agree with most of the readings I've seen here, but at least I'm
) better informed.
Sharon: I'm sorry that you're leaving, and that you're leaving mad. It's
unfortunate that our "tone" is such that people like you can't stick around.
I know I am guilty of sometimes forgetting that there are people behind the
ideas expressed on list. I've even annoyed critics in the past because I
come across dogmatically against all religion. I guess I see religion as
politics, or economics and I don't feel the need to "tone" down my opinions
about religious ideology. I just find religion to be restricting, cruel,
manipulative. I loathe the Hindu cast system, Mormonism's historical
inaccuracies and hierarchy, Christianity's patriarchy and violent
history..., but I recognize that religion is a great motivator and I respect
the work of many liberation theologians like Ghandi, Tutu and King. When all
is said and done, nobody has the "truth", but I prefer to put my faith in
science as my candle in the dark.
When I started reading Steiner I was shocked. The more I read, the clearer
my daughter's lessons became. Heck, during Waldorf I didn't know what a
sylph, salamander or undine was, or a pentagram. I hadn't even heard of the
Cabala yet! I was much more ignorant than I am now. The more you learn the
more you know you don't know. I have a lifetime of learning ahead, and I'll
die without knowing much. Once you start to read Steiner you'll notice that
the pictures in your lesson books, and the curriculum take on a whole new
level of understanding. Even an innocuous picture of a butterfly has a
deeper meaning when you come across Steiner's explanation for this lesson -
which amounts to a child's first Anthroposophic introduction to
reincarnation. If you deconstruct the lessons and the curriculum and the
pedagogy, you cannot ignore the fact that Waldorf is a mystery school
completely intertwined with Steiner's doctrine, and the schools need to make
this clear to parents. Critics call for Waldorf to be openly Anthroposophic,
to advertise as *Anthroposophy-based* because first and foremost, that is
the point of Waldorf. I will admit that Waldorf in practice is much less
"peculiar" than on paper. This is because Anthroposophy is esoteric, and
many people involved in Waldorf have no understanding of the subtext. No two
people experience the world in the same way, and Waldorf has positive and
negative effects on some of us. Some people find Waldorf to be a place of
freedom, others of us find the opposite.
Take care David and keep on reading, read things that you wouldn't normally
wish to read because that is how you learn. After tracing the roots of
Anthroposophy, reading inquisition history, and understanding the humanist
and heretic tradition a little better, I came to understand how I was drawn
to Waldorf, how my way of thinking has a history, and why ideologically, as
an infidel, I cannot accept Anthroposophy.
Steiner: ...[T]he presentation of living pictures, or as we might say of
symbols, to the mind, is important for the period between the change of
teeth and puberty. It is important that the secrets of Nature, the laws of
life, be taught to the boy or girl, not in dry intellectual concepts, but as
far as possible in symbols. Parables of the spiritual connexions of things
should be brought before the soul of the child in such a manner that behind
the parables he devines and feels, rather than grasps intellectually, the
underlying law in all existence....An example may serve to make this clear.
Let us imagine that we want to tell a child of the immortality of the soul,
of the coming forth of the soul from the body. The way to do this is to use
a comparison, such for example as the comparison of the butterfly coming
forth from the chrysalis. As the butterfly soars up from the chrysalis, so
after death the soul of man from the house of the body. No man will rightly
grasp the fact in intellectual concepts, who has not first received it
in such a picture. A child who has experienced this, will approach the
subject with an altogether different mood of soul, when later it is taught
him in the form of intellectual concepts. It is indeed a very serious matter
for any man, if he was not first enabled to approach the problems of
existence with his feeling. Thus it is essential that the educator have at
his disposal parables for all the laws of Nature and secrets of the world?
(M.C. Richards, Toward Wholeness, Rudolf Steiner Education in
America.Wesleyan University Press 1980. p 55).
PS: I do think Jung, Tolkien and Cambell were cultists (G).....(on it goes!)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:50:18 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Religion, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf/Steiner Schools:
definitions a
Willow wrote: (snip)
) Can you be certain what they intended to teach, as opposed to what you
learned from the
) lessons? Have you examined the teachers' training and curriculum guides
to
) see what their goals were?
From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) "We shall only be able to achieve
our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and feeling-life,
but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest sense." The
task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit being of the child,
which has at birth descended to earth from a pre-earthly existence, to find
its place in the physical world and to make it competent for life . . . .
Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long and arduous
path into the physical world passes through a series of clearly defined
stages, which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum and
the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them, were
designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the right
pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a new
social order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf Astoria
cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
Walden: Please read the above passage more than once. Refreshing and to
the point. "Both the curriculum and the methods of teaching...." Waldorf
Education is about a New Social Order derived from Steiner's occultism.
Period.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:06:20 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification:-cynicism
)
) )I find your post strewn with a kind of militant ignorance that seems to
) )prevail among the so called "critical thinkers". Especially when it comes
to
) )the idea of compassion.
)
) _lumiere says:
)
) I'm not going to engage in an ad-hominem battle with you.
)
) My comments about David's logical faults were argued from his own words
and
) gave examples and made statements of ideas about David's logical faults. I
) did not engage in ad hominem.
That's a bunch of purely logical crap. Your blatant disregard for the human
being behind your wall of *facts* (i.e."You didn't get an education, you got
brain washed") constitutes an ad homonym in my book. And again I'll state
that it shows clearly an overall lack of compassion.
) To all of your remarks I would say: do you have a point of argument here,
) other than to -- as you say in your closing paragraph -- take "an eye for
) an eye"?
And again I'll state that it shows clearly an overall lack of compassion.
) If you have some intellectual arguments against my critique, please supply
) them, and there might be something to debate. The same was true of David,
) and has always been true of people who come on this list with praise
) for Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposoophy, then huff and puff and fluff off
) when challenged.
I think there is a deference between being challenged, and being ridiculed.
And again I'll state that it shows clearly an overall lack of compassion.
) )Twisted rhetoric.
)
) Elucidate or your comment fails. Show HOW it is twisted, and exactly what
) you mean.
No thank you, my comment was rhetorical as well. I have no desire to engage
in intellectual gymnastics (or is it intellectual masturbation?).
) )Even more twisted rhetoric with a touch of the old "us and them" added
in.
)
(snip) Your comments create divisiveness, not mine.
Denial = believing in your own bullshit.
) )) You didn't get an education, you got brainwashed.
) )
) )And you forgot to develop the emotional aspect of your intelligence.
)
) This would be the new-age EQ (emotional quotient) perhaps?
)
) Can you provide an argument that gives evidence of how what I said
) indicates that my EQ is ... underdeveloped?
And again I'll state that it shows clearly an overall lack of compassion.
) )) And the proof is your reactionary defense of Steiner and Waldorf.
) )
) )Ah.... your whole post sounds a bit like a *reactionary* defense to me.
)
) What did I say that is reactionary? What am I defending? I thought I was
) attacking David's arguments with other arguments. Did I miss something?
No, you were also attacking David personally, though indirectly, while
hiding behind your wall of *facts*.
And again I'll state that it shows clearly an overall lack of compassion.
) ))Again, so
) )) much for skepticism. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Steiner's
) )) smoke and mirrors guru trick that you are a free-thinking individual
whose
) )) every thought must be right because you imagine it to be so.
) )
) )A fine example of bitterness and paranoia.
)
) ??? (sound of speechlessness) ... Um, erm, can you say how this is so?
Ok, I'll rescind that one.
)
) )So you are absolutely right, and anyone that might even be inclined to
) )disagree, ever so slightly, is absolutely wrong, and thus brainwashed.
Did
) )I get that right?
)
) No, I don't think so. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of putting
) words in my mouth. Would you like to try addressing the arguments?
I have been known to address arguments on occasion. Is this case I am
addressing mostly cynicism.
) )) Turn that skepticism on yourself and your guru and your world-view,
young
) ))pup.
) )
) )And you turn your militant emotional ignorance into emotional maturity,
old
) )wise man.
)
) So ... David, by virtue of his Steiner brainwashing (and you, also, feel
) this way about yourself, I can tell by your responses)
Oh really? are you clairvoyant?
)are emotionally
) mature, and I'm not? Did I get that right?
No, more so by virtue of a general sense of empathy.
) )) For real, in the evidence-based world-view of reason, not Steiner's
) )) fantasy-land.
) )
) )Personally, I'd take Tolkien's fantasy-land over Steiner's. But, if your
) )post is any indication of what's it's like to live in your *Real*
) )"evidence-based world-view of reason", then I'd take Steiner's, hands
down.
)
) Yes, that's obvious, as are all posts by people who come here with nothing
) but praise and devotion for Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
)
) But ... *why* are my arguments a good illustration of why you, or anyone,
) should prefer Steiner's irrational fantasy land over the rationalist's
) evidence-based world-view?
)
) This argument has been canvassed on this list many times, and comes down
to
) the epistemological problem of how do we know what we know, how do we know
) that what we think is real, is?
I don't know. My guess is that it has something to do with the idea of Love
being experienced as something *real*.
) You, David, and hundreds of others who have been here, will simply not
deal
) with evidence -- ever. You want to argue from "imagination" and "insight"
) -- literally, Steiner's fantasyland of clairvoyant vision into the higher
) realms. That is the brainwashing. I am prepared to deal with any evidence
of these
) higher realms and supernatural things; you cannot give me any evidence of
them. A
) world-view founded on self-invention is not to my liking, and I have never
seen
) convincing arguments -- forget the evidence I really want -- to give me
any confidence
) that it can possibly be.
I don't think there is allot of very convincing evidence to the contrary
either.
) Like so many other critics before me, apparently, I guess I'll have to
wait
) till the Sixth Epoch for the answers to critical questions and comments
) about your world-view. We're certainly not getting any evidence from you
) all.
) )Eye for an eye
) )
) )Mike
)
) Well, no. And I'm surprised to hear you say it. I thought Steiner Waldorf
) Anthroposophical people were gentles.
Give me a couple more years; I hope to be thoroughly indoctrinated by then.
) Provide logical argument based on evidence, and eschew ad homonym
) invective, and we'll talk. Otherwise, peddle your flame-bait elsewhere --
I
) won't bite.
Ok, you provide a logical (not rhetorical) argument that shows some respect
for the person your taking to, and maybe we will talk. And you already did
*bite* -- David that is. I think you owe him an apology.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:38:56 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: comparisons with Hitler
Peter Staudenmaier wrote (to David) : (snip)
) The ideological commonalities between Steiner and Hitler were far from
) casual or superficial, as I pointed out a few days ago. I must ask, once
) again, what you base your conclusion on. Do you dispute that Steiner
) believed in the Aryan myth, that his followers looked to him as "Germany's
) savior", that he was an active German nationalist in his youth and
remained
) attached to the notion of German cultural-spiritual superiority throughout
) his life, that he was deeply influenced by the turn-of-the-century occult
) subculture and its racial doctrines? Or do you dispute that the same is
true
) of Hitler? Or do you think that these are merely superficial similarities?
Walden: Not wanting to appear as one who adds fuel to the fire or otherwise
stirs the pot... but these things, IMO, must be aired if we are to
understand each other. I appreciate discussion. Thank-you for your
informative posts, Peter. There are other similarities - more than
superficial:
"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the
French language...It is also possible at the present time that the
French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has
kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the
French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural
brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France
itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the
blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The
French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, 1923, CT-3 pp.
87-88 (GA 349, p. 53)]
"France is and remains by far the most terrible enemy. This people,
which is basically becoming more and more negrified, constitutes in
its tie with the aims of Jewish world domination an enduring danger
for the existence of the white race in Europe. For the contamination
by Negro blood on the Rhine in the heart of Europe is just as much in
keeping with the perverted sadistic thirst for vengeance of this
hereditary enemy of our people... " [Hitler, Mein Kampf - 1925, p. 624]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:13:39 -0600
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
thanks Dan--I forgot the facts of the case. . It's taxpayer money then.
When I get some time I will read the cases. Why is a right wing Christian
organization funding some of the lawsuit?
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:48:56 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Facts and dismissing the critics - was RE: Public Schools
David has proclaimed himself a lover of myth, and I see nothing wrong with
that - I'm very fond of myths myself. However, in the following quotes he
seems to have demonstrated some lacks when it comes to a corresponding
understanding of what constitutes the difference between myth, fact, and
misrepresentation, and I find that to be a matter of some concern.
) ) )David:
) ) )You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem
) ) )happy to blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic".
) )
)Willow Firesong wrote:
) ) David, I find your patronizing tone here rather ridiculous,
) ) considering that you are lecturing in this way to a
) ) collection of experienced Waldorf parents, who have
) ) collectively, among them, many decades of experience
) ) with Waldorf, its methods, and its results *on their own
) ) children*. To dismiss this as "blithely repeating
) ) unfortunate myths" is to dismiss completely their
) ) knowledge of their own personal experience.
)
)David:
)Okay, I'm sorry. I should have said that the methods are
)not meant to be non-academic, or that the philosophy
)behind it isn't non-academic. I don't mean to trivialise
)anyone's experience. The myths I am referring to mistake
)Waldorf's practice of delayed, thorough academics in the
)early years as a more general rejection of the intellect.
)This practise very well may have been misrepresented in
)your cases. I don't know.
In my case, we were told point-blank by the school representatives and the
school's Anthroposophical doctor that encouraging our daughter's
intellectual activity at this age in any way, including listening to her
and allowing her to use her full existing vocabulary, was damaging to her
health and causing her to become ill in a way which runs in our family, as
a result of susceptibility on both sides to certain forms of Environmental
Illness.
That is not a matter of misrepresenting a "practice of delayed, thorough
academics in the early years as a more general rejection of the
intellect". This is a direct rejection of this person's intellect, because
it is just as much a part of her at this age as it will be later in
life. A child is a person, they are not just the larval form of a
"person-to-be".
To deliberately attempt to squash and discourage any part of her, as in
this case we were told point-blank to do, would have been very wrong of
us; to do so is *damaging* to a child. Yet we were threatened with
exactly that kind of damage to her health which could be most predicted to
frighten us, if we did not do what we were told, and discourage her from
any expression of her existing knowledge, or desire to add to it - even (in
fact *especially*) with regard to her emotional vocabulary, and her ability
to express herself in words.
Likewise, it was damaging to our child when the school officials attempted
to do it to her. Then she was accused of acting up because she did not
behave in the way that they wanted her to, when nobody would "risk
stimulating her intellect" by so much as telling her *what* they wanted her
to do, much less why.
) ) The Waldorf schools in Hitler's Germany were kept open for
) ) quite some time by the Nazi party, because of Steiner's
) ) anti-intellectual philosophy.
)
)Um... Willow? Exactly what are you trying to say here?
I'm sorry, David, I keep forgetting I need to make allowances for your
education, and spell things out a little more clearly for you. (wink) You
said:
) ) )You see, there is an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem
) ) )happy to blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic".
I replied by listing points which established that this is not a myth. The
action of the Nazi party in keeping the schools open is a matter of
historical fact for which their motivation is on record. It is one of many
reasons for the statements made here, none of which may be dismissed as
"myth". Is my intent in including this point now clearer to you? I would
have thought that this was made clear to you by my next statement, which
you clearly saw, as you quoted it here:
) ) These are facts, David - you cannot dismiss them as myth
) ) or interpretation.
So, are we now clear on the difference between fact and myth, and why the
citing of fact is a reasonable response to allegations of
"misrepresentation" and "myth"?
) ) The children of many of the critics here have required
) ) thousands of dollars / pounds to be spent on tutoring,
) ) remedial education, counseling, and other efforts to
) ) pick up the pieces that Waldorf has left behind, when it
) ) was removed from their lives as a consequence of the
) ) damage it had done there.
)
)That's certainly possible. I really can't judge what went on there.
Yet you *are* judging those incidents, David, every time you dismiss as
"unfounded" the criticism you see here, without bothering to check or ask
on what foundation it is based.
And when those incidents and problems are described here, you give lip
service to offering sympathy - and then turn around and respond in a
hostile and dismissive way toward people who are making very
straightforward statements about very straightforward conclusions drawn on
the basis of those experiences.
) ) That's a lot of time, investigation, personal experience, personal
) ) suffering, and individual critical thinking, that you're dismissing so
) ) lightly, and I think it's indicative of your attitude, which I find
) ) disturbing.
)
)Well, there are a lot of disturbing attitudes on this list. In fact, I
)sometimes find myself feeling physically ill after reading a post or
)two...
I've felt that way myself. But then, I tend to feel that way any time I am
confronted with the suffering of children, and people defending the people
and/or institutions which cause or contribute to that suffering, instead of
seeking to take what actions can be taken, in order to heal the injured,
correct the problem which caused or allowed the injury to take place, and
thereby prevent recurrence.
)But I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
Can you see, in your posts, the attitude I am describing? Can you see why I
am making these statements? Or are you making the vague apology of a
person who doesn't like the response they've gotten, but sees nothing wrong
with their own actions despite the consistency of the negative responses
that they are eliciting?
) ) You began with a series of articulate posts that attracted
) ) my attention and gave me the impression that you were
) ) interested in a reasonable discussion of the subject.
) ) However, when other people have described experiences
) ) and conclusions that were at odds with your own, you
) ) began to find pigeonholes and preconceived explanations
) ) that you tried to fit to the information and the people
) ) sharing it, and though I differ with many of these people
) ) about many things, I have also spent enough time here
) ) to learn of, and respect, the very considerable weight of
) ) first-hand knowledge and thorough research that they
) ) bring to these conversations.
)
)I'm sorry that my initial reaction to these claims was incredulity, but
)they are so far removed from *anything* I've ever experienced that I did
)have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
My first question in response to this is just what I asked you above: "Can
you see that your 'knee-jerk reaction' is what elicited the type of
responses you have received?"
Further, you've now personally met, through this list, people who have
suffered through these experiences, seeing their children hurt and their
families disrupted, sometimes even broken (there have been serious internal
conflicts within the marriages of Waldorf parents, when one parent chooses
the school over the objections of the other parent, in some cases even
eventually choosing the school over the marriage) over the conflict of
their Waldorf / Steiner school experience. Can you see also why these
individuals would find it very distressing to be consistently confronted by
this kind of a "knee-jerk reaction", when they are honest about their
family's suffering?
I am also very curious to know whether this is your standard response to
material that is outside of your range of experience. If so, that is
somewhat at odds with your assertion that you were taught to see
thought/knowledge/understanding as a succession of concepts of human origin
and capable of being replaced by new and more accurate perspectives, even
when those are apparently radically at odds with previously accepted
views. Yet this is exactly what you claimed was the result of your having
been taught the scientific method via an approach which involved learning
science through a series of discredited theories:
)Subject: RE: no DOFs
)Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:52:40 +0000
)Message-ID: (0.1700032592.1829120865-1463792126-1037908362 topica.com)
)Errors-To: (blst-errors.1700032592.0.1724929593.007.0.0 boing.topica.com)
)
)David:
)One of my points in mentioning the scientific paths of Waldorf graduates
)is that though Waldorf teaches science through a progression of refuted
)theories, arriving at the latest theory, graduates do not become
)confused upon entering university. They do not laugh at their science
)professor. THey understand proven scientific theory for what it is; they
)know of the theories that preceded it, and which contradicted it (i.e.
)Goethe v.s. Newton). THey are left to decide how much value each one
)has, and high school kids are sceptics [sic - WF] by nature. They do not
)adhere to
)wierd science.
)
)THis is all in my experience
Your "knee-jerk" reactions seem rather at odds with this claim.
) ) You had my attention, in other words, and my judgement
) ) was at worst withheld pending further evidence, and at best
) ) positive - until you were confronted by experience at odds
) ) with your own, and rather than taking the intellectually honest
) ) route of attempting to consider all possibilities and find an
) ) explanation that fit all available data points, you began to
) ) discard significant data as irrelevant, based on excuses
) ) which *clearly do not fit* the circumstances.
)
)Well, whether my "excuses" were irrelevant is your outlook -- it may
)be valid, or not. But you're right. I'll try to consider what you say.
When you dismiss both the first-hand knowledge and the documented research
of the parents here as 'an unfortunate myth (which you folks seem happy to
blithely repeat) that waldorf is "non-academic",' it's not just a matter of
my opinion as to whether your "excuses" are valid or "*clearly do not fit*
the circumstances".
When you say that "these problems don't occur", and people say "this
happened to me", and you dismiss that as "an unfortunate myth (which you
folks seem happy to blithely repeat)", you are attempting to reject the
reality of an extremely relevant fact. Again, that is not a matter of
personal opinion - this is what these words mean, David, regardless of what
you may or may not have been taught in your Waldorf Education.
I will also note that I did not say that your excuses were irrelevant, by
the way - if you'll exercise the reading comprehension skills you are
supposed to have gained in your high school career, you'll find that I said
that you "began to discard significant data as irrelevant", and that you
*based* this action on the excuses you were offering, which clearly did not
fit the circumstances. What I said and the point to which you replied are
not the same thing. Do you understand that? Do you now understand what I
actually said?
) ) You see, David, your school may have been anomalous -
) ) or, the ones attended by the critics may have been the
) ) anomalies.
By which I should note that I meant that every sufficiently complex system
has its anomalies, and the possibility existed that these schools were
among those unusual cases, as opposed to constituting representative
samples. I did not mean to imply that the only available options were for
those non-representative cases to include *only* David's school or those
schools attended by the Waldorf critics or children of critics.
) ) But pretending that they don't exist doesn't
) ) have the same effect as an objective assessment of the
) ) number of schools that are as good as yours, the number
) ) which suffered horrific incidents such as those recounted
) ) first-hand by critics, and the number that probably lie
) ) somewhere on the middle ground in between.
I will also note that there are a range of problems encountered by the
critics. Some are pretty horrific, as they include serious risk or impact
to a child's health and/or safety. Others, while severe, may or may not
merit the term "horrific", depending on what horrifies you. This range
itself is indicative of the fact that there does exist some kind of middle
ground; we just don't have enough facts to draw any objective conclusions
as to its range and scope, or how many schools fall in which part of the
spectrum of possibilities between the polar extremes of Waldorf's best and
worst.
) ) When you consider your unrelated experience to
) ) contradict that of another person, you are drawing some
) ) very unwarranted conclusions, which are essentially based
) ) on your belief that *the conclusions* that you drew from your
) ) experience carry more weight than the first-hand account of
) ) the individual in question. At that point, you might as well
) ) simply say "I don't believe you, because you are telling me
) ) something other than what I think I know about the world",
) ) and end the conversation right there, because there's no point
) ) in continuing it if the other speaker is wasting their breath on
) ) ears that have chosen to feign deafness, in the smug
) ) belief that your knowledge of the world has allowed you
) ) to spot a liar.
)
)Forgive me... the enflamed, accusatory nature of the board in general
)contributed to my defensiveness at first... but there have since been
)some truly good discussions.
How odd - because as I said earlier in the message you are quoting:
) ) You began with a series of articulate posts that attracted
) ) my attention and gave me the impression that you were
) ) interested in a reasonable discussion of the subject.
) ) However, when other people have described experiences
) ) and conclusions that were at odds with your own, you
) ) began to find pigeonholes and preconceived explanations
) ) that you tried to fit to the information and the people
) ) sharing it,
In other words, I was talking about a progression in which it was your
*later* posts which caused me this concern. Did you have problems grasping
that from what I wrote, without explanation, David?
Regardless of whether or not you understood me, I am perfectly willing to
forgive you, David; you haven't done anything to hurt me or my loved ones,
you've only indulged in some irrational behaviour in a public discussion
forum, which I've endeavoured to point out to you. At worst, if you were
truly operating on the theory that the critics here are all either lying or
deluded, you do not cause me any injury by calling me a liar, as long as
you do so in a forum where my words remain available to speak for
themselves and allow others to draw their own conclusions. So, unlike the
Waldorf / Steiner schools, I find it comparatively easy to forgive you,
David. On the other hand, you've also shown your most extreme discourtesy
on this list to persons other than myself, so you may find that there are
others here who do not find your behaviour quite as easy to forgive.
) ) If you are going to bother with the conversation, why not try
) ) giving other speakers the same respect that they give you
) ) - that of asking questions, albeit some hard and probing
) ) ones, rather than assuming that they know better than you
) ) do what your experiences have been? You'll almost
) ) certainly find that it's more effective, and you're more likely
) ) to come to a correct conclusion if you do not simply dismiss
) ) as inaccurate any data which conflicts with your current
) ) views.
) )
) ) It is true that there are people in the world who get their jollies
) ) by telling lies. However, it is unreasonable to simply dismiss
) ) as liars, or deluded, every individual one may meet who tells
) ) one something that is in any way at odds with one's own
) ) beliefs - at least, without investigation. Facts can disprove a
) ) claim - sometimes without more than the most minimal of
) ) consideration - but that is NOT the same thing as dismissing
) ) a claim simply because it is not in accordance with one's
) ) preconceived notions.
)
)That's our real problem, isn't it? Lack of real, objective facts.
That depends on what kind of facts you're looking for. Injured children
are facts. Remedial education as the expected lot of a Waldorf / Steiner
school graduate, as explained by the staff of the school to the parents of
a prospective student, is a fact. Anthroposophical religious teachings in
Waldorf / Steiner school students' "Main Lesson Books" are facts. They are
even facts you can easily and readily add to our knowledge of, should you
be willing to answer Dan Dugan's questions with regard to your own 4th
grade "Man and Animal" Lesson Book.
What we do not have are statistics, studies that would allow broad
generalizations to be made. The result is that the only generalization we
*can* make is that Waldorf / Steiner schools are not completely without
their casualties, as the harmed children continue to exist and be harmed in
very real and objectively perceptible and measurable ways.
) ) If you are here to discuss these issues in a truly open-minded,
) ) skeptical, critical thinking approach, then I suggest you find
) ) some approach that either disproves the claims you are
) ) attempting to refute, or calls them into question on a logical
) ) or factual basis, rather than simply dismissing them on clearly
) ) inapplicable grounds, simply because they differed from your
) ) own experience.
)
)I guess my point in relating my experiences was not to invalidate
)others' experiences, but to show that Waldorf *does* work in at least
)some cases. Neither of us can draw conclusions about the entire
)movement based on single instances of good or bad experience.
As I stated above:
The only generalization we *can* make is that Waldorf / Steiner schools are
not completely without their casualties, as the harmed children continue to
exist and be harmed in very real and objectively perceptible and measurable
ways.
You relate your experiences "to show that Waldorf *does* work in at least
some cases", yet you haven't demonstrated that it was Waldorf methods that
provided the benefits you perceive in your case, nor have you demonstrated
yourself to be free from the types of problems that are of concern to the
parents who consider Waldorf / Steiner schools to be unsuitable for their
children. On the other hand, the critics have researched, from the source
material used by the schools themselves, points that clearly indicate that
the problems they encountered were a result of the policies, tenets, and
practises of the schools.
) ) You wouldn't make the criticisms of Waldorf that the critics
) ) here have made, would you?
)
)For the most part, no, although you do make some valid points.
) I wish there was a more constructive attitude here(precluded, I
)assume, by frustration and hard feelings).
)
)I never had reason to make those criticisms -- that's whay it may
)be hard for me to understand yours, at least initially.
This was my point. You know that you would not make the criticisms made by
the critics here - so why are you so surprised that their experiences are
so radically different from yours?
As for the lack of a "constructive attitude", what exactly would you
consider to be a constructive attitude, David?
Are you looking for a dedication to spending yet more of their personal
time and energy working to improve the schools, after many of the parents
here have already put in many years and thousands of dollars / pounds
apiece, only to see their children suffering physically, emotionally,
socially and/or intellectually as a result? I can pretty much guarantee
that these people are not likely to be interested in spending yet more of
their lives and their resources trying to "fix" the system that hurt them,
especially when many of them were targeted for further injury as a result
of their previous attempts to "fix" that system. Those resources are now
going to undoing the damage done to the students and their families.
I *have*, on the other hand, repeatedly seen people here outline what they
would like to see, both in the Waldorf / Steiner schools and outside of
them. I have difficulty in seeing that as a lack of a "constructive attitude".
To come on the list and attack its members, claiming that they are
neurotic, attempting to discredit their first-hand knowledge and personal
experience, on the other hand, does not strike me as contributing to a
"constructive attitude". For that matter, how can one contribute to the
constructive attitude of problem solving if one is busy trying to deny the
existence of those problems, rather than acknowledging their existence and
working to learn more about them, followed by working to solve them?
) ) Well, then, either the critics are here because their
) ) experiences are different from yours, or because they
) ) drew different conclusions from the same types of
) ) experiences, or they are lying about their experiences.
)
) ) Now, it's very hard to reach the conclusion that someone
) ) is illiterate if they are an excellent communicator in
) ) written media, so it would be hard for a parent to come to
) ) that conclusion if their experiences had been like yours
Unless, of course, they considered language use variations that inhibited
fundamental aspects of communication to be a form of illiteracy... I am
becoming increasingly looking forward to finding time for a more in-depth
analysis of the Year 12 project you offered to us as evidence of the
quality of your education. I trust that it will still be available, and
that you are still confident that it can withstand such scrutiny.
) ) - they'd have to be pretty deluded, if you're accurately
) ) describing your school experiences. So, that leaves us
) ) with the following range of possibilities:
) )
) ) a) the people here have different experiences, in which
) ) case it is unreasonable to call their experiences into
) ) question simply because they differ with yours.
) )
) ) b) the people here have had the same kind of school
) ) experiences as yours, but were deluded into thinking that
) ) they were damaging nightmarish experiences that in some
) ) cases seriously harmed their children. There's not much
) ) point in conversing with the critics if you believe that's the
) ) case, given the level of delusion that would be involved.
) )
) ) c) the critics are lying. If that is your view, you're better
) ) off being open about it, instead of attempting to act
) ) conciliatory while being patronizingly dismissive toward
) ) people with more years of experience with Waldorf
) ) schools than you've been alive. People are more likely
) ) to take you seriously as a hoax-buster, if that is indeed
) ) your goal, if you have been honest about your views.
) )
) ) In short, either you see the critics as lying, or deluded - or
) ) else your patronizingly dismissive attitude is pretty
) ) inappropriate, since what you're reading is precisely what
) ) you came here to read - first-person accounts of the
) ) experiences which motivate the critics in their criticism.
) ) If you believe that the critics are reasonable people, and
) ) you believe that they became critics based on their
) ) experiences, then you can't expect those experiences to
) ) be like yours, or you would have become a critic.
)
)Whew! Okay, okay. Point taken.
I am glad that you were willing to acknowledge this point. You may or may
not be able to construct such logical evaluations for yourself, despite
your difficulty with this specific one, but at least you can acknowledge
their validity when constructed for you. I consider this to be a very
positive sign.
I do, however, wonder at the fact that as I am finishing up this letter I
see one waiting from you in my inbox, with the subject line of
"Goodbye". Have you decided that we are lying or deluded, David, or are
you unwilling to have this discussion with us if you are required to
consider the implications that result from treating our accounts as the
factual recitations that they are? Or are you unable to face the fact that
those recitations are generally not delivered in the unemotional approach
of a person so mentally ill that they would actually be undisturbed by this
kind of impact on their children and families?
)I reserve judgement, but thusfar, I think that most critics
)have at least a solid, if subjective, basis for their claims.
Do you consider a sprained ankle subjective? How about a series of them,
occurring on a daily basis, every day that a child attends a particular school?
Do you consider the presence of Anthroposophical teachings in a child's
Main Lesson book to be subjective, given that those teachings are taken
word for word from Steiner, and the course outlines' Anthroposophical
meanings are explicitly outlined in the text from which they are taught in
the Teachers College, and from which they are then prepared in practise in
the Waldorf / Steiner schools themselves?
David, you still seem to be having problems with some basic
definitions. Allow me to provide them for you:
(begin quoted definitions - original material continues after quotes)
fact - n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on
fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic
engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed
fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence:
The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do. See dh-
in Indo-European Roots.]
Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense ?allegation of
fact,? as in ?This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers,
but the facts and the reasoning are wrong? (Albert Shanker). This practice
has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in
The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion
qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages
are often useful for emphasis.
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---next definition---
fact
\Fact\, n. [L. factum, fr. facere to make or do. Cf. Feat, Affair, Benefit,
Defect, Fashion, and -fy.] 1. A doing, making, or preparing. [Obs.]
A project for the fact and vending Of a new kind of fucus, paint for
ladies. --B. Jonson.
2. An effect produced or achieved; anything done or that comes to pass; an
act; an event; a circumstance.
What might instigate him to this devilish fact, I am not able to
conjecture. --Evelyn.
He who most excels in fact of arms. --Milton.
3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the
fact is, he was beaten.
4. The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes, even
when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done,
or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as,
history abounds with false facts.
I do not grant the fact. --De Foe.
This reasoning is founded upon a fact which is not true. --Roger Long.
Note: The Term fact has in jurisprudence peculiar uses in contrast with
low; as, attorney at low, and attorney in fact; issue in low, and issue in
fact. There is also a grand distinction between low and fact with reference
to the province of the judge and that of the jury, the latter generally
determining the fact, the former the low. --Burrill Bouvier.
Accessary before, or after, the fact. See under Accessary.
Matter of fact, an actual occurrence; a verity; used adjectively: of or
pertaining to facts; prosaic; unimaginative; as, a matter-of-fact narration.
Syn: Act; deed; performance; event; incident; occurrence; circumstance.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
fact
n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that
have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" 2: a
statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the
case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array
of facts" 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact
and how much fiction is hard to tell" 4: a concept whose truth can be
proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
---next definition---
o?pin?ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by
positive knowledge or proof: ?The world is not run by thought, nor by
imagination, but by opinion? (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical
opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low
opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal
reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin opni, opnin-, from opnr, to
think.]
Synonyms: opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion
These nouns signify something a person believes or accepts as being sound
or true. Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient
to rule out the possibility of dispute: ?A little group of willful men,
representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great Government
of the United States helpless and contemptible? (Woodrow Wilson). View
stresses individuality of outlook: ?My view is... that freedom of speech
means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they
have or the views they express? (Hugo L. Black). Sentiment and especially
feeling stress the role of emotion as a determinant: ?If men are to be
precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the
most serious and alarming consequences... reason is of no use to us?
(George Washington). ?There needs protection... against the tyranny of the
prevailing opinion and feeling? (John Stuart Mill). A belief is a
conclusion to which one subscribes strongly: ?Our belief in any particular
natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical
attempts to refute it? (Karl Popper). Conviction is belief that excludes
doubt: ?the editor's own conviction of what, whether interesting or only
important, is in the public interest? (Walter Lippmann). Persuasion applies
to a confidently held opinion: ?He had a strong persuasion that Likeman was
wrong? (H.G. Wells).
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---next definition---
opinion
\O*pin"ion\, n. [F., from L. opinio. See Opine.] 1. That which is opined; a
notion or conviction founded on probable evidence; belief stronger than
impression, less strong than positive knowledge; settled judgment in regard
to any point of knowledge or action.
Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by
evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persussion than to
another, yet not without a mixture of incertainty or doubting. --Sir M. Hale.
I can not put off my opinion so easily. --Shak.
2. The judgment or sentiment which the mind forms of persons or things;
estimation.
I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people. --Shak.
Friendship . . . gives a man a peculiar right and claim to the good opinion
of his friend. --South.
However, I have no opinion of those things. --Bacon.
3. Favorable estimation; hence, consideration; reputation; fame; public
sentiment or esteem. [Obs.]
Thou hast redeemed thy lost opinion. --Shak.
This gained Agricola much opinion, who . . . had made such early progress
into laborious . . . enterprises. --Milton.
4. Obstinacy in holding to one's belief or impression; opiniativeness;
conceitedness. [Obs.] --Shak.
5. (Law.) The formal decision, or expression of views, of a judge, an
umpire, a counselor, or other party officially called upon to consider and
decide upon a matter or point submitted.
To be of opinion, to think; to judge.
To hold opinion with, to agree with. [Obs.] --Shak.
Syn: Sentiment; notion; persuasion; idea; view; estimation. See Sentiment.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
opinion
\O*pin"ion\, v. t. To opine. [Obs.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
opinion
n 1: a personal belief that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my
opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?" [syn:
sentiment, persuasion, view, thought] 2: a belief or sentiment shared by
most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public
opinion" [syn: public opinion, popular opinion, vox populi] 3: a message
expressing a belief about something; "his opinions appeared frequently on
the editorial page" [syn: view] 4: the legal document stating the reasons
for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
[syn: judgment, judgement] 5: the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed
to the decision itself) [syn: ruling]
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
---next definition---
sub?jec?tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external
world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived
by the patient and not by the examiner.
Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or
author.
Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sub?jective?ly adv.
sub?jective?ness or subjec?tivi?ty (sbjk-tv-t) n.
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---next definition---
subjective
\Sub*jec"tive\, a. [L. subjectivus: cf. F. subjectif.] 1. Of or pertaining
to a subject.
2. Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own consciousness, in
distinction from external observation; relating to the mind, or
intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively
occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal states.
Note: In the philosophy of the mind, subjective denotes what is to be
referred to the thinking subject, the ego; objective, what belongs to the
object of thought, the non-ego. See Objective, a., 2. --Sir W. Hamilton.
3. (Lit. & Art) Modified by, or making prominent, the individuality of a
writer or an artist; as, a subjective drama or painting; a subjective writer.
Syn: See Objective.
Subjective sensation (Physiol.), one of the sensations occurring when
stimuli due to internal causes excite the nervous apparatus of the sense
organs, as when a person imagines he sees figures which have no objective
reality. -- Sub*jec\"tive*ly, adv. -- Sub*jec\"tive*ness, n.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
subjective
adj 1: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a
subjective judgment" [ant: objective] 2: (philosophy) of a mental act;
occurring entirely within the mind [syn: immanent] [ant: transeunt]
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
---next definition---
ob?jec?tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See
Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease
by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the
object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
Grammar.
The objective case.
A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that
first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called
object glass, objective lens, object lens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ob?jective?ly adv.
ob?jective?ness n.
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---next definition---
objective
Object, beside its proper signification, came to be abusively applied to
denote motive, end, final cause . . . . This innovation was probably
borrowed from the French. --Sir. W. Hamilton.
Let our object be, our country, our whole country, and nothing but our
country. --D. Webster.
4. Sight; show; appearance; aspect. [Obs.] --Shak.
He, advancing close Up to the lake, past all the rest, arose In glorious
object. --Chapman.
5. (Gram.) A word, phrase, or clause toward which an action is directed, or
is considered to be directed; as, the object of a transitive verb.
Object glass, the lens, or system of lenses, placed at the end of a
telescope, microscope, etc., which is toward the object. Its office is to
form an image of the object, which is then viewed by the eyepiece. Called
also objective. See Illust. of Microscope.
Object lesson, a lesson in which object teaching is made use of.
Object staff. (Leveling) Same as Leveling staff.
Object teaching, a method of instruction, in which illustrative objects are
employed, each new word or idea being accompanied by a representation of
that which it signifies; -- used especially in the kindergarten, for young
children.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
objective
\Ob*jec"tive\, a. [Cf.F. objectif.] 1. Of or pertaining to an object.
2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or having the
nature or position of, an object; outward; external; extrinsic; -- an
epithet applied to whatever ir exterior to the mind, or which is simply an
object of thought or feeling, and opposed to subjective.
In the Middle Ages, subject meant substance, and has this sense in
Descartes and Spinoza: sometimes, also, in Reid. Subjective is used by
William of Occam to denote that which exists independent of mind;
objective, what is formed by the mind. This shows what is meant by realitas
objectiva in Descartes. Kant and Fichte have inverted the meanings.
Subject, with them, is the mind which knows; object, that which is known;
subjective, the varying conditions of the knowing mind; objective, that
which is in the constant nature of the thing known. --Trendelenburg.
Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds from, the object known,
and not from the subject knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in
opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in nature, in contrast to
what exists merely in the thought of the individual. --Sir. W. Hamilton.
Objective has come to mean that which has independent existence or
authority, apart from our experience or thought. Thus, moral law is said to
have objective authority, that is, authority belonging to itself, and not
drawn from anything in our nature. --Calderwood (Fleming's Vocabulary).
3. (Gram.) Pertaining to, or designating, the case which follows a
transitive verb or a preposition, being that case in which the direct
object of the verb is placed. See Accusative, n.
Note: The objective case is frequently used without a governing word, esp.
in designations of time or space, where a preposition, as at, in, on, etc.,
may be supplied.
My troublous dream [on] this night make me sad. --Shak.
To write of victories [in or for] next year. --Hudibras.
Objective line (Perspective), a line drawn on the geometrical plane which
is represented or sought to be represented.
Objective plane (Perspective), any plane in the horizontal plane that is
represented.
Objective point, the point or result to which the operations of an army are
directed. By extension, the point or purpose to which anything, as a
journey or an argument, is directed.
Syn: Objective, Subjective.
Usage: Objective is applied to things exterior to the mind, and objects of
its attention; subjective, to the operations of the mind itself. Hence, an
objective motive is some outward thing awakening desire; a subjective
motive is some internal feeling or propensity. Objective views are those
governed by outward things; subjective views are produced or modified by
internal feeling. Sir Walter Scott's poetry is chiefly objective; that of
Wordsworth is eminently subjective.
In the philosophy of mind, subjective denotes what is to be referred to the
thinking subject, the ego; objective what belongs to the object of thought,
the non-ego. --Sir. W. Hamilton
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
objective
\Ob*jec"tive\, n. 1. (Gram.) The objective case.
2. An object glass. See under Object, n.
3. Same as Objective point, under Objective, a.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.
---next definition---
objective
adj 1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable
phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn:
nonsubjective] [ant: subjective] 2: (grammar) serving as or indicating the
object of a verb or of certain prepositions and used for certain other
purposes; "objective case"; "accusative endings" [syn: accusative] 3:
emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of
personal feelings or interpretation; "objective art" 4: belonging to
immediate experience of actual things or events; "concrete benefits"; "a
concrete example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"
n 1: the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be
attainable); "the sole object of her trip was to see her children" [syn:
aim, object, target] 2: the lens or system of lenses nearest the object
being viewed [syn: object glass]
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
---next definition---
(end definitions)
I particularly call to your attention the following distinguishing point:
"Objective is applied to things exterior to the mind, and objects of its
attention; subjective, to the operations of the mind itself."
With all of this in mind, would you still say that you "reserve judgement"
and are of the opinion that "most critics have at least a solid, if
subjective, basis for their claims"?
) ) )The truth is that Waldorf provides a slower academic start,
) ) )teaching writing and math in such a way as to provide a
) ) )strong base for more intense academics in grades 6, 7 and 8.
) ) )By the time a child graduates from Waldorf, his academic
) ) )skills often surpass college level.
) )
) ) As for the "truth" about Waldorf, I find this oft-repeated claim
) ) rather interesting, considering that the teachers at the local
) ) Waldorf school told us directly that their graduates need to
) ) take remedial science in University to get up to speed if they
) ) choose a science major. That would not be necessary if the
) ) schools were as solid in basic academic skills as you portray
) ) them. While your school may have the results you describe
) ) (can you suggest how we could verify this claim?), that claim
) ) must at very least be less universal than it is portrayed; there
) ) remain schools such as the one Dan Dugan's son attended.
) ) It is hard to move on to a university when you have been taught
) ) that the heart does not pump blood, that gnomes are real,
) ) and that the basic elements are "Earth, Air, Fire and Water" (as
) ) (as opposed to Hydrogen, Helium, etc).
)
)Again, those experiences are so far removed from mine, or seemingly
)distorted versions of them, that I can't comment except to say that
)"that's not how it is everywhere".
If that is the case, wouldn't you expect that the Association of Waldorf
Schools of North America, and other governing groups such as the Teachers'
College, would want to have these problem schools called to their
attention, in order to address the problem and bring those schools up to
the high standards you clearly believe should be represented by the name of
Waldorf?
)I was taught that the heart pumps
)blood, and everything that the provincal curriculum had, but also to
)question a purely mechanistic view of the human body. And there
)was a periodic table up on the wall. We can's ignore either experience.
I'm wondering - other than a periodic table being up on the wall, how much
discussion time did this aspect of science get? By comparison, how much
discussion time was spent on "questioning a purely mechanistic view of the
human body"? If you are taught one thing, but taught to question it at the
same time, what value did you give what you were taught? Especially by
comparison with other things which you were taught not to question?
You've made it very clear, David, that you have been having great
difficulty even in *facing* questioning of many of the things you thought
you knew, that you had learned through your Waldorf / Steiner school
education, much less questioning them yourself; yet, other things they
taught you to question even as they taught them to you. One must expect
that there is going to be a difference in how you treat the two types of
information.
It is this attitude that some subjects are taboo, off-limits to questioning
(or even to the revelation of facts from which the reader or listener may
draw their own conclusions, or ask their own questions), while other
commonly held and objectively established facts are considered fair game
for questioning, that leads people to view Waldorf as a cult-like
group. The experience we have had with the representatives of the Waldorf
/ Steiner schools and the Anthroposophical movement is that they are
questioning only until you get to the teachings of their guru. That is not
an open-minded attitude.
) ) True or false, your efforts to discredit the claims made here are not
) ) going to help your cause unless and until you can back them up
) ) with points of factual conflict.
)
)And I would ask the same of you.
Do you actually consider that this has been lacking? I would say that
although not mealy-mouthed about the process, the critics have been rather
thorough about explaining explicitly and exactly which facts motivated
their conclusions and actions.
) ) Without them, you come across as yet another teenager smug in
) ) the certainty that nobody over 25 actually thinks or knows
) ) anything... which really doesn't do a lot to support your contention
) ) that Waldorf schools turn out graduates with a firm grasp of
) ) educational basics such as logic.
)
)(Sigh) Now who's being patronising? By the way, I'm 23. And I try not
)to judge people by their age.
I don't. I do, however, judge people by their behaviour, and I endeavour
to honestly describe what I see.
On the internet, where your age is not directly perceptible in any way
other than through your own communications, how you come across is a
phenomenon very different from what you may actually be.
I do not in any way attempt to judge or describe what you actually are,
because all I can know of you is what I perceive through my interaction
with you through the medium of the internet. I can, and do, feel that it
is appropriate for me to tell you when you come across as a young adult
with limited experience of the larger world beyond their school, who is
nonetheless confident in their dismissal of the knowledge of the parents on
the list. You appeared to ask us to accord to you, and to your friend the
recent graduate, a different degree of respect than you in turn accorded to
the parents on the list who spoke of their own first-hand knowledge and
research, and that is when you began to "come across as yet another
teenager smug in the certainty that nobody over 25 actually thinks or knows
anything..."
This is, unfortunately, a common developmental stage; as frustrating as it
is to have one's developmental stage taken into account when other people
interact with one, you can't blame that result entirely on the prejudices
of others, when it arises on a medium such as the internet where your age
is not immediately evident if you don't make it evident.
What is ironic is that you are coming so close to escaping the trap of
agism, by posting the majority of the time in a mature style that could be
that of any mature adult of any age - until every now and again there is
the lapse into stereotypical behaviour. Of course, that, too, is
stereotypical for a person of your age and social context (college
student). While it may be socially gauche in the society of young adults
to acknowledge these lapses, I don't live in that subculture, and I
considered it relevant to warn you that you were in danger of losing your
credibility as a result of these lapses.
My daughter is 5. Despite her individual personality, sometimes she has
the standard tantrums and misbehaviour patterns of a 5-year-old. There is
no shame in this, it is a normal manifestation of the developmental stage
that she is at, but it does require us to deal with her in a manner
appropriate to her developmental stage.
You occasionally come across as a person in the stage of late adolescence
where they have not yet had a long time away from their scholastic
experiences, which is the tail-end of the period of time in which people
tend to view parents as less likely to know what they are talking
about. It would be rather sad if you were 40 and came across this way. As
a person in this stage, there is nothing wrong with coming across as who
and what you are, and there is no reason for there to be any shame in
it. We do, however, have to take your developmental stage into account
when we interact with you, if we are to be reasonable in our interpretation
of your actions, and to respond in a way that is appropriate.
It is worth acknowledging that there are some experiences which take time
to fully process and assess, and one's schooling is among them. It would
be pretty unreasonable and irresponsible of us not to take that into account.
Likewise, a student at a school is going to have a different perspective
from a parent, with the difference that the parent has had the experience
of being a student, but the student has not had the experience of being a
parent. There is a very bad feeling that comes from knowing that you were
responsible for another person, one who does not have the experience or
other capacities necessary to fully take care of themselves, and that they
were injured as a result of your decision to trust generalized PR over the
growing signs of problems in your own personal experience. It is very hard
for a person who has never known that kind of responsibility for others to
fully understand how that feels.
When someone like yourself says "it's safe, I didn't get hurt", to someone
who knows fully well that children *do* get hurt doing that, because they
or their children did, it gives us that same feeling of seeing the child in
the developing person that we get when our kids say things like "but I
didn't get hurt this time" to the warning "please don't tilt your chair
like that, because sooner or later it's going to slide out from under you,
or tilt over too far, and as a result you'll fall and get hurt".
I can only say to you what I would say to anyone doing something like that
- "when you do that, you look like a kid - if you don't want to be treated
like a kid, don't act like one".
But then, I would say, and have said, the same sorts of things to people in
their 40s; sadly enough, it was equally appropriate, as they were at much
the same stage in their development that you appear to be, when you act as
you often have here. Age is not the factor under discussion here -
maturity is.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:17:51 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
Hi, Willow--
I'm sorry to respond to your long and thoughtful post with a short
answer--
I owe you an apology.
I did allow my emotions to guide my conversation here -- I am very sorry
for my lapse in critical thought.
I was enamoured with the quality education that I received, and became
defensive out of that love and appreciation.
You're right -- the experiences related here most likely do point to
serious problems in certain Waldorf schools
You have opened my eyes to that fact.
I can only hope that enough communication is possible between you folks
and people in Waldorf circles that these problems can be solved, rather
than the present pattern of attack and ignore.
The intellectual stifling you describe is indeed horrific -- I would
have taken my child out too, as fast as you did.
I was reading full novels by age two, and I know what it's like to be
shunned for one's mind.
I can only assume that there are some Waldorf teachers who rely more on
Steiner's words than their own hearts, which is inexcusable and
detrimental to everything that Waldorf teachers with integrity try to
create.
Any teacher who dismisses intervention in instances of bullying as
"Karmic" ought to be given a one way ticket to somewhere very hot.
The theory of "karma" has nothing to do with letting kids injure each
other.
Please believe me when I say that there are Waldorf schools out there
that don't have these problems. The schools you came from were obviously
not those ones.
I'm very, very sorry.
You've given me a moment of revelation on this issue.
Just let me say, though, that the periodic table was the central basis
for our chemistry lessons, and that any questioning of certain
scientific viewpoints was peripheral and involved much discussion.
I'm sorry that I was blinded to your negative experience by my positive
one, and I hold that teacher responsible for any damage done to
Waldorf's cause, not you.
Regards,
David.
P.S. ?Sceptic? is a valid spelling.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:23:43 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Apology
P.S. -- I am still going to leave, though, because there is little more
I can say here. I came to the list hoping to understand your position,
and I now do, though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw.
I still find the general atmosphere to be too sickening (to me)to
continue participating, but understand -- I do hear you. I will try to
bring your concerns to light.
I hope I've made more friends here than enemies--
David.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 905
-- Topica Digest --
Re: lawsuit
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Apology
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Apology
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: lawsuit
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Apology
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By debharve hotmail.com
RE: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:39:03 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: lawsuit
on 12/7/02 12:13 AM, Debra Harvey at debharve hotmail.com wrote:
Why is a right wing Christian
) organization funding some of the lawsuit?
Sharon: We are an "unholy alliance". The case is a win win gamble for the
right wing Christians. There is a long church-state separation tradition
among right wing Christian groups like Baptists because they had a hard time
establishing themselves in the early days of American history - due to the
fact that Congregationalism was sanctioned by the state of Connecticut. The
Baptists wrote to Jefferson for help, urging him to defend a
constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Jefferson, who had
studied the issue for more than 30 years responded to them with the famous
"there is a wall of separation" letter which was reviewed by Attorney Levi
Lincoln. The founders had tried to achieve a secular government because they
were well a ware of the perils of a mandated state religion. They wanted
people to have religious freedom. In short, if PLANS wins, New Age isn't a
threat to Christianity, if PLANS loses, it opens the door to the Christian
right's move into the public schools and coffers. This is why I have often
said Anthroposophists should be in favor of church - state separation.
Unfortunately, in reality, the Christian right already has too much
political power in this country, the wall of separation is more like a
picket fence. I oppose Bush's "faith based" initiatives, and his Christian
bias and crusades while in office representing me an infidel. On Oct. 3 he
announced $30 million in funding for faith based and community based orgs. I
support the organization, Freedom From Religion, Inc that litigates
church-state violations. It really is quite a fascinating study, and the
outcome of the PLANS case will be really interesting. The same court that
will be hearing the PLANS appeal (9th circuit court) ruled recently that the
pledge was illegal because it referenced the Christian god. Waldorf's
"morning verse" is a prayer - worship of the Anthroposophic Sun Being. Our
case was not thrown out on the merits ie. our assertion that Waldorf
violates the First Amendment, but on a technicalit - grounds that tax payers
can't sue a school if they do not have children attending that particular
school. PLANS lawyer says this is nonsense. We also failed to show how much
tax payer's money was spent on advancing Anthroposophy. Very difficult thing
to determine. I personally feel that because Anthroposophy and Waldorf are
inextricably intertwined, one could say every dime of tax payers' money was
spent to advance religion. We'll have to wait and see. Church state cases
can take 15 years!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:21:00 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Apology
David,
I wish you would not leave. It seems to me that our conversation here is
just getting started; we've gone through the initial "getting to know you"
give and take, and the stage is set for some deeper -- and perhaps more
meaningful? -- conversation.
However we have disagreed on various matters, I do want to thank you for
spending time on this list, sharing your experiences. I also hope you have
learned something useful from those of us whose children's experiences at
Waldorf were not as comfortable or productive as yours (to say the least.)
You mention below that you will try to bring the critics' concerns to light.
I hope you do. We critics are not arguing here merely for the fun of debate
(and we all know that sometimes it is not fun!); we do this because we want
to make sure that the negative things our children and families experienced
within Waldorf don't happen to other children and families. Step one in
making that happen is having Waldorf reveal its anthroposophical nature
before parents take a single step inside the door.
Again, thanks for taking the time to talk to/with us.
Happy holidays,
Lisa
PS: were you *really* reading novels by age 2? (g)
) P.S. -- I am still going to leave, though, because there is little more
) I can say here. I came to the list hoping to understand your position,
) and I now do, though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw.
)
) I still find the general atmosphere to be too sickening (to me)to
) continue participating, but understand -- I do hear you. I will try to
) bring your concerns to light.
)
) I hope I've made more friends here than enemies--
)
) David.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 12:29:31 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Apology
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29DEC.4AF35960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I wish you well David (even though you suggested I should leave the
country (g)). I'm glad you enjoyed your experience at Waldorf, much
as my children are currently enjoying theirs. I have a problem with
Waldorf because I've spent some time behind the scenes. I know there
is a very religious subtext with which I disagree (not just because
it is religious, but because of the nature of that religion and what
it is founded upon). I have also found the governance structure to be
dysfunctional and accountability to be sadly lacking (which is
something I have some experience with, having, as an academic,
written a book on the governance of the soviet military-industrial
complex and its nuclear power bureaucracy - now there's a closed shop
with no accountability for you!) My children are, however, blissfully
unaware of any of this and are doing much better than they were in
their former (British) state school. The effect on their lives has
been positive so far, for much the same rea!
sons as I suspect apply to you, but I can't ignore the negative side
which undoubtedly exists. I tried to work for change and was fired
for it, so I'm more than a little skeptical about Waldorf's 'good
intentions' (once bitten, twice shy).
I would like to add my voice to those who wish you would not leave. I
have learned a great deal during my time spent here, which has helped
me put my own experiences into context. I am grateful to those with
more experience than I who have taken the time to share that
experience. Perhaps you would not find this kind of discussion
'sickening' once the context becomes clearer. Being fully informed is
a good thing, even if it is a little uncomfortable at times. Maybe
you could eventually help to bring Waldorf into the twenty-first
century, but in the meantime, I'll look out for you on stage at the
National Arts Centre.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 10:23 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Apology
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 13:26:11 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit
Debra Harvey, you wrote,
)thanks Dan--I forgot the facts of the case. . It's taxpayer money
)then. When I get some time I will read the cases. Why is a right
)wing Christian organization funding some of the lawsuit?
Was, not is. They were as nervous about us as we were about them. A
significant party of the Christians want government funding for
religious schools. If they can't get tax money for their religious
schools, they don't want the occultists to get away with it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:19:23 -0500
From: "Mike Helsher" (mhelsher cheshire.net)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Peter, you wrote:
)(snip) Instead of positing some free-floating realm of
) ideas out there somewhere in the universe from which all human intuitions
) are drawn,
Mike: I wouldn't say that they are "free floating" and "out there". I Like
Chompsky's ideas about a "universal grammar" integral to all human beings at
birth. I see intuition in a similar way -- as something integral to us all,
within us all. I also think that Steiner points to our individual
"charactorological dispositions" as being the major stumbling block to
thinking intuitively.
)wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that our ideas are
) formed within social contexts, and that they are thus intersubjective in
) nature? That is, that thought certainly exists outside of my own brain,
) simply because it exists within lots of other people's brains? If we
) recognize the intersubjective nature of thinking, there's no need to point
) toward some separate realm of ideas that supplies all of our mental
) material.
I think it makes sense to acknowledge that. I don't think it makes sense to
throw the idea of individuals, drawing on there own intuition, out with the
bath water.
) )I'd also like to talk about this line in particular form PoF: "An ethical
) )misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human
beings"
) )and it's relevance to this kind of debate forum.
)
) That claim is incompatible with meaningful debate, and shows exactly why
) Steiner's notion of "freedom" strikes many people as deeply unfree. The
view
) of ethics that this notion implies is remarkably primitive; it assumes
that
) people who disagree on ethical matters are simply confused, and denies the
) reality of responsible ethical choices that conflict with one another. If
) such disagreements were, as Steiner suggests here, merely illusory, there
) would be very little need for ethical debate in the first place; the only
) point would be for all of us to somehow realize that we actually already
) agree. I think Steiner has it exactly backwards. I'd say that working
) through our "ethical misunderstandings" and "clashes", via rational debate
) and moral reasoning, is a necessary part of becoming and remaining
ethically
) free human beings. We stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend
that
) such clashes are a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
I think he makes a good case for working through our "charactorological
dispositions" in the way that you're talking about. And I admit that by it
self that statement sounds a bit utopian. In context I think it is useful in
a real world kind of way; especially for me personally; when I think about
the idea of Love and what that might mean; I feel less inclined to feed my
emotional (and sometimes irrational) feeding frenzies. ( I guess I haven't
been thinking about the idea of love to much lately).
Peace
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:41:31 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Apology
David wrote:
) P.S. -- I am still going to leave, though, because there is little more
) I can say here.
I respectfully disagree. You could answer Dan's questions and respond to
mine from earlier posts. There were other unanswered questions, as well.
)I came to the list hoping to understand your position,
) and I now do, though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw.
Conclusions are based on experience and evidence. Many of us have
experience. You have expressed your experience. Now you can help with the
evidence - answer the questions asked of you.
) I still find the general atmosphere to be too sickening (to me)to
) continue participating, but understand -- I do hear you. I will try to
) bring your concerns to light.
You might have had trouble with certain posts here but I don't understand
how you find the general atmosphere to be sickening. Allow me an
observation: Sometimes our reactions (feeling sick, for example) deserve a
closer look. Why did you come, what did you learn and why do you feel sick?
I can empathize. Freedom usually comes with a price.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:01:33 -0600
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
I was reading full novels by age two, and I know what it's like to be
shunned for one's mind.
???????? WHAT novels?? It's hard for me to believe that a 2 year old would
have any understanding even if he could sound out words.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:29:17 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
Well, not adult novels, mind you, but Treasure Island...
I was reading off street signs by age two and novels by 2 3/4.
It's very true.
Debra Harvey wrote:
) ???????? WHAT novels?? It's hard for me to believe that a 2 year old
) would
) have any understanding even if he could sound out words.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
) http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
)
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 906
-- Topica Digest --
RE: value in Waldorf
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: lawsuit - Right Wing Christian - Agenda - Chicken
By human1234 excite.com
"sickening" feelings
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Philosophy of Freedom
By pstaud hotmail.com
Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Hi Deb Harvey
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
RE: Gifted Kids (Was Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: "sickening" feelings
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: gifted kids and Waldorf/was "Apology"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: lawsuit - Right Wing Christian - Agenda - Chicken
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Smeg
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Smeg
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Smeg
By lumiere paris.com
RE: Smeg
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Smeg
By lumiere paris.com
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: lawsuit
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Smeg
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: lawsuit
By momof2gals mindspring.com
whoops!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
David Gill's departure
By lumiere paris.com
Re: Gifted Kids (Was Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: David Gill's departure
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification:-cynicism
By lumiere paris.com
Re: Smeg
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Re: Clarification:-cynicism
By mhelsher cheshire.net
Admin: Re: Smeg
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:50:24 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: value in Waldorf
Su here: Thanks for this laundry list, Sharon. It will be useful to
me.(gr!!!)
mysplum wrote:
)
) Sharon: A recent study shows that "negative" people might actually be
) healthier and live longer that those always "positive". Fancy that!
)
) When Dan pointed out the racist Steiner books for sale at his school and
) said, "that was then, this is now" he was being "negative" and got
) chucked
) out of the school, and we must all forget that because you don't want to
) hear about it?
)
) I remember my Waldorf daze well...you have just taken me right back....
) when
) everyone had to put on a smile and never say anything "negative".
) Questioning was considered "negative". And people like me would
) volunteer
) till we were blue in the face but what we did was never good enough
) because
) it wasn't Anthro enough, and nobody told us what Anthroposophy was so we
) ended up feeling like there was deep ingratitude. It was a horrible
) experience. Then after hours of my time and donations, they hauled me in
) before the faculty in an inquisition where they told me I was
) "irreverent
) and "unsupportive" because I was wondering why KG kids couldn't use
) pencils
) and draw lines which I learned after trying to raise money for the
) school,
) why there were no black crayons in KG, why we couldn't study someone
) besides
) Steiner if we were on a committee, what was wrong with Burt's Bees
) products
) and why did we have to only sell Weleda, why children couldn't draw
) facial
) features, why they had to copy smudgy drawings off the board, why they
) could
) only paint with one color, or paint disks, suns and rainbows, why they
) were
) teaching children that gnomes were real, why you could only use one kind
) of
) font, one brand of paint, one brand of crayon, one brand of paper, why
) every
) time you designed something they would get all uptight with a smile on
) their
) faces and quickly rework it so it could be Anthro-kosher, why people
) were
) having a fit about the color on the school store walls and Mexican day
) of
) the dead sculptures in the windows, and products for sale like tin
) kitchens,
) rubber dollies, Mexican paper-mache dolls and Putamaya's world music
) CDs.
) Did I have permission from the committee I was asked. Then because I was
) basically the committee, appointed by Anthros, they came up with a new
) policy to assign an Anthro to all committees to maintain the Anthroness
) of
) the school...I even said to one teacher who came to my house to sooth my
) questioning about the line ban..."this is like a cult, you all follow
) Steiner, he is your guru. I've never felt so oppressed"...I was right
) but I
) didn't know I was right, she assured me that it wasn't so. She said she
) had
) never felt so free... she wasn't "negative" I suppose.
)
) Whoops, I forgot, you didn't want to hear anything "negative" because
) you've
) been trained by a Waldorf school. So as not to make you feel uncomfy, I
) see
) value in Eugene Schwartz. I also liked the way Waldorf did not use
) disposable dishes. There feel better now?
)
)
)
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:31:13 +0000
From: h man (human1234 excite.com)
Subject: RE: lawsuit - Right Wing Christian - Agenda - Chicken
I am also for separation of church and state.
Why does PLANS accept money from a Right Wing Christian Organization?
Accepting these monies demonstrate that the values of PLANS aren't very
valued. Which is a major reason why, in my opinion, this list and many
of it's members come off as having some vedetta and an off-the-wall
agenda. Calling that kid David a "chicken" from a major spokesman of
PLANS, no less, speaks volumes.
These are the main reasons I seldom participate and why I decided not to
donate any funds to this organization.
mysplum wrote:
) on 12/7/02 12:13 AM, Debra Harvey at debharve hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Why is a right wing Christian
) ) organization funding some of the lawsuit?
)
) Sharon: We are an "unholy alliance". The case is a win win gamble for
) the
) right wing Christians. There is a long church-state separation tradition
) among right wing Christian groups like Baptists because they had a hard
) time
) establishing themselves in the early days of American history - due to
) the
) fact that Congregationalism was sanctioned by the state of Connecticut.
) The
) Baptists wrote to Jefferson for help, urging him to defend a
) constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Jefferson, who
) had
) studied the issue for more than 30 years responded to them with the
) famous
) "there is a wall of separation" letter which was reviewed by Attorney
) Levi
) Lincoln. The founders had tried to achieve a secular government because
) they
) were well a ware of the perils of a mandated state religion. They wanted
) people to have religious freedom. In short, if PLANS wins, New Age isn't
) a
) threat to Christianity, if PLANS loses, it opens the door to the
) Christian
) right's move into the public schools and coffers. This is why I have
) often
) said Anthroposophists should be in favor of church - state separation.
)
) Unfortunately, in reality, the Christian right already has too much
) political power in this country, the wall of separation is more like a
) picket fence. I oppose Bush's "faith based" initiatives, and his
) Christian
) bias and crusades while in office representing me an infidel. On Oct. 3
) he
) announced $30 million in funding for faith based and community based
) orgs. I
) support the organization, Freedom From Religion, Inc that litigates
) church-state violations. It really is quite a fascinating study, and the
) outcome of the PLANS case will be really interesting. The same court
) that
) will be hearing the PLANS appeal (9th circuit court) ruled recently that
) the
) pledge was illegal because it referenced the Christian god. Waldorf's
) "morning verse" is a prayer - worship of the Anthroposophic Sun Being.
) Our
) case was not thrown out on the merits ie. our assertion that Waldorf
) violates the First Amendment, but on a technicalit - grounds that tax
) payers
) can't sue a school if they do not have children attending that
) particular
) school. PLANS lawyer says this is nonsense. We also failed to show how
) much
) tax payer's money was spent on advancing Anthroposophy. Very difficult
) thing
) to determine. I personally feel that because Anthroposophy and Waldorf
) are
) inextricably intertwined, one could say every dime of tax payers' money
) was
) spent to advance religion. We'll have to wait and see. Church state
) cases
) can take 15 years!
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:57:11 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: "sickening" feelings
walden wrote:
) David wrote:
) ) P.S. -- I am still going to leave, though, because there is little more
) ) I can say here.
)
) I respectfully disagree. You could answer Dan's questions and respond
) to
) mine from earlier posts. There were other unanswered questions, as
) well.
)
) )I came to the list hoping to understand your position,
) ) and I now do, though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw.
)
) Conclusions are based on experience and evidence. Many of us have
) experience. You have expressed your experience. Now you can help with
) the
) evidence - answer the questions asked of you.
)
) ) I still find the general atmosphere to be too sickening (to me)to
) ) continue participating, but understand -- I do hear you. I will try to
) ) bring your concerns to light.
)
) You might have had trouble with certain posts here but I don't
) understand
) how you find the general atmosphere to be sickening. Allow me an
) observation: Sometimes our reactions (feeling sick, for example) deserve
) a
) closer look. Why did you come, what did you learn and why do you feel
) sick?
) I can empathize. Freedom usually comes with a price.
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
Su here: I do think it is interesting that feeling sick in response to
the viewpoints here is the dominant feeling in some persons, such as
David.
It is true that persons who are taught that a certain person or
religion or idea is not what they thought it was, will feel sickened.
I agree with you, Walden, that one should examine the reasons why we
might be sickened at a particular point of view. It usually has much to
do with our own morals and values.
Thanks!!
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 13:39:58 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Hi Mike,
)Mike: I wouldn't say that they are "free floating" and "out there". I Like
)Chompsky's ideas about a "universal grammar" integral to all human beings
)at
)birth. I see intuition in a similar way -- as something integral to us all,
)within us all.
That's a good comparison. The crucial difference, to my mind, is that
Chomsky's universal linguistic structures are just structures, and rather
rudimentary ones at that: they're a sort of scaffolding around which actual
languages are built. They don't have any semantic content (that is, meaning)
built into them at all. In the passage you quoted from PoF, Steiner says
something very different, namely that the content of our individual
intuitions derives from the same universal source, from a "world of ideas
common to us both." I think that is sometimes true (right now you and I are
deriving our interpretations from a common world of ideas, the ones in
Steiner's book), but it isn't the case for all or even most human
communication. I agree that the capacity for intuition is something all
people share, but the *specific intuitions* each of us experience are of
enormous variation and do not derive from the same source, in my view.
)I also think that Steiner points to our individual
)"charactorological dispositions" as being the major stumbling block to
)thinking intuitively.
Yes, I think that's part of what he says in PoF. One problem I have with
this notion is the suggestion that if we would all just learn to think
intuitively, we would think better thoughts. I'd say that most people
already do think intuitively, and that this has little to do with the
content of their thoughts. Intuitions are frequently mistaken,
misunderstood, misplaced, and wrongheaded, just as other kinds of thoughts
are.
) )wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that our ideas are
) ) formed within social contexts, and that they are thus intersubjective in
) ) nature? That is, that thought certainly exists outside of my own brain,
) ) simply because it exists within lots of other people's brains? If we
) ) recognize the intersubjective nature of thinking, there's no need to
)point
) ) toward some separate realm of ideas that supplies all of our mental
) ) material.
)
)I think it makes sense to acknowledge that. I don't think it makes sense to
)throw the idea of individuals, drawing on there own intuition, out with the
)bath water.
Agreed. I wasn't criticizing intuition, I was criticizing the particular
version of it that Steiner invokes in PoF.
) ) I'd say that working
) ) through our "ethical misunderstandings" and "clashes", via rational
)debate
) ) and moral reasoning, is a necessary part of becoming and remaining
)ethically
) ) free human beings. We stop being free ethical subjects when we pretend
)that
) ) such clashes are a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
)
)I think he makes a good case for working through our "charactorological
)dispositions" in the way that you're talking about. And I admit that by it
)self that statement sounds a bit utopian.
It doesn't sound utopian to me (and I'm all for a little more utopian
thinking in any case); it sounds pretty dystopian. I don't think I'd like to
live in a society where ethical disagreement is considered a kind of
unfortunate misunderstanding. In the passage you highlighted (and elsewhere
in PoF) Steiner says that these sorts of clashes over ethical questions are
the result of misrecognizing our intuitions. That's what I would call a
cynical view of ethical deliberation and debate. It isn't true that if we
all just learn to think about our intuitions in the proper way, then "we
cannot but meet in the same striving, the same intentions", and we shouldn't
want this to be true. Different people have different interests, different
desires, different hopes, different perspectives, and different judgements
on ethical matters. We don't want to wish those differences away, do we?
)In context I think it is useful in
)a real world kind of way; especially for me personally; when I think about
)the idea of Love and what that might mean; I feel less inclined to feed my
)emotional (and sometimes irrational) feeding frenzies.
Maybe we think of love in really different ways. I'd say that part of loving
other people is engaging them in ethical disagreements and challenging their
intuitions while allowing our own intuitions to be challenged by them. There
are long stretches of PoF where I don't see much room for that sort of
thing. For that matter, I don't think the book does a particularly good job
of examining another important element you raise here, the connections
between rationality and emotion. As a contrast to Steiner, I'd recommend a
very subtle and intriguing analysis of this topic by one of my favorite
contemporary philosophers, Alison Jaggar, in an essay titled "Love and
Knowledge: Reason and Emotion in Feminist Epistemology". I'm afraid I don't
have a full citation at hand, but it's been included in a number of
anthologies on feminist epistemology. I don't think Steiner was wrong to
focus on characterological disposition as a potential obstacle to ethical
insight, but the framework that he offers for overcoming such obstacles is
-- even in his pre-anthroposophical period -- neither sufficient nor
especially appealing. I think there are many other considerably more
compelling sources out there from which we can construct a philosophy of
freedom today.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:58:54 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
Perhaps it's time for a fence sitter to weigh in on this. As many of
you already know, I find much of value in Waldorf methods. Other stuff
is... not so great. One area I have a problem is with the total lack
of accomodation for gifted children (individuals), which it is very
clear to me that David was (is).
David wrote:
) The intellectual stifling you describe is indeed horrific --
) I would have taken my child out too, as fast as you did.
) I was reading full novels by age two,
Well. There you go.
David is most likely highly (or even profoundly) gifted. In which
case, Waldorf can hardly be credited for his intellectual strengths or
future "success" in life. His parents probably encouraged him at home,
the way all parents would, against all the 'indications' of Steiner.
To put it in psychometric terms for y'all (I just love that southern
term, even though I'm a Yankee!):
I am very well acquainted with a child who's IQ is in the "Highly
Gifted" range. Actual test scores are not appropriate to post, but the
range is about 140 - 160. He began reading at 3 years, 9 months. He
was reading at about the first grade level when he was 4. He began
reading novels in kindergarten (Harry Potter when he was 5, if memory
serves). Again, this is a child who is "HG", which is about 2 to 3
standard deviations above the norm for his age. He is currently a 2nd
grader doing 4th & 5th grade work - obviously "advanced", but never
called "genius" (which isn't even an okay or professional term to use
in the fields of psychometrics or even in gifted education, in any
case).
My point in telling you this is, a child who read novels at age two
very probably has an IQ beyond that of the above described child...
which would make him very highly gifted indeed.
Another dear little friend is in the Profoundly Gifted range
(180-200+). He began reading at age two, and is currently taking high
school physics courses - at age 8.5.
Again, David is AT LEAST Highly Gifted, and most likely Profoundly
Gifted.
Ergo, Waldorf can not neccessarily be credited for his intelligence,
achievement, college performance or eventual "success" in life - no
matter that David remembers his experience there fondly.
A typically developing child of average intelligence would not
neccesarily have emerged from Waldorf as well prepared for college, in
other words... but a good education can help typically developing kids
shine. Would an 'average' or even 'below average' kid "shine"
intellectually like David? My guess is that, YES, some would - and
*some* would end up being those kids who can't make change for a
fiver.
) and I know what it's like to be shunned for one's mind.
I bet you Do.
Sadly,
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:00:55 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Hi Deb Harvey
I remember you! How's it going? I'm still here, after all these years.
The legal system grinds on slowly... but I hope PLANS will eventually
get a real decision on the case. At any rate, it should be interesting
to follow!
Welcome back.
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:05:13 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Gifted Kids (Was Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
Well, it's true -- I was in a gifted and talented education program in
grade four and five. I did well there, but I was very unhappy. I think
that if I had stayed in the public system, I would have coasted through
on high test scores and short computer-essays.
The main thing that Waldorf taught me was the value of the "will" as
they would say -- the ability to actually use my mind through the
process of crafting a huge Main Lesson book or writing about a difficult
philisophical question. I guess you could say that certain Waldorf
schools (and teachers) are good for certain "gifted" children. Certainly
Willow's wasn't.
)Waldorf can hardly be credited for his intellectual strengths or
) future "success" in life.
Just because one has a gifted mind -- especially when young -- doesn't
mean one uses it.
And I said I had left...
David.
Sarina McDonald wrote:
) Perhaps it's time for a fence sitter to weigh in on this. As many of
) you already know, I find much of value in Waldorf methods. Other stuff
) is... not so great. One area I have a problem is with the total lack
) of accomodation for gifted children (individuals), which it is very
) clear to me that David was (is).
)
) David wrote:
)
) ) The intellectual stifling you describe is indeed horrific --
) ) I would have taken my child out too, as fast as you did.
) ) I was reading full novels by age two,
)
) Well. There you go.
)
) David is most likely highly (or even profoundly) gifted. In which
) case, Waldorf can hardly be credited for his intellectual strengths or
) future "success" in life. His parents probably encouraged him at home,
) the way all parents would, against all the 'indications' of Steiner.
)
) To put it in psychometric terms for y'all (I just love that southern
) term, even though I'm a Yankee!):
)
) I am very well acquainted with a child who's IQ is in the "Highly
) Gifted" range. Actual test scores are not appropriate to post, but the
) range is about 140 - 160. He began reading at 3 years, 9 months. He
) was reading at about the first grade level when he was 4. He began
) reading novels in kindergarten (Harry Potter when he was 5, if memory
) serves). Again, this is a child who is "HG", which is about 2 to 3
) standard deviations above the norm for his age. He is currently a 2nd
) grader doing 4th & 5th grade work - obviously "advanced", but never
) called "genius" (which isn't even an okay or professional term to use
) in the fields of psychometrics or even in gifted education, in any
) case).
)
) My point in telling you this is, a child who read novels at age two
) very probably has an IQ beyond that of the above described child...
) which would make him very highly gifted indeed.
)
) Another dear little friend is in the Profoundly Gifted range
) (180-200+). He began reading at age two, and is currently taking high
) school physics courses - at age 8.5.
)
) Again, David is AT LEAST Highly Gifted, and most likely Profoundly
) Gifted.
)
) Ergo, Waldorf can not neccessarily be credited for his intelligence,
) achievement, college performance or eventual "success" in life - no
) matter that David remembers his experience there fondly.
)
) A typically developing child of average intelligence would not
) neccesarily have emerged from Waldorf as well prepared for college, in
) other words... but a good education can help typically developing kids
) shine. Would an 'average' or even 'below average' kid "shine"
) intellectually like David? My guess is that, YES, some would - and
) *some* would end up being those kids who can't make change for a
) fiver.
)
) ) and I know what it's like to be shunned for one's mind.
)
) I bet you Do.
)
) Sadly,
)
) Sarina McDonald
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:09:18 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
Sarina McDonald wrote:
))and I know what it's like to be shunned for one's mind.
)I bet you Do.
I wasn't talking about Waldorf...
Er.... just thing of these as parting comments.
David
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:02:55 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: "sickening" feelings
No, the feeling I was speaking of is more related to being called
'chicken', etc.
Su wrote:
)
) walden wrote:
) ) David wrote:
) ) ) P.S. -- I am still going to leave, though, because there is little more
) ) ) I can say here.
) )
) ) I respectfully disagree. You could answer Dan's questions and respond
) ) to
) ) mine from earlier posts. There were other unanswered questions, as
) ) well.
) )
) ) )I came to the list hoping to understand your position,
) ) ) and I now do, though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw.
) )
) ) Conclusions are based on experience and evidence. Many of us have
) ) experience. You have expressed your experience. Now you can help with
) ) the
) ) evidence - answer the questions asked of you.
) )
) ) ) I still find the general atmosphere to be too sickening (to me)to
) ) ) continue participating, but understand -- I do hear you. I will try to
) ) ) bring your concerns to light.
) )
) ) You might have had trouble with certain posts here but I don't
) ) understand
) ) how you find the general atmosphere to be sickening. Allow me an
) ) observation: Sometimes our reactions (feeling sick, for example) deserve
) )
) ) a
) ) closer look. Why did you come, what did you learn and why do you feel
) ) sick?
) ) I can empathize. Freedom usually comes with a price.
) )
) ) -Walden
) )
) )
) )
) Su here: I do think it is interesting that feeling sick in response to
) the viewpoints here is the dominant feeling in some persons, such as
) David.
)
) It is true that persons who are taught that a certain person or
) religion or idea is not what they thought it was, will feel sickened.
)
) I agree with you, Walden, that one should examine the reasons why we
) might be sickened at a particular point of view. It usually has much to
) do with our own morals and values.
)
) Thanks!!
)
) It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 16:13:42 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Apology (Re: Willow's Post)
)
) Sarina McDonald wrote:
)
)))and I know what it's like to be shunned for one's mind.
)
))I bet you Do.
)
) I wasn't talking about Waldorf...
)
) Er.... just thing of these as parting comments.
)
) David
)
Lisa here: Come on, David ... do you *really* have to go? It seems to me
that at least a teeny part of you wants to stick around; in fact, the last
long post you made (in response to Willow's) seemed to indicate that you
felt you were learning something -- even if only a little bit -- from this
dialogue. And I believe we have something to learn from you, too.
Won't you reconsider?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 16:29:18 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: gifted kids and Waldorf/was "Apology"
Sarina, our resident expert on giftedness (by virtue of her experience with
her amazing small son) tells us:
((Again, David is AT LEAST Highly Gifted, and most likely Profoundly
Gifted.
((Ergo, Waldorf can not neccessarily be credited for his intelligence,
achievement, college performance or eventual "success" in life - no
matter that David remembers his experience there fondly.))
Lisa here: Thank you for making that point, Sarina. I had been clumsily
trying to compose a post that said much the same thing -- only not as
gracefully or as succintly (hey, are you sure it is only your *son* who is
gifted? Maybe he got it from you? (g)).
David told us that he was already reading, writing (and I am guessing,
doing at least basic math) when he entered his Waldorf school in fifth
grade. Waldorf methods, thus, cannot be credited for teaching him these
basic skills.
Now we learn that David is probably a member of that subgroup of folks
who are considered "gifted," which means a number of things, including that
he has a very high IQ.
Which brings up another topic/thread: We have had many discussions on
this list about how unsuitable Waldorf schools seem generally to be for
gifted kids. My daughter (who is verbally gifted but certainly not in the
highly or profoundly gifted range (g)) felt smothered by the oppressive,
anti-intellectual atmosphere cultivated during first, second, third and
fourth grade at her former Waldorf school (that's when we pulled her out),
and Sarina, among other people, has made posts talking about why Waldorf did
not work for her gifted son.
David, however, obviously has great affection for his former Waldorf
school, so much so that he credits the atmosphere and teachers there for
much of what he feels he is today.
This makes me wonder whether Waldorf works out better for gifted
children who come into the schools "later in the game:" in other words,
after elementary school.
Perhaps once children reach that "magic" age of 14 (when Steiner said
they could begin to learn using their intellects without fear of hardening
their bodies, etc. and later illness!), Waldorf schools' atmospheres are
less anti-intellectual than they are when the children are younger.
Of course, Waldorf kids who are enrolled earlier (and I am guessing that
is a good percentage of Waldorf students) often have already had their
intellectual curiousity (and their desire to reason, etc.) squashed and
hobbled in a variety of ways before they reach that magic age.
Sigh.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:06:41 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: lawsuit - Right Wing Christian - Agenda - Chicken
on 12/8/02 9:31 AM, h man at human1234 excite.com wrote:
) I am also for separation of church and state.
Sharon: I value it as well.
)
) Why does PLANS accept money from a Right Wing Christian Organization?
Sharon: I'll let Dan answer that because he was there when that happened. I
believe that it was due to financial necessity and the common goal of
wanting Anthro out of the public coffers. Unfortunately, lawsuits are very
expensive. I found PLANS long after they had accepted money from
fundamentalist Christians, and about three months or so after I had written
my exit letter to the school. My letter hit on just about every point that
PLANS whistle blowers were complaining about. Before I understood that there
were thousands of Steiner sermons published by devotees from within the
closed world of Anthroposophy, before I grasped that Anthroposophy was a
schism of Theosophy, before I understood that Waldorf is an Anthroposophic
mystery school I wrote a letter to our ex-school b